THE CONCEPT OF "RIGHTS"

W. J. Sidis
ca. 1940

[Two-page MS, possibly not complete, found in Helena Sidis's files, 1977.

The fundamental idea presented here is that of "rights." It is rights-consciousness, more than anything else, that is being appealed to. It is believed that Americans particularly think in terms of their rights, and are more ready to fight for the rights of the community than over any issues expressed in other terms. A "right" is not necessarily one that is actually obtainable under existing conditions. In fact, the very idea of fighting to get rights implies that, at least in some important respect, the rights people are entitled to cannot actually be had, and a change must be attempted so that they may be able to actually enforce and enjoy their rights. y the American conception of "rights," they are not mere privileges granted by permission of a government !"hich
1

is the only "ay so-called #uropean democracies can conceive rights$ and "hich that government can therefore take a"ay at its pleasure. %n the contrary, a right is something inherent&"hether given by a supposed creator !as the 'eclaration of Independence expresses it$ or merely a direct result of one(s physical presence in the )estern *emisphere, or "hether it merely "gro"s," is unimportant+ a government, according to the 'eclaration of Independence, and still more so according to the vie" of rights presented here, is totally subsidiary to the rights of the people. Thus, a suspension of citi,ens( rights during "ar for the defense of the government, is part of the caricature of "democracy" as found else"here+ in America, though such a thing has been gotten a"ay "ith several times, it has al"ays encountered extreme popular opposition, and, according to the vie" of rights presented here, forfeits the government(s claim to existence and constitutes a call on the people for a revolution. Anyone sho"ing the slightest support to"ards a government "hich has sho"n any tendency to suspend the people(s rights in its o"n defense, is a traitor to the liberties of the people, and "ithout any -ualification or exception being possible. A right, then, is something to "hich every individual in the community is morally entitled, and for "hich that community is entitled to disregard or forcibly remove anything that stands in the "ay of even a single individual getting it. .ights belong to individuals, and no organisation has any rights not directly derived from those of its members as individuals+ and, just as an individual(s rights cannot extend to "here they "ill trespass on another individual(s rights, similarly the rights of any organisation "hatever must yield to those of a single
2

individual, "hether inside or outside the organisation. And more than ever is this true of a government !"hich includes any form of organisation claiming po"er to control people or their means of living$+ for this form of organisation exists exclusively to protect the rights of everyone, and has no rights unless it actually does so. .ights&to sum up&primarily belong to individuals. A fe" rights are considered fundamental&these are enumerated in the 'eclaration of Independence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness+ this definition, ho"ever, is vague, and "e attempt here to define further just "hat is meant. All other rights are derivative, some being direct conse-uences of the fundamental rights, and therefore inherent in everybody, "hether recognised by the community or not+ others are simply matters of policy, and fall rather in the class of privileges specially granted by authority, and "hich can be taken a"ay by the same authority, and "hich must yield to any individual(s "personal" rights !those proceeding from the fundamental rights$. /reedom of speech, self-defense, and the right of revolution !as proclaimed by the 'eclaration of Independence$ fall in the former class+ the "hole gamut of property rights fall in the latter class, only having claim to existence on sufferance, as long as nobody(s rights are personally affected. )hen an individual(s rights are violated by a system of government, or "hen the consent of the governed ceases to exist or cannot be freely discussed, the government forfeits its rights to existence, and the "hole -uestion of authority reverts to the people, to abolish the existing authority by any means available and set up "hatever ne" form of organisation "ill actually
3

guarantee the rights of everyone and hold the consent of the governed. It is the rights of every individual, not those of a majority only, that must be guaranteed+ the bare principle of "majority rule" is emphatically rejected by the vie" of rights presented here. The principle is rather, as 0ohn oyle %(.eilly1 has expressed it2 "That the health of a nation is perilled if one man be oppressed." 'iscrimination due to accidents of birth, or to political or religious opinions, forms a very important class of violations of the right !or principle$ of e-uality. Though such things exist under the present system, they cannot be reconciled "ith the principles of the 'eclaration of Independence or the vie"s presented here. 3art of such discrimination that is important for our purpose is the matter of "frame-ups" "hereby people often, under the present set-up, have to take punishment or responsibility for "hat someone else has done, and "ithout proper impartial efforts to ascertain the truth of the matter&often "ith a deliberate attempt on the part of someone to prevent a fair hearing from being had. This not merely violates the victim(s e-ual rights+ it also violates the rights of everyone in the community to protection against the offense committed !assuming that such offense is actually a violation of rights$, by actually affirmatively protecting the actual offender and giving such offender assurance of immunity. 4uch "railroading" in effect makes all persons participating in it accessories to the original offense.

It is also important to remember that the "hole group of alleged rights kno"n as property rights are not mentioned in the 'eclaration of Independence(s 3reamble at all, and constitute no part of the basic schedule of human rights. At best, they are a device by "hich a community may deem it advisable to re"ard services rendered, and cannot be extended to conflict "ith personal rights, "hich are much more fundamental. 5uestions such as "ages, returns on investments, currency, taxation, etc., all belong to this class, and do not involve fundamental rights in any "ay "hatever. "3roperty rights" bulk larger than personal rights in the activities of any government existing under the present economic system, and displace everything else in the estimation of such economic organisations as industries, unions, etc.+ but, from the point of vie" presented here, they merely constitute interference "ith the issue, "hich is exclusively the -uestion of personal rights. %rganisations have no more rights than their members. In particular, governments !including every organisation or group claiming any sort of authority over others$ have no rights not directly derived from their duty to protect the fundamental rights of the individual, and become offenders the moment they attempt to overstep these limitations+ if they actually violate the fundamental rights of some individual, they forfeit their right to existence, and therefore to such derivative rights as self-defense. A government that, for instance, has imposed some form of censorship on the expression of hostile opinions, is committing an additional offense against the entire community if it attempts to defend itself. The concept of rights given here presents this point as extremely important.
5

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE SOCIETY !!!!!!!!!!!

" #$o%n &oyle ''(eilly )1*++-1*9,-.His deat% was mou/ned as t%e passing of a 0ou/nalist, o/ato/, pat/iot, publis%e/ and poet. $o%n &oyle ''(eilly aut%o/ed many wo/1s including fou/ 2olumes of poems3 a no2el, 'Moondyne', based on %is 4ust/alian e5pe/iences, and collabo/ated in anot%e/ no2el, #T%e 6ing's Men#. ''(eilly was one of t%e most p/ominent 0ou/nalists of %is day p/omoting t%e /ig%ts of $ews, 4me/ican 7ndians and &lac1s.# 8i1ipedia See also poem by ''(eilly in 4me/ica's Sea/c% fo/ 9ibe/ty in Song and :oem.

THE EXTENT OF RIGHTS

W. J. Sidis ca. 1940

[MS, 1p, unpublis%ed, found in Helena Sidis's files, 1977.

Although it is impossible to give a short account of the exact extent to "hich individual rights apply, a little idea of the general principles can be given. The basic rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are necessarily vague on the basis of nothing more than this bare statement. #-uality is, not so much a basic right in itself, as a principle by "hich these rights are to be interpreted. %ne must definitely reject any notion that e-uality can carry any meaning justifying a forced levelling by an authority above everybody&this is a most flagrant violation of e-uality. It rather means, in vie" of the fact that the subject of the declaration is human rights and not re"ards, social position, or anything else, that no one can be by any interpretation accorded rights in a community that cannot automatically be accorded to everyone else at the same time. 4o that all rights must stop at the point "here there "ould be inference "ith the rights of another.
7

"3ursuit of happiness" is like"ise not to be considered as meaning that everyone is entitled to do anything he pleased or to demand of others anything he pleases. The same principle of e-uality dictates that it must stop "here the rights of others are interfered "ith. It means, rather, freedom from restrictive regulations in all things not interfering "ith the rights of others. "3ursuit of happiness" means a very stringent restriction limitation on rights of any authority "hatever, and absolves everyone from obeying any dictates of authority violating these limitations. The "e-uality" principle does not make any statements regarding the capabilities of humans, and arguing the point on that basis is a mere shifting of ground. It means e-uality of rights, e-uality of opportunity, and has been expressed "6rant to others all rights you "ould have others grant to you." 3ersonal guardianship, bossism, etc., common enough under the present social system, really constitute a definite violation of the principle of e-uality. 7ike"ise, certain rights declared on a class basis by some groups !such as the alleged right of private enterprise on one side, or the alleged rights of unionising or picketing on the other side$ are, by this principle, inadmissible as rights under the conceptions as advanced by the 'eclaration of Independence. /ree expression of opinion, "hile not specifically mentioned in the 'eclaration of Independence, is an essential part of the "pursuit of happiness." It gains further importance from the "consent of the governed" principle, "hereby censored opinions do not constitute real consent, and therefore undermine the basis of existence of any authority "hatsoever. The alleged
8

"freedom of press" should be merely interpreted as part of this particular derivative right, not as a special privilege on the part of a particular industry to interfere "ith any individual(s rights. 4imilarly "freedom of religion" should be taken as part of the free expression of opinion, not as special privilege for churches. The right to do useful "ork for the community is life itself for most people in a community, and should be so for all in the community "here e-uality is truly respected, any person or group claiming the authority to deny this right to others is morally no different from a deliberate murderer. /rom this principle is deduced the type of ne" society advocated. The "right of revolution" is also an important right in the schedule of the 'eclaration of Independence, indeed basic "ith that document. It is derived from the basis on "hich the right of governments to exist rests&the consent of the governed. )hen anyone(s rights are violated by a system of government, or "hen the consent of the governed ceases to exist or cannot be freely discussed, the government forfeits its rights to existence, and the "hole -uestion of authority reverts to the people, to abolishing existing authority by any means available and set up "hatever ne" form of organisation "ill actually the guarantee the rights of everyone and hold the consent of the governed. It is the rights of every individual, not those of a majority only, that must be guaranteed+ the bare principle of "majority rule" is emphatically rejected. The principle is rather, as 0ohn oyle %(.eilly1 has expressed it2 "That the health of a nation is perilled if one man be oppressed."

4M;(7<4= 7=>;:;=>;=<; S'<7;T?

!!!!!!!!!!!

" #$o%n &oyle ''(eilly )1*++-1*9,-.#His deat% was mou/ned as t%e passing of a 0ou/nalist, o/ato/, pat/iot, publis%e/ and poet. $o%n &oyle ''(eilly aut%o/ed many wo/1s including fou/ 2olumes of poems3 a no2el, #Moondyne#, based on %is 4ust/alian e5pe/iences, and collabo/ated in anot%e/ no2el, #T%e 6ing's Men#. ''(eilly was one of t%e most p/ominent 0ou/nalists of %is day p/omoting t%e /ig%ts of $ews, 4me/ican 7ndians and &lac1s.# 8i1ipedia See also poem by ''(eilly in 4me/ica's Sea/c% fo/ 9ibe/ty in Song and :oem.

10