Equal Rights as Communistic?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

is the concept of equal individual rights fundamentally communistic and at odds with an individualist perspective?

the origins of equal rights in America was from the founders belief that “all men are CREATED equal”; religion was a personal motivation for seemingly much of the early writings and ideas that led to the Constitution. Locke and Franklin wrote about God-given rights, as did others, and that because all people are equal in God’s eyes (or Nature’s eyes if you want to substitute a term), all people should have equal political rights as well.

despite that the founders did not intend to enforce or legislate equality ITSELF and only sought to establish equal OPPORTUNITY or RIGHTS, it still seems that the doctrine of ‘equality for all’ is fundamentally communistic or collectivist in nature. “everyone is equal to everyone else”, how can this statement, in any sense of meaning, be equated with a system of governance that attempts to establish and maintain differences in material, power and other statures between people, even assuming these differences came about in agreement with a fundamental equality of rights or “opportunity”?

the traditional American argument goes thus: “all people are equal in political rights, and all people can act and do as they please as long as they do not harm others and respect others rights. this will mean that some people are more successful than others, but this is ok. people have the right to their property that they earn or create, and if some people are rich and others are less rich or even poor this is allowed and even desirable, because it follows from the free system of equality of opportunity and political rights that frees inner natures and instincts and abilities of all people, which will always be unique and different from each other.” the difference in actual results (materialistically speaking) was seen as a sign that the American experiment in freedom and equal rights was healthy and working.

but can a system that fundamentally assumes that all people are EQUAL in some basic way truly sustain such instabilities or inequalities BETWEEN people, even ones that (seem) naturally generated from the “normal” and desirable operations of the free/equal system itself? how can a system that views all people as “the same” tolerate some rich and some poor?

is there a fundamentally basic communism or collectivism hidden underneath the American traditional claims to upholding individualism and individual rights?

is the distinction between the intrinsic immaterial “right to life” and “God-given rights”-type equality and the INequality that is materialistically generated from such a system contradictory? or is it just the case that ‘equality’ applies differently depending on the scope in question?

or rather, is it truly tolerable or desirable that people will end up unequal in every possible “real” (materialistic/power/influence/ability/etc) way within a system that claims that “all people are equal and the same” with regard to their political and “God-given” RIGHTS to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property?

because it seems, at least on the surface, that a creed such as “everyone is equal”, in any form whatsoever, is fundamentally and completely at odds and contradictory to any affirmation of difference between people in actual reality. that is, affirming that there will be differences between people in every conceivable real (material/etc) way, and that this is desirable (or at least not undesirable) seems to imply a state of affairs or underlying logic such that “everyone is equal and the same”, in any sense of meaning at all, must necessarily be invalidated.

an affirmation of a fundamental difference and uniqueness among all people in all conceivable ways/measures seems totally irreconcilable with the statement “all men are created equal”… or is that wrong? if so, how?

2

When we talk of political rights, we are talking about rights against the state. Equality then means “equal in the eyes of the state”. That doesn’t mean “equal in every way”. And it doesn’t directly address circumstances between people - only between people and government. Again - it’s not that everyone is equal, but that the state views them as such in respect to their rights against the state. There are many ways to conceive of people without considering the state, or their relationship to it.

3

yes, but these rights ‘against’ the state are derived FROM the state itself, necessarily so… BUT, they are constituted at least in the American tradition as “God-given” or natural. the implication is that this state of equality of all exists prior to a State apparatus, and that (incidentally) this State gains its legitimacy and desirability from the perspective of “the people” (those who are “all equal”) based on its recognition of this prior “God-given” or natural (ill just say “metaphysical”) equality.

so how do you escape that the American system is predicated necessarily upon a PRE-State belief in the fundamental and irrevocable equality of all men in some pre-physical, pre-reality realm which has prominence and greater (prior) importance to this realm of the physical political ‘real-world’?

a doctrine of basic equality among all, which exists BEFORE the State and JUSTIFIES it, seems to build into this state structure a collectivist ideology that cannot help but diffuse through the entire structure itself, over time.

4

They are derived form a state system, but not from the state. The FF’s were part of a revolution, for instance. Those rights were derived from soldiers shooting at other soldiers. The British government was forced to give up the colonies. Rights are not derived from the state - they are extracted from it. I think the difference in connotation is worth noting. Even natural rights are rights against the state, and were conceived that way. Politicians have been calling upon metaphysics to justify their claims against the state since there have been states and metaphysics, yes. The rationale utilises a “pre-state” device, but that doesn’t mean that the rationale actually was utilised pre-state.

That is, the doctrine doesn’t predate the state (even if that state is a tribe). It just claims to.

But collectivism isn’t communism. Obviously, states have a “collectivist” element - people come together to form states. But they are mostly forced to.

5

i agree that ‘rights’ per se derive from, or are extracted from, the State-system or state ideal itself, in that they are unnecessary without such a State system, and also that the state ideal itself seems to mandate necessarily some at least rudimentary form of rights against itself, if only for stability sake.

however, while rights “technically” “in themselves” do not derive from pre-state “natural/metaphysical” realms, nonetheless this does seem to be the legitimate, serious and honest belief of most ‘founders’ or politicians working at the beginning of or within State systems. as America as an example the FF seemed to sincerely believe and base their government upon this idea of prior rights, prior to the State’s existence or even its necessity. i think that this at least seems to justify granting these prior-rights concepts a somewhat different status than merely “political expediency” or “wishful thinking” or “necessary propagandizing” or “mistaken religiousity”.

i agree that rights are not at odds with the state concept of collective control/restrictions, in that rights A) derive/are extracted from that state-ideal itself, and B) those rights are ‘against’ the specific State in question… however, if we remove A by giving added credibility to FF claims that rights derive directly from the metaphysical PRIOR-state-ideal realm, it seems that this metaphysical ideal (of “equality for all”) trumps or at least undermines the stated goal/intent of creating a fundamentally individualistic system based on rights AGAINST the state (given B).

i guess it comes down to whether or not its plausible to imagine that a State will truly grant rights against itself. in that these rights ALWAYS must be conditional and dependent upon the State itself, it seems that the ‘against’ aspect is more show or pretense than anything else.

yes, communistic was a less than ideal choice of words; collective is better. collectivist systems of group controls or group primacy seem at odds with individualism or individual rights to the extent that one seems to preclude the other as a philosophical premise of governance; they seem not to both be able to exist as ESSENTIAL conditionals of the State itself. either individual rights ‘against the state’ derive from collective utility to the State itself, or individualism is the foundation of the philosophy behind the State’s system itself. i can only see room for one philosophy at ‘heart’ of the system, of course implicitly and imperfectly, but there it is… and i question whether this intrinsic ‘group unconscious’ philosophy that predates and determines the structure and functions of the State itself can survive intact over time if the manifestation of the State changes over time— but mostly, i question whether the manifestations of the State (as policy/stated goals/Law/etc) that are at odds with the prior “metaphysical” “philosophical” premise of the State-system itself (i.e. that “all men are created equal”) can continue to survive relatively intact over time. it seems that they will, in the end, become corrupted or changed in the direction of that underlying unconscious philosophical premise itself, especially to the extent that that premise is unrealized by many people and thus remains more insidious in its effects.

6

Sure it will, and they have. It’s a two-way street. Sates are dependent upon the people and groups that comprise them, as those groups may be dependent upon the state.

To an extent,that depends upon which particular state you are talking about. But it’s not a matter of paired opposites. If you conceive of the state and it’s members as paired opposites, then this will color your analysis. But it’s a continuum. It’s a matter of degree. We are individuals to an extent, and part of a collective to an extent. Rights are one mechanism by which a balance is struck.

Natural Rights are conceived of within the context of the state - this is their actual history. Take them out of that context and of course they don’t make sense.

7

yes, i like that explanation.

i would add that state systems, however, only need to maintain such a balance for pragmatic reasons, i.e. out of necessity. people cannot be too rebellious or upset or the social order collapses, but conversely, the state cannot grant people everything they want either, as that would invalidate the meaning of the state itself.

rights are such a balancing mechanism, i certainly agree— and i would add, a fundamentally utilitarian mechanism; i.e., if ‘rights against the State’ were not necessary for the efficient functioning of that State machine itself, then that State would not grant those rights.

i would say that natural rights as a concept have some meaning outside of, or without relation to, the state, but that the concept itself is just a false one… its not like believers in “natural God-given rights” arent saying anything at all, its just that what they are saying is unjustified and implausible.

8

I agree. Natural Rights are, in the end, a ruse. And it’s perfectly possible to make political arrangements that don’t include rights, or that include them only as a secondary mechanism. In the US, rights have multiplied to the extent that the system can no longer sustain them - there are too many, and too many conflicts among them. It’s possible, I think, to dissolve a state by including too any rights. It’s likely to make the concept of state all but incoherent - which we are, in the US, getting nearer to every day.

Now, we include the “human rights” of people who don’t even live here in our considerations. That’s one thing if it’s just rhetoric - it’s another if we spend money and fight wars over such a doctrine.

I see where you’re going with this, and you’re probably right.

Try Title IX - rights run amok.