This one could go a little technical or wordy if I am not careful so I will try to keep it approachable. At first glance, we hear all of these words frequently. And in context, they kind of, sort of make sense like we get it. But, I would ask to look a little deeper and what is the definition of a right?

A right is an entitlement that our culture has historically and by majority recognized as something that precedes the existence of government and is used in the creation and execution thereof. That is not to say that opinions or clarifications may not change. Going back to previous civilizations like Rome for example, citizens were male landowners. That carried through into this countries founding as well.

The idea of Human Rights differs slightly and transcends status of citizenship. I may have a right as a citizen to perform some activity that I don’t as a non-citizen (i.e. voting). However, human rights are recognized regardless of legal status.

I think the problem we have today is a misunderstanding of a legal right, a human right and what I want. It is further confused between “the movement” and “the demands” and what filter we are applying. In a larger issue, we have to break it down to smaller components, do the analysis and reassemble all of the results to have a clearer picture of what the analysis means.

I will skip all of the other hot button issues and focus on my current favorite Vaccine mandates. What does this mean? It means than an employer is requiring proof of vaccination to remain employed. OK, then let us break this down using American constructs. Here are some of the subtopics

  1. Is the vaccine harmful?
  2. Is the vaccine helpful?
  3. Is there scientific evidence supporting population health and virus transmission of 100% vaccination rates versus less than 100% versus no vaccination?
  4. Is there legal precedent to force me to consume anything against my will?
  5. Do employers have the right to require vaccinations?
  6. Do businesses have the right to require proof of vaccinations?

In one through three, the data I have seen is definitely inconclusive at best. Number four is generally no and five and six, the answer is yes with caveats. With that, I will skip the first three and talk about the second half.

As citizens, we have the right to our bodies. That is generally what we consume (or not) how much and it is regulated as to where. So, take smoking. When alone at home we can smoke all day if we so choose, In places where smoke can effect others it is accepted to regulate or restrict. It is also the case with children or indigents (who are not considered citizens because they are in the care of someone else legally) that they can be forced to do things against their will.

That brings us to five and six. There is some ‘depends’ in here. Do private business owners have the right to require things beyond the law for employment? The answer is yes, as long as it is universally enforced and agreed in the employment contract. Do businesses have the right to restrict customers? Again, if it is privately owned and universally applied the answer is yes. In my opinion, I do not think the same privilege is allowed to government. Meaning, I do not think it is a right for government to restrict the citizens access, that is a violation of our rights.

Where does my analysis come down to on rights? A “Vaccine Mandate” violates our legal rights when it comes to interaction with government. A “Vaccine Mandate” also violates our rights when it comes to private interactions because I should be able to decide that I don’t want to enforce proof of vaccination. A “Vaccine Mandate” is something that I want, not because there is scientific proof or legal precedent to support a change in the definition of entitlement.

I think that it is also worthy mentioning that rights are considered as things government are prohibited from infringing or principally altering. As with all civil rights debates, it comes down to defining the classes. To Whom does it apply? Would we as Americans agree on the same set of rights as those who live in Dubai? I would doubt that we could agree on a lot of anything. This is why rights are considered changeable, because they are somewhat subjective.

I was going to carry on using examples of gender fluidity and try to make a scientific argument to the contrary, but I think this is enough today. This is the reason that there are whole categories of law dedicated to civil rights. I am not going to do it justice in a blog post nor am I an expert or a lawyer

End Your Programming Routine: Where does this leave us on rights? It seems like we have some. It also seems like the accepted definition is not rigid. I suppose that certain groups may be gaining rights while others are losing them. This is a complicated subject to just do a summary and use some concrete examples. As it pertains to the American Dream, I would assert that our rights still exist for the most part but I would say that we are trending toward new rights for inclusion but losing rights that were traditionally held and it depends on where you sit as to the direction you think it is going.