"No right is absolute ...." Such were the words uttered by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg upon befittingly reinstating property rights through an NYPD raid on the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zuccotti Park exactly one week ago today. However, it is clear that the mayor does not have a complete understanding of rights (and being that he is an elected official sworn to uphold and protect the rights of the people, this ought to alarm every NYC resident).
It's important, first, for me to give a simple explanation of what rights are and how they work in a free society. A right is a moral sanction on man to act freely, absent the imposition of coercion and physical interference towards others. It imposes on others only that of a negative obligation, meaning they are simply required to leave you alone and not interfere in your affairs! (For a more concrete explanation of rights, I recommend "Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society," by Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard.)
Contrary to the mayor's seemingly mystical belief that rights are not absolute, THEY ARE! What is meant by the term "absolute" is that so long as one respects the rights of another, there is no moral legitimacy to the violation of one's rights. If "Person A" acts in a way that violates the rights of "Person B," then "Person A" automatically waives the absolution of his rights and the government's role is to step in to administer justice.
In order to understand how the actions of the OWS protesters are a violation of rights, I once again, turn to the voice of reason, Ayn Rand, who once wrote about actions of civil disobedience such as this:
This is exactly why the raid on OWS was both morally and legally justified, albeit, two months late (another reason to believe Mayor Bloomberg is clueless about rights). It wasn't this false notion that "no right is absolute" which legitimized the mayor's actions, but that rights violations were INITIATED by OWS which waived the absolution of their rights and legitimized forceful RETALIATION by the police. That's a BIG difference, Mr. Mayor.
"The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."
This is exactly why the raid on OWS was both morally and legally justified, albeit, two months late (another reason to believe Mayor Bloomberg is clueless about rights). It wasn't this false notion that "no right is absolute" which legitimized the mayor's actions, but that rights violations were INITIATED by OWS which waived the absolution of their rights and legitimized forceful RETALIATION by the police. That's a BIG difference, Mr. Mayor.
