Rights vs. Licensure

Any proclaimed “right” that requires a license, permit, or charter from a municipality, state, or federal agency is in fact a privilege and falls under rational basis review. Any right enumerated in the constitution is an actual right and falls under strict scrutiny. Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly are all examples of “rights” properly speaking. Corporate charters, building permits, driver’s licenses and marriage licenses are examples of privileges that can be withheld by state discretion as long as the restriction is reasonable. I bring this up, because the language of rights is loosely used in emotionally laden arguments, particularly on the left side of the spectrum, to lay claim to things which are neither guaranteed by our Constitution or by their state constitution. Generally, the latter guarantees more rights than the former as it should under a federalist system where powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, counties, municipalities or people themselves. I would not want HUD or BLM controlling zoning ordinances and city planning in St. Tammany parish, even though I disagree with how my parish has been planned. We’ve already seen what happens when a federal agency controls land use policy for people and their local government has no control over zoning or planning on Indian reservations. Poverty and misery inevitably ensue wherever property rights are diminished and far off bureaucrats manage the economy. The virtue of federalism or subsidiarity (as it is called in Distributist circles) is delegating the most mundane concerns to agents who are closest to the people they affect.