Collective rights, petty debates and real pain.

Because many libertarians came to their philosophy from the Right they often bring with them a style of discussion that betrays their roots. While philosophically their position may be correct the way in which they express themselves conveys meanings they do not intend and alienate the people whom they are hoping to address.

Libertarians believe in individual rights. I have no problem with that. Rights do reside entirely in the individual. There is no such thing as collective rights, just the rights of the individual. So it would seem logical for a libertarian to shun terms like “woman’s rights” or “gay rights” or “minority rights,” etc.

We should be clear that people use the term “rights” in two different ways, and without clarifying which one is using can lead to unnecessary confusion. When a libertarian says that someone has “rights” they are referring to the ideal situation, not to the actual situation. It is to the libertarian vision of individual rights that they are referring.

This causes an immediate problem as others may be using the term to describe the actual legal state of rights, not the ideal state of rights. Yes, gay people have precisely the same rights as straight people in the ideal sense of the term. In the actual sense of the term they do not.

Two men, each identical in every important sense of the word, who attempt to join the military may be treated entirely differently if one of those men is gay and the other is not. There is an inequality of legal rights, even if in the ideal sense of the word the two men should have precisely the same rights. Similarly two couples will be treated very differently when it comes to marriage rights if one couple is gay and the other is straight. Legally the rights of gay people in America today are not co-equal to the legal rights enjoyed by their heterosexual siblings.

Often when the term “gay rights” is used it is a term meant to address the inequality of rights that exist, not the ideal sense of rights. It is an attempt to move the actual rights enjoyed by gay people to an equal plain with the rights enjoyed by straight people. The term “gay rights” is often used by someone who has no intention of creating a system of unequal rights. It is not a “special” right that is being sought but precisely the same rights that have been denied gay people by law. Similarly the term “women’s rights” is not generally meant to be a situation where women have different, or superior rights, but precisely the same rights as men. This does not mean that some people use the terms to disguise a campaign for unequal rights, but most people who use these terms do not mean that at all. More often than not their opponents are actually the advocates of unequal rights before the law, individuals who wish to reserve special privileges to a class, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Consider the likes of Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roback Morse. They fight for a system of marriage rights that excludes one class of people—gay couples. They want legal privileges reserved to another specific class of people alone. Yet opponents of equality of rights argue that it is the gay couples that are seeking “special” rights, when in truth they are attempting to eradicate special rights in favor of equality of rights.

There is also another aspect of “rights” which libertarians simply tend to forget, or never realized. While it is true that a person does not have rights because he is a member of a specific group it is true that individuals frequently have their rights violated precisely because he is a member of a specific group.

A woman who is gay may ideally have precisely the same rights as any other adult, but she may be denied some of those rights because she is gay. Taxation may violate rights on a relatively equal basis. A general sales tax hurts everyone regardless of what group he may be a member of while Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell disqualifies individuals on the basis of a collective trait, not an individual one.

Racists attack blacks, or Jews, or foreigners, not on the basis of their individuality, but on the basis of some collective trait. Ayn Rand described racism as the “lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.” Rand is correct this is what racism does.

Modern prejudices or bigotries basically argue that an individual is not judged by his individual characteristics but simply because he is a member of some larger collective. Instead of judging on the basis of the content of their character the stigmatized individual is judged on the basis of his membership in some collective. Thus a woman may be deemed of lesser value because she is a woman, a black man may be treated like a criminal because he is black, and a gay man may be attacked physically or verbally simply because he is gay.

The bigot ignores all the aspects of the individual and instead focus on some shared collective trait. “All Muslims are... All homosexuals do... The problem with Jews is...” They don’t need to evaluate the individual because they assume the collective trait dominates. Thus all homosexual men are disqualified from the military, not because of any trait of the individual, but because of their group status. A Jew may be attacked, not because he or she has done anything wring, but just because they are Jew.

When individuals are attacked because of their group membership they will quite naturally and reasonable focus on how members of their group are being singled out for attacks. While the terms “gay rights” or “minority rights” or “woman’s rights” are not philosophical precise they are a reasonable response to the attacks these people suffer because they are members of groups. They are not singled out for attack on the basis of their individuality, but on the basis of a shared collective trait, usually one of no significance.

But, consider how libertarians respond to this understandable reaction by members of oppressed classes. The libertarian will often tend to ignore the fact that such people are being attacked for their membership in some larger collective. Instead of recognizing what is being conveyed they will attack the use of the collective rights terminology. So they will launch a high-sounding dismissal of the concept of “gay rights” while ignoring the way gay people are denied their rights due to the shared trait of their sexual orientation.

They are technically correct but they have defeated their own purpose. They are ignoring the real troubling issue at stake to concentrate on a less significant detail. By launching into a discourse on how rights are not collective traits they are not informing their listener about the nature of individual rights. They may mean to do that but they are not doing that. They are actually sending the message that they don’t care that the rights of certain people are being denied because of some collective trait. And that makes them sound like conservatives who are often the most vocal collectivists when it comes to denying equality of rights before the law.

The libertarian sentiment should naturally side with those who suffer oppression in a state or culture because of collective traits. Libertarians, who tend to be individualists, ought to be on the side of individuals who are being singled out because of collective, insignificant traits.

Libertarians ought to weigh the two sins being committed. On the one hand the victim uses a term that is imprecise and seems to convey that rights reside in collectives. On the other hand what they are addressing is how they are being harmed by a hate that singles them out collectively not individually. Of these two the violation of individual rights is surely far more severe than a loose use of a term.

The first reaction of the libertarian should be to acknowledge that an individual is having their rights violated due to a collectivist concept regarding who they are. First address the issues of the oppression and collectivist hate. Before you begin lecturing someone about loose terms address the real, significant violation of rights that these victims are attempting to convey. Don’t major on minors.

When I hear the terms “woman’s rights” or “gay rights” I see what people are attempting to convey, not a philosophical debate. Turning it into a philosophical debate ignores the pain and oppression that these people have experienced at the hands of bigots. That is what I would expect from conservatives, not from libertarians. Focus first on the main issues, defend the rights of the individual which are being violated, make an ally and a friend, and they worry about terminology. Put the intent of the phrase ahead of the literal interpretation and give the philosophy lecture after you are established your credibility.

Where I draw the line!

Each of us must, at some time, decide where we draw the line, in regards to what we will, or won't do. This applies to our cooperation with the State as well. Generally the State operates by making threats, explicit or implied, in order to force obedience from the "citizens."

But how cooperative we wish to be is entirely a personal decision. And any individual who takes morality seriously will have to decide where they draw the line in obeying State edicts. Often there are clear moments when disobedience to the law is the most moral position one can take. A clear example was the courageous individuals who, during the years when the National Socialists controlled Germany, helped rescue and hide Jews in violation of the law. The founding of the American Republic was a criminal act—that is, it violated the law. The founding fathers were rebels against the State and broke numerous laws in their rebellion.

Both these incidents are examples of when individuals drew a line and decided, quite rationally, to violate the law in the name of a higher standard. And, in both cases, I'm glad they did.

Many years ago I was in Chicago, perhaps not in the best of neighborhoods but still a relatively safe area. And I was mugged. To be more precise I was threatened and robbed. The thief claimed he had a knife in his pocket and would use it on me unless I gave him my money. I considered my options and gave him the small amount of cash I had in my pockets. I didn't own credit cards back then and ID theft was not a big thing, since the government was requiring it for everything you did then, it had little value and wasn't targeted.

But I also had my brother's car and I was right by the car. The mugger demanded that I had over the keys. I didn't give the matter much thought. I simply told him: "No."

My answer seemed to genuinely confuse the thief. I guess that, as he saw it, I had already shown my willingness to cooperate by handing him my cash. Yet, here I was being very uncooperative and apparently inviting him to inflict his threat upon me. He actually asked me why I wouldn't give him the keys but did give him the money. I answered: "The car is my brother's car, it is not mine. And I can't give you what I don't own."

At the beginning of the mugging the thief was threatening me and asking me to hand him what I owned. But he changed it by asking me to make the decision to inflict harm upon another person, other than myself. That is where I drew the line. When I was asked to cooperate with his attempt to inflict harm on another person I refused. That is where I drew the line.

Comparing the State to criminals is about the most appropriate comparison one can make. Government demands things of me and threatens to harm me if I fail to obey. Most the time it is demanding that I harm myself, but often it is asking that I inflict harm on others. The first I will obey simple because they are violent and have the inclination and means to carry out their threat. They have NO moral authority whatsoever, they just have force to back up their demands.

Sometimes they ask me to obey laws they pass which require I not harm others. I don't obey those laws because they demand it, I obey those laws because I respect the rights of others and would not violate their life, liberty or property even in the absence of a State law. I would engage in neither force nor fraud against others. My obedience to the law is not related to the threats that politicians make, but to my own moral sense which requires me to respect the rights of others. This sort of morality baffles the politician considerably.

Not all government laws are wrong, of course. As I stated, laws that correspond with the rights of individuals are not wrong. But the bulk of legislation is no longer about respecting the rights of others. Those issues were dealt with long ago. Law today is about the selective imposition of harm on third parties. Various lobbying groups work with the political elites to secure legislation that will harm someone for the benefit of the lobby in question and the political elites who help them.

In its simplest form a group lobbies politicians in order to get them to take away the rights or wealth of another group, or people as a whole, and transfer it to the group that is lobbying. That is what the mugged did to me. The difference here is that the special interest group doesn't have the moral character of the mugger to do the dirty work themselves and merely hire a mugger, the State, to act on their behalf.

I've been mugged, and I've been taxed. I prefer the mugger, thank you. And I have several good reasons to prefer muggers to the State. First, the mugger doesn't take as much as the State. Second, the mugger doesn't come around as often. Third, when the mugger has taken what he wants, he usually leaves you alone while the State never does. And finally, the mugger doesn't lecture you on how he's doing this to you, for your own good.

So far I've looked at laws that ask me to respect the rights of others. These laws are irrelevant to me in that I would respect the rights of others regardless of what the law said. Then they are laws that harm me, where my obedience inflicts some harm on myself. Those I obey for the same reason I obeyed the mugger; he had violent tendencies and was willing to inflict pain and suffering on me to get what he wanted. But the third kind of legislation is similar to when the mugger asked for the keys to my brother's car—it requires me to cooperate in order to inflict pain or suffering on another person. And that is precisely where I draw the line.I refuse obey laws if my obedience will inflict harm on others.

If my obedience harms myself, I will obey as long as I feel the threat is worse than the harm my obedience inflicts. But, if my obedience necessarily means that I will inflict harm on others I reserve the option to disobey and suffer the consequences. I will not be made a party, albeit an unwilling one, to actions which harm others.

Under the current system the State demands the right to "protect" people, in that they run the police, courts, etc. If I saw an innocent person being attacked by a yob I would intervene either personally, if I could, or by calling the police. I have done this several times, always with caution in that I know it is a dangerous thing to request help from the police.

But there are criminal actions, that is criminal in the sense that they violate the law, which I will not act to prevent or hinder. This is certainly the case with what are often called victimless crimes. If you buy drugs, or sell them, I won't report you. Neither would I cooperate with the police in your apprehension. Ditto for the crimes of "obscenity" or even illegal immigration. Not only would I refuse to cooperate with the police in those cases but I would actively do what I felt I could get away in order to protect such individuals from the State.

I would not protect a thief, a killer, a rapist or any other person who took it upon themselves to violate the rights of others—this would include most politicians. But if I knew someone who was being sought for violating a victimless crime:say tax protesters, prostitutes, pornographers, illegal immigrants or the like, then I would actively give them support. I would not only refuse to cooperate with the authorities but I would actively act in a way that would hinder their activities. I would do so willing to take the risk of what it would mean for myself.So not only would I refuse to act in a way that would inflict harm on others, but I would also actively engage in ways meant to reduce the harm inflicted on others by the State.

Some libertarians seem to confuse criminals who break the law but harm no one and criminals who break laws and violate rights. Consider a con man who uses deception and fraud to bilk vulnerable people out of their money. He may not engage in violence, just fraud. He lies to people and gets them to exchange their money in anticipation of something they will never receive, and which he knows they will not receive. He doesn't put a gun to the heads of these people, nor does he engage in threats of violence. He acts fraudulently. He is still a thief in my books. He does not deserve my respect, nor my support and I need to treat him the same way I would treat any real criminal.Yet there are airhead libertarians who seem to think that violating the law, any law, is noble.

That is not the case. Violating a vicious law is noble but violating laws on stock fraud are like violating laws forbidding rape. Fraud violates the rights of others, it induces people into making exchanges they would otherwise not make.It seeks to obtain the wealth of others through immoral means. Instead of exchanging value for value, making everyone better off, it resorts to trading a false value for a real one.This doesn't make everyone wealthier, which is what happens in free exchanges. This makes one party worse off while benefiting the other party. In that sense it is very similar to the political process.

My moral compass does not allow me to violate the rights of others. Similarly it does not allow me to cooperate with others when they are violating rights. I choose to cooperate when I alone am the victim, if I feel it is in my best interest to do so. I refuse to cooperate when asked to help harm others. I also will actively work to prevent any other person from violating the rights of other: be they State employees, or even libertarian activists.