Toward a Public Ethic, Part 2

Life, Liberty, and Property

, 2002.12.10

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Originally phrased as an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson put a small spin on the phrase when writing the American Declaration of Independence.

The core concept here is not that we have these rights by permission of the state, but that we have them because we are human. Whether we believe these rights come from a creator or not, they are foundational to creating a public ethic.

Life

First comes life. Without it, there is no need for liberty or property.

Our lives are our most valued possession. People will go to great lengths to preserve their lives, sometimes to the point of violating their most sacred beliefs or recanting their faith.

Individuals will also pay massive ransoms to preserve the lives of those they love, and some will sacrifice their lives to save the lives of others. We call it the ultimate sacrifice, because once it is given, there is no more to give.

Human life has intrinsic value. As a Christian, I believe that part of this value comes from being created by God - but the same could be said of anything in the universe. More to the point, the Bible says that we are somehow created in the image of God. Whether that means we are intelligent, free moral agents, social beings, etc. is less important here than the fact that humans were a special creation separate from the animals. We have value because we are made in God's image.

Other religions may have different reasons for placing value on human life, and atheists believe human life is valuable as well. It's been true throughout history - we do not want to be deprived of our lives.

When we maintain that humans have an inalienable right to life, we imply that nobody, neither the state nor any individual, should deprive another person of their life. In most Western nations the penalties for murder are among the strongest on the books and the state may not deprive an individual of her life without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person has committed crimes which demand nothing less than the death penalty.

As a Christian, I believe that the state has the right to impose the ultimate penalty in response to the ultimate crime. As stated in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (NIV) The ten commandments also clearly tell us not to commit murder.

I do not believe the state is obligated to take a life every time a life is taken. There are extenuating circumstances such as self defense and accident. At the same time, I do not believe the state should ever abandon the possibility of executing those who commit the most heinous, deliberate, premeditated murders - that includes terrorists, freeway snipers, and those who stalk and murder abortionists.

Speaking of abortion, this is not the time to enter that debate. Human life has value, but all sorts of questions arise around the periphery: When does human life begin? When does human life end? Do those with lesser faculties merit less protection? I'm sure we'll get into these issues later. Right now we're laying a foundation.

Liberty

According to the creation story, the first man and woman were placed in a bountiful garden and given freedom to do what they wanted and go where they wanted - except for eating the fruit of a single tree. Liberty always entails some restrictions.

Liberty means the right to make your own choices, do what you want, go where you want, plan things when you want, believe what you want. It also implies responsibility for your choices - if your choices include depriving others of their lives, you have violated a more fundamental right and may forfeit your freedoms, if not your very life.

The first liberty is freedom of conscience. The state, the church, the school, the boss, and the pundit may offer guidance, may strongly encourage a way of thinking, but in the end they cannot change your mind. Well, more precisely, they cannot do so without extremely coercive brainwashing and deprogramming techniques which definitely violate your freedom of thought.

Closely tied to a free mind is the right to express your beliefs. Thus free speech, the right to publish, freedom to choose a religion, and the right to assemble are enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

As with life, the state should only restrict liberties under the most extreme circumstances. We lock up murders and thieves. We sometimes prevent people from working in certain fields (for instance, Kevin Mitnick, the convicted hacker, is prevented from using computers through January 20, 2003).

I believe that the right to share one's beliefs and opinions is fundamental. It is at the core of a free society and is completely opposed to the kind of nonsense going on in India where the government wants to make it illegal for people to change their religion without state permission.

That said, we are responsible for how we use our liberties. If we publish lies, we should be called to account for our words. If we incite to riot or murder, we must be prepared to pay the consequences. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is never a good idea.

But if we handle our liberties responsibly, the state should let us do so. It's only when our freedoms impact the rights of others that the state should interfere.

In America today, we weigh the cost of freedom against the cost of terrorism, and personal freedoms seem to be taking it on the chin in the name of homeland security. If we sacrifice too many freedoms, will the homeland still be worth protecting?

Property

After life and liberty, we have a right to property. That includes the clothes on our back, money, real estate, and more. If it's our property, the state must have a compelling reason to deprive us of it and must compensate us for it, unless we are losing our property as the result of a crime.

If someone attempts to deprive us of life, liberty, or property, the state has an obligation to protect our rights. That's why we have laws against murder, libel, and theft.

The whole realm of property is even more nebulous that the rights to life and liberty. Beyond physical property, there are intangibles like money, stocks, and intellectual property.

And just as those who take lives may lose their lives or freedoms or property, those who violate the freedoms or property of others may pay with the loss of their own freedoms and property.

For a lot of us in the west, this was the great flaw in communism - the state had the right to all property. Our inalienable right was taken from us, even if it was supposedly in the name of the common good.

The State

The goal of the state is to create a justice system with harsh enough penalties that citizens will avoid wholesale lawlessness. If murder only means a year in jail, the murder rate will be much higher than if murder implies the loss of the murderer's life. The penalty should fit the crime and act as a deterrent to those who might break the law.

The only thing worse than a government that allows wholesale violation of these rights is one that practices such violations itself. When mobs may kill without penalty, something is wrong. But when governments execute people for minor crimes, something is very seriously wrong. But more on that in the future.

We are laying a foundation for a public ethic that isn't rooted in any single religion or philosophy. We have established the need for moral laws, and today we look at fundamental rights. Next time we'll try to dig more deeply into the concept of justice.