Law and order isn't a "civil right"

The "law and order" candidate for mayor in my city says that law and order is a "civil right." I've already explained that I'm voting for that candidate in part because of his "law and order" position, but I disagree with him. Law and order isn't a civil right.

I see a civil right is a claim we as individuals have against the state. It's not a claim on the state. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't make claims on the state, but that making such a claim isn't claiming a civil right.

We could probably dispute why states exist and what purposes the do serve and ought to serve. But any such discussion will have to contemplate the state's responsibility to promote public order as a good for all people to enjoy. There are a lot of value-laden words in that last sentence: "public," "order," "a good," and "all people" all require extensive discussion. But waiving that discussion, I do think I can say a state should promote public order as a good for all people to enjoy.

A civil right is something an individual can invoke against the state as the state seeks to provide that "good."

I have probably, in the past, described certain things as a "right" or as a "civil right" that go against the definition I'm using in this blog post. I almost definitely described state-assured health care as a right. I say now that I was wrong to do so. That doesn't mean I oppose state-assured health care. I support it and wish the state assurance were more robust than it is. But I no longer see it as a "right."

Now, that candidate isn't really trying to summon a philosophical debate on the nature of "rights" and the obligations of government. He's trying to win votes and to do so in a way designed to appeal to two groups. The first is poorer people, especially persons of color, who see, and are often right to see, appeals to "law and order" as code for terrorizing and targeting black and brown persons. The candidate wants to argue that law and order is a good thing from which those very persons can and deserve to benefit. The second group includes relatively affluent, liberal-leaning people like me. His rhetoric assures us that we can support law and order without being racist or being against poor people.

I think he's right on the merits. poorer people stand to benefit greatly from a system that secures public safety. If someone isn't safe on the street or on mass transit, they can't do the other things that make life livable or worth living. 

But even so, we need to recognize that the law and order position, which I'm inclined to support this time around, comes with real costs. Those costs are curbs against civil liberties along some margin. I hope that margin is very slim, but it exists. Calling law and order a civil rights obfuscates the tradeoff, and we shouldn't do that.

Law and Order: a good thing but also a siren call

Two people are running for mayor in my city. One is the "law and order" candidate and the other isn't. I plan to vote for the law and order candidate and largely because he's the law and order candidate.*

Of course, both candidates claim to want to make my city safer. Each, when pressed, will probably say he supports the "rule of law." But the "law and order" candidate is much more likely to promote aggressive enforcement and much more likely to strengthen the prerogatives of the police department and its officers. If he's successful, we just might see fewer carjackings and fewer muggings. I actually might feel safer.

The other candidate claims to want to address crime "holistically,"