Our Alienable Rights

In the dark halls of the blogosphere, Joe Patriotism and Jane Rights can be seen necking in the corner of every rightwing blog. When we look askance at the two lovers, we are sternly told that the inherent compatibility of the two is beyond question. The truth is that the two can smooch all they want—they’ll never make it as a couple. You see, they’re actually from different families. (Joe Patriotism actually comes from across the tracks.)

Of course, any nation that recognizes basic human rights (quaint ideas such as opposition to torture and equality before the law) is wise to do so. But this doesn’t mean we should let Joe drag Jane down the aisle. There are some irreconcilable differences from the onset. The fact is the idea of a right being “inalienable” and the idea of it being bestowed on us by a benign government go together like mustard on apple pie. For that matter, the very ideals that underlie the noble concepts of human rights and fundamental human dignity are intrinsically at odds with parochial notions such as tribe or nation.

There’s little to hope for in the forced marriage of this incompatible couple. After all, once we thank daddy government for giving us our “inalienable” rights, these rights suddenly become much more alienable. It isn’t long before our daddy is telling us that he has to temporarily (?!) take away our rights in order to protect us, that the rights really aren’t rights at all but are instead a privilege, or that the rights are only for those holding a passport. So I say we send dirty ol’ Patriotism away. He can marry Ms. Jingoism or that flashy divorcee Ms. Fascism over there on his side of the tracks. We need to save Ms. Rights for the right sort of man.