"Liberalism" and "Rights"

I ran across an interesting article from The National Center for Policy Analysis on the distinction between "economic liberties" and "civil liberties." It also helps us understand the meaning of the world "liberal." From their website:

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.
National Center for Policy Analysis - About Us

They pose the question, What Is Classical Liberalism? In Europe and in 19th century America, "liberal" meant "conservative" (in the Reagan/Goldwater sense of smaller, less intrusive government). Milton Friedman once said of Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990: "The thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not (in terms of belief) a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."

In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture, Mrs. Thatcher argued that "The kind of Conservatism which he and I ... favoured would be best described as "liberal," in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists." She once slammed a copy of Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a Shadow Cabinet meeting, saying, "This is what we believe."

NCPA says,

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government.

At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature.

If I may interrupt: human "nature" and human rights, according to America's Founding Fathers, are not the product of meaningless mutations in an impersonal, evolving universe. Rather, they are the product of Intelligent Design. The Declaration says human beings are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights. Continuing the quote:

Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

Another interruption: Not only can we dissolve government, the Declaration says we have a DUTY to abolish tyrannical governments.
OK, here's the beef:

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate
• where people work,
• when they work,
• the wages they work for,
• what they can buy,
• what they can sell,
• the price they can sell it for,
• etc.

Notice again this statement:

The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not.

If it is correct to state that 20th century liberals do not believe in "economic rights," would it be correct to infer that 19th century liberals believed in "economic rights" but not "civil rights?" I don't think so. Do modern liberals believe in the same "civil rights" as classical liberals? I wonder.

Speaking of "economic liberties," then, for the old-fashioned liberal, individual "economic" liberties make up "the pursuit of happiness," pursued in conformity to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." For the modern liberal, government has the right to obstruct the pursuit of happiness by individuals. Continuing:

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties.

Is this really true?
Is there really a difference between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties?
Is there any evidence that the Signers of the Declaration of Independence believed in any such distinction?
Did anyone in the 18th or 19th century distinguish between "economic" liberties and "civil" liberties? NCPA has already given us the answer: Those who follow Jefferson and the Founders

do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties

Do 20th century liberals really respect the same "civil" liberties which America's Founders respected?
Do modern liberals believe in the same rights America's Founders did?
Continuing:

By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.

In its article on "Civil Liberties," Wikipedia says:

Common civil liberties include
• freedom of association,
• freedom of assembly,
• freedom of religion, and
• freedom of speech, and additionally,
• the right to due process,
• to fair trial,
• to own property,
• to keep and bear arms and
• to privacy.

I can't think of anyone who believes in "economic rights" who does not also believe in freedom of assembly, religion, speech, property and arms -- and in fact believes in all of these "civil rights," except possibly the non-constitutional right of "privacy," which in practice means "the right to violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God in your own home."

Just as the meaning of "liberal" was transformed from the 19th century definition of "pro-liberty for producers" to the 20th century definition of "anti-liberty for producers," so the meaning of "economic rights" has changed from "rights of producers" to "rights of consumers." Here's an excerpt from a speech by Barack Obama:

Third thing -- we've got to recognize that we fought for civil rights, but we've still got a lot of economic rights that have to be dealt with. We've got 46 million people uninsured in this country despite spending more money on health care than any nation on earth. It makes no sense. As a consequence, we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap.
Blacks are less likely in their schools to have adequate funding. We have less-qualified teachers in those schools. We have fewer textbooks in those schools. We got [sic] in some schools rats outnumbering computers. That's called the achievement gap. You've got a health care gap and you've got an achievement gap. You've got Katrina still undone.

Economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (both Nobel Prize-winners) have shown that when government "guarantees" or tries to provide these "rights" (education, healthcare, housing and urban development) people are less educated, less likely to be able to see a doctor or have a surgery, and are not going to have decent housing.

I'd like to suggest that if a right isn't an "economic" right (as described by NCPA and not Obama) then it is a spurious right, such as the "right" to abortion or same-sex "marriage."

I'd also like to suggest that none of the real rights (with which we are endowed by our Creator) can be provided by government; they can only be infringed upon by government. America's Founding Fathers believed government was the biggest threat to our God-given rights.

"Civil rights" turn out on closer inspection to be the "right" to be lazy and irresponsible. It is the "right" to be free of the consequences of violating "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It's the right to get something for nothing.

It turns out the entire concept of "rights" should be frankly and explicitly abandoned in favor of the concept of "duties" according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."