IN BRIEF VIDEOS

About a month or so ago I posted a brief video on the false notion that states have rights. I was responding to the unceasing pressure for critics of Israel’s genocidal policies to at least acknowledge that the nation has a right to exist.

In fact, no state has the right to exist. I say this because states, and institutions in general, do not have right. Human beings have rights. Human beings may exercise their rights collectively, as a sovereignty, to construct states by which to establish order. As human constructs for establishing and maintaining order, it can be argued that states have power. That power is derived from their legitimacy among sovereign human beings and judged according to the utility of the state in balancing the need for order and the protection of human rights. That’s the legitimizing philosophy behind our notion of The Nation State.

Short-form videos are very popular. However, when dealing with big topics like the philosophy of states, rights, and power, they often beg more questions than they answer. Especially among those who are not steeped in the minutia of theory and philosophy of power. Many comments indicated that there was some confusion regarding what I meant by “state.”

So, I posted a follow up video.

In this video I elaborate the distinction between the term “government,” a description of how power is distributed within a given society, and a state, the institution charged with doing the work of government.

While making the video, literally as I was speaking to the camera, I realized that there were also questions about rights vs. power. States do not have rights. They have power. But what exactly does it mean to have power? Where does it come from? I hinted at some notions of the social contract, but these are abstractions.

Consequently, I decided that this was a good time to draw from some of my own, yet to be published, theoretical work on the subject.

This theory is an attempt to define exactly what power is, beyond abstractions. What does it mean to be powerful? Now, there are a lot of theories out there. From Marx, to Weber, to Foucault, a lot of sociologists and social theorists have dealt with power, but to my mind, none of them have come up with a clear definition of the term.

I try to resolve that with a three-tier description.

• Foundational Power: The ability to shape one’s environment
• Functional Power: Structured Foundational Power of multiple people to achieve an end.
• Tertiary Power: Those who direct the course of the structures of Functional power, the elite.

I believe this definition of power provides a useful and observable model for describing power. What makes the president of the United States powerful. Well, he’s at the head of the state and can, therefore, direct structures that align the Foundational Power of millions of individuals. This is measurably different from your teacher who can structure the Foundational Power of her students.

The key is in how elites can motivate individuals to use their Foundational Power for the purposes of the structure, namely the organization or institutional construct. This is where I talk about External and Internal Motivators.

• External Motivators: Conditions added to a social arrangement for the purpose of motivating human action.
  • Rewards: Benefits for participating in the structure
  • Punishments: Costs for not participating
• Internal Motivators: Stories that have been incorporated into one’s identity that can be used to motivate human action.

In this model, the concept of rights falls mostly under the notion of Internal Motivators. States are legitimized in the modern sense to the extent that they protect rights. On the other hand, states can also be legitimized in the interests of preserving privileges. A state can legitimize itself to a general population by making a claim to protecting and advancing human rights. This is the story told by democratic state structures. On the other hand, parties may seize power of a state by promising to secure privileges. This is characteristic of oligarchic or authoritarian states. It is, therefore, important to understand what rights are.

Rights are a social construct. In essence, rights are the story we tell about the limits of power in relation to one’s individual autonomy, or one’s ability to exercise Foundational Power. That story in modern societies can be told in one sentence.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sound familiar?

Of course, the original story is almost two-hundred and fifty years old. We have learned a great deal about rights since this story was written. So what are the basic elements of our story of rights?”

• Rights exist by virtue of our humanity
• Rights do not have to be proven
• Rights are universal
• Rights exist in equal measure
• Rights cannot be taken away
  • Due Process
• Rights are oriented around three fundamentals
  • The Right to Live
  • The Right to be Free
  • The Right to Pursue one’s own Ends

So, if rights are universal and held in equal measure, this infers certain responsibilities. As an individual possessed of rights, I have a responsibility not to trespass against your rights as an individual. If my exercise of a right to speak in turn silences you, then we are no longer talking about rights. What I am saying is that my right to speak is more important than your right to speak. We do not have this right in equal measure. That’s called a privilege. Privileges are distinct from rights and associated with my power to deny you your exercise of rights in equal measure.

It is my responsibility to exercise my rights only in so far as they do not interfere with your rights. That’s a tricky arrangement. In the event that I am irresponsible with my exercise of rights or power, we expect the state to intervene on the part of the party being trespassed against.

So long as almost everyone in a given society agrees with this story of rights, there are few reasons for the state to intervene. However, once a party makes a claim that their rights are primary, in other words, they start telling a story of privilege, then protection of rights is dependent upon the relative power of this party. Once this party gains enough power to challenge individual rights, society enters a problematic stage. Whenever rights bump up against power—rights lose.

The final video wraps up the lessons from all of the previous videos by discussing ways to empower human rights.

First, we update the story to account for our contemporary understanding.

We hold these truths to be self-evident that intrinsic to all human beings is the possession in equal measure of inalienable rights related to life, liberty, and the pursuit of one’s ends.

Empowering rights means structuring the foundational power (functional power) of those who share the story above (are internally motivated), into organizations dedicated to protecting, preserving, and promoting them. Fortunately, there are already many such organizations established for this purpose. They need our help.

So, I finish off this course with an ask. If rights are important to you, then find an organization dedicated to your priorities, join that organization, and dedicate some of your foundational power to your mutual ends.

That’s the only.

That’s the course. If you watched the videos in their entirety, then in just over thirty-six minutes you enjoyed a course on the state, rights, and power. You also learned how to use this knowledge toward the practical end of protecting rights not just for yourself, but for everyone.¹

Congratulations.

---

Footnotes

1. This course pulls a great deal from Max Weber’s theories on the state, legitimate power, and parties, for those who are looking for more of the social theory behind the videos. ↩︎