Natural rights, Bush-style: their rights, our obligations

As has been pointed out by Charles Kesler, George W. Boi … Bush has mistaken the right of people to be free and self-governing with the capacity of people to be free and self-governing. Ilana Mercer indicates a parallel flaw in Bush’s rhetoric:

We must, however, distinguish between the right of people to be free and the obligation of others to free them. We have a solemn duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to protect them from dying, being raped, robbed, or falsely incarcerated.

What then of Bush’s claim that, although difficult to fulfill, “Our country has accepted obligations that … would be dishonorable to abandon.” As philosopher David Conway has pointed out, “People can have no duty severally or collectively to do what is impossible for them to do.” Since it’s clear we are losing in Iraq (although it is entirely possible Iraqis may win without us), one might add that persisting in what is impossible to achieve constitutes a transgression against our sacrificed soldiers and suffering taxpayers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 27, 2005 07:44 PM | Send