enterprise entails, has a right to the rewards it generates.
The idea that property includes more than real estate and material goods,
but something intangible belonging to a person, is evident in the concept of
“intellectual property.” The right of property is a metaphysical right; and to
deprive someone of his or her property is to infringe upon his or her very
personhood.
One of the main arguments Abraham Lincoln made against slavery was
that people have a right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. His argument
against one person owning another is thus also an argument in favor of each
person’s right to own property.
The right of people to defend themselves is a natural corollary of the right
to life – hence the right to bear arms. But because weapons can be used to
steal or murder, thus depriving others of their rights, the right to bear arms
carries with it a responsibility not to use them for such purposes. And because
firearms are so deadly, the connection between the right to have them and the
need for a strong sense of responsibility by those who do is especially obvious.
We can see this connection in regard to the “right” to drive, also. Unless
people drive responsibly, obeying the traffic laws, there could be no right to
drive.
The legitimacy of any right becomes less obvious the further removed it
is from the inherent rights we have from our Creator. Freedom of expression,
for example, is not quite the same as freedom of speech, which is necessary for
rational discussion of important issues, and thus essential to government by
free people.
“Freedom of expression” is a more open-ended term, and has been used
to excuse obscene art and entertainments. If this kind of irresponsible abuse
of the right is what people think freedom of speech means, how long will it be
viewed as a sacred right to be preserved at all cost? A debased right is doomed
to become no right at all. Those who abuse freedom of speech are actually
undermining the very right they think they are championing.
A right which is not exercised is also likely to be lost. Consider freedom of
religion. The first amendment of the Constitution prohibits any law “impeding
the free exercise of religion.” Note that it is not just freedom to believe in a
religion, but to exercise that belief. Sadly, fewer and fewer people are exercising
it today; and contempt for those who do is increasing. Acting upon Christian
moral principles, or even speaking in favor of them, is often “controversial”
now. Capitulating to the intimidation and failing to exercise our freedom of
religion will eventually result in losing the freedom to exercise it.
Again, though, the right carries with it a responsibility not to abuse it.
Freedom of religion is not a license for any religion to deprive others of their
right to exercise their religious freedom (or any other legitimate right).
321