So technically, when we do a Point-Counterpoint, MI.J.Blogger and I are to write one post each, and leave it to the readers. Well, I'm going to cheat. Here's part 2 of my argument.
What are Rights?
Rights are moral claims to a sphere of sovereignty around your person, the fruits of your labors – what you have created with your intellect and whatever resources you can muster – and what you have voluntarily acquired through trade with others. - Steven Yates
In further defining rights, it must be noted that rights belong to individuals only, because an individual can think and act conscientiously. Rights are the equivalent of having a "NO TRESPASSING" zone, wrapped around the individual.
It follows then, that rights cannot belong to a group of any kind. Afterall, a group is just an abstract thought. Only individuals are real. Nor does the government grant rights.
Rights exist prior to government. Rights are natural, they cannot be created by legislation. In fact, I believe it's dangerous to believe otherwise. Because anything that has the power to grant rights, also has the power to take them away! And that's not freedom. That's tyranny.
Morals, Ethics, and Law:
Libertarianism is based on the Non-Aggression Axiom, which states:
It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.
And Jesus said:
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. - Matthew 22:39
If you think about it for a moment, both are saying the same thing. So then, does outlawing certain kinds of speech violate this premise? Yes. I believe it does. Here's why ...
Rights are indeed moral principles, but they are not the same as morality. Rights are an inherent part of the individual (all individuals equally everywhere), while morality deals with an individual's conduct within a set of rules. Being that rights are inherent, how can we claim a right to stop a person from speaking, prior to them actually doing so?
By claiming such a right, we're saying that as individuals, we each have the right to invade this person's "sphere of sovereignty." Now maybe I'm hallucinating here, but something tells me you wouldn't feel too good about your personal sovereignty being violated, based solely on something you may do. Right? So as you respect your own sovereignty, so too must you respect the sovereignty of everyone else.
Futhermore, government is nothing but power and force. Power thrives on greed and fear. Prohibiting speech of any kind, requires at the very least the threat of force. Which breaks the Non-Aggression Axiom. So how can it be moral to stifle any speech? Can morality be based on fear?
Did Jesus ever advocate the use of violence to enforce morality? Well, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a direct commandment from God. Yes it is, and a wise one indeed! But even God left you with the ability to do so anyways, just as God gave you the ability to yell 'fire.' Certainly we don't believe man is to make up for God's "mistakes." For if we do believe so, wouldn't we be committing idolatry?
Summary:
While it may be an immoral act, for a person to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, it's still immoral for the government to invade that person's "sphere of soveriegnty" prior to their engaging in such act. Morality is the domain of reason and religion, not government. Therefore, morality must come from within. It can't come from without.
Morality based on fear, is morality from without. And that's not morality at all.
