Comments for On My "Right" to Everything at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 14 out of 14 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:31 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14683 I'm actually a bit surprised that Fr. Schall did not point out that the "all caring state" also turns us into objects that subject to expediency and efficiency. When the state requires itself to care for us we suddenly become liabilities. - Leonard Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:46:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14393 "We need a conception of rights, virtue, duties, and freedom that enables us to care for ourselves. We need a conception of a limited state, whose purpose is not to do everything itself but to recognize arenas of responsibility in which individuals and groups are the main source of providing for themselves." To this end, may I propose the following? 1. Keep to the definition of what rights are "inalienable". "Inalienable rights" are God-given by definition. The State does NOT grant, cannot provide for nor defend "inalienable rights". These "inalienable rights" are the human rights of life, liberty, and property. 2. The power of the State springs from its capacity to DENY human rights. Specifically, the State can deny an individual's right to life (capital punishment). The State can deny an individual's right to liberty (imprisonment). And the State can deny an individual's right to property (taxes and penalties). 3. Limiting the power of the State is the most important civic duty of its citizens. History has taught us that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But more importantly, a government that is run by a few is inherently unstable. If the power of the State is concentrated on a small segment of the citizenry, the government will be unable to contain the violence that will ensue. The bottom-line is human lives will be spent securing safety instead of pursuing happiness. The destruction of government does nothing for the preservation of private property or the advancement of the nation's economy. The rich will suffer and the poor will die. 4. HISTORICALLY, the ONLY institutions that can effectively limit the power of the State are religious. Unfortunately, some religions support armed conflict and theocracies. And there are others that have simply abdicated their responsibilities to the State. This is especially true in the case of public education. 5. If there is to be a NEW "conception of rights, virtue, duties, and freedom that enables us to care for ourselves", we need to divest the State of its hold on public education. "Public Education" should be considered a violation of the "right to the free exercise of religion." 6. Our "inalienable rights" as citizens of the State should be taught in a religious context. - Facile1 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:17:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14384 Charity: The 21st Century Obligation. Helping or receiving help is also an expectation. Charity is dominated now by rich actors or athletes giving of their excess...making it more of a show than an act of kindness. - stanley Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:42:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14371 And yet the faculty of Georgetown came out vocally in favor of the "democratic all-caring state that provides our rights". Do us a favor and educate your institution. - mnemos Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:05:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14361 Let's recall our Aristotle: Entelechy is the key to the source of "natural" rights. A substantial being implies a hylomorphic unity of form+matter. A being like a human has a "nature" or entelechy that involves certain goods which are needed for it to flourish. Other humans, whether singly or in a organized group, may not arbitrarily deny such goods to another human. If they do so they commit injustice (recall that justice involves treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally). With this in mind, a human may be said to have a "natural right" to such goods. Talking of rights is not a bad thing. But in our hedonistic culture, rights and desires, nature and perversion, are often confused. And thank you, Denverite for reminding me of Josef Pieper's wonderful book! - G.K. Thursday Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:12:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14360 Great article. I wish to add that the virtue that helps us determine the balance among freedom, duties, etc. is love. If we help because we love, and we love because we are loved by God, then we seek to use our freedom to help our neighbor with our own hands and the fruits of our own labor. Our duty becomes our desire. The principle of solidarity leads us to seek universal goods for all mankind out of love, and the principle of subsidiarity leads us to practice this love concretely in our own neighborhoods. The state cannot love, but it can coerce, and often is abused by the powerful who hide behind an empty love. In a local community, it is easier to challenge these charlatans. It is harder to do so the larger and more remote they get. The land of Hobbes is a land without God, where the state becomes God, and we act out of fear, not love. History shows these societies become the dominion of the strong over the weak. Let us work toward a society of God, and thus a society of love. We know we will never be perfect this side of eternity, but we will be heading in the right direction. May the Holy Spirit guide us with wisdom as we do so. - athanasius Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:23:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14359 Wonderful article Fr. Shall. Blessings to you. A few follow up thoughts... Are not natural rights the simple inverse of natural duties? That is, each one's right to some good fully corresponds to the commensurate duty of his fellow men to supply, or as the case may be, to not withhold from the other those goods to which he is due. There is a tension, such that it cannot exist in isolation, rights and duties presuppose and require relationships, society, the polis. In the image of the community of persons that is the Trinity. In one 'direction' rights work on my behalf, and in the other direction outward toward others, thus placing an obligation or duty upon me, because of what is natural to us both, to us all, as men. I am a very poor Thomist indeed! But I recommend Joseph Pieper's Four Cardinal Virtues. The startling fulfillment of his discussion of the duty of distributive justice borne by the governor/government - is that he/it must *preserve* for each man (that is, avoid withholding or thwarting) his natural duty according to his ability to exercise his own partiular role in distributing the goods of this world to those who have a rightful claim upon them - i.e. the poor. It is an injustice for the state to usurp that role through obstruction of the corporal works of mercy and/or arrogation of the means to enact such works to itself alone. I have a right to be free to fulfill my duties toward my fellow man. It is an injustice for the governor to tax me and perform that duty in my stead. What is properly being 'distributed' in distributive justice is freedom for the good. And virtue - be it found among men! - provides for the distribution of goods themselves. This a snapshot of the genius of that old tired out-dated medievalism. The whole structure of rights and duties rests upon the pursuit of virtue... - Denverite Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:39:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14358 This is a solid reflection on the rise of the socialist state. Although Fr. Schall studiously avoids this term, his analysis only applies to those modern states which have sought to achieve what Emmanuel Levinas comdemned as "totality," seeking to replace the transcendent moral code with itself. Despotic soviet and nazi states have had the darkest examples of these sorts of government, but the movement of developing nations as a whole has been in this direction. As Professor Esolen has expressed it, it is the state turned vampiric, draining the resources and lives of its citizens, rather than helping them flourish. Of course despotic states have always existed, and have always attempted this sort of vampirism when they did. The critical difference at our present juncture is the existence of technologies that make it possible to actually achieve a level of totality as never before. And the U.S. is on the forefront of pursuing these technologies, even if our government does not always use them as aggressively as it could. One thing that Fr. Schall does not mention is that these totalizing states are run by small groups of men. The real goal of such states is the continuation of the power and wealth of these small groups of men. Thus we learned recently that the net worth of the 70 richest delegates in China’s National People’s Congress, which opens its annual session on March 5, rose to 565.8 billion yuan ($89.8 billion) in 2011, a gain of $11.5 billion from 2010, according to figures from the Hurun Report, which tracks the country’s wealthy. That compares to the $7.5 billion net worth of all 660 top officials in the three branches of the U.S. government. The Communist Party system in China, said to be set up to help free the workers from capitalism, has instead made for the creation of the wealthiest elite on the planet. This is what totalizing states really do: create two classes, rich, decadent elites and poor, ignorant masses. And whatever 19th century-minded socialists or Dominicans you quote, that doesn't change the despicable level of injustice brought about by this process. - G.K. Thursday Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:30:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14356 Father Schall, in the clear and concise language of ideas, which is your hallmark, you nailed it! - Ray Hunkins Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:49:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14355 I have increasingly come to suspect that the entire concept of "rights" is philosophically indefensible. The moral framework of society and human behavior is not defined by my "right" to practice a religion, or my "right" to utilize the press. Rather, it seems, that I have certain affirmative obligations that must be observed in utilizing my free will in these spheres, while at the same time others have an obligation not to interfere with my conduct in certain ways. Thus, the fact that the deputies of the state should not arrest or harass me based on my religious preferences does not mean that I have some metaphysical "right" to maintain whatever religious beliefs I want. I am obligated to love and worship the one triune God, irrespective of others' interference, or lack thereof, with my fulfillment of that obligation. We've had quite enough of "rights." - Titus Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:01:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14354 What men value in this world is not rights but privileges. H. L. Mencken - Grump Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:56:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14353 Excellent, timely and appropriate ! - Willie Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:10:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14352 Father,Great perspective,so much truth in your words. thanks, Jack - Jack,CT Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:56:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/on-my-qrightq-to-everything.html#comment-14351 Government must not be arbitrary, but it must be powerful enough to repress arbitrary action in others. If the supreme power is needlessly limited, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress. Its supremacy will bear no check. Otherwise, every inner group and community, class or corporation, administering its own affairs can become a source of oppression to the individual subject to its control. As Père Henri-Dominique Lacordaire OP once put it, "Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free." - Michael Paterson-Seymour Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:47:53 +0100