Video Library

Get Flash!

All For One And One For All

In August 2007, iCitizenForum interviewed Manny Hidalgo, Executive Director of the Latino Economic Development Corporation in Washington, D.C. The full interview can be viewed here.

In the above clip Manny explains to us that when the rights of one group are under threat, the rights of all of us are under threat. We should not stand by and let others have their rights restricted or infringed upon because if we do, we are opening the door for everyone’s rights to be infringed upon. Manny’s statement reminded me of the sentiment expressed by the founders of the United States, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence, "all men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights", in other words, our rights are given to us by god purely by virtue of being, and are not any privilege given to us by a state or peoples.

The danger that Manny alerted in the interview was that if we accept the curtailment of one group in society’s fundamental rights, we are accepting that these rights are no longer universal, but exclusive to some.

We leave ourselves open to persecution because with exclusive rights, we have to decide who gets them and who doesn’t. This process leaves open the possibility that rights will be granted to some and taken from others based on political decisions.

The revolutionary nature of the US constitution was that it outlined rights that were to be enjoyed by all, perhaps the first document to do so. For the founders, writing at a time where there was no American citizenship, the rights outlined in documents such as the bill of rights are not the rights of Americans exclusively but the rights of all who live in America. For people like Manny, this sentiment is as strong today as it was at the founding of the nation.

Filed Under: immigration

liberalitis asks a profound question…

and while Jefferson and the Enlightenment thinkers were and are correct that all people have certain equal and unalienable rights, the founding idea of America set in motion a whole series of contradictions: One is that the exercise of some "rights" without limits will inevitably infringe upon the same or different "rights" of another. Does this make any sense. Yes. We Americans have forever spoken of "liberty" and "equality" as if they were opposite sides of one coin. The sort of are - opposites. At the limits they are mutually exclusive. My absolute "liberty" is not absolute but ends just short of doing harm to my neighbor. If I grant to my neighbor "equal" rights then I must thereby limit my "liberty" to do as I please. It is one of the struggles of a democratic society, to find and refine the balance between "liberty" and "equality."

So what happens if the rights of two people or groups come into conflict with each other? how do we decide who’s should win out?

Leave a Comment:

Verification Question
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
seven - = three
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
You can change notification settings on your user account edit page.