Rights: What they are and what they are not.
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
Rights: What they are and what they are not.
Rights are "unalienable". This means they exist irrespective of and precede government. They are part and parcel of your existence. In our founder's time Jefferson wrote of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of independence. Many in his time considered them to be endowed to us by God, while others by nature, but either belief acknowledged their preeminent existence. Very influential to the founders was Locke's position and first principles of rights to life, liberty and property. They all stem from the primary truth that human beings own themselves and that property rights are a logical extension of this right. No one, group, or government agency has superior right to the fruits of your labor.
Rights are universal and cannot be in conflict with the rights of others. That is the test of a true right.
They belong to all or they are not a natural right. Kings do not have more rights than others. Rights can be exercised by all without conflict. They can be exercised by all simultaneously without conflict.
If I claim a right such as a right to a job that imposes a duty on others to provide that job, it can't actually be a right. If I claim as a right, food stamps or welfare that must be paid for by someone else, that imposes a duty on others. It is not a right. It is in contradiction with others' rights since it makes them subservient and forces them to make their rights subject to mine. It is therefore, not a true right. If one must make themselves or others subordinate in any way, then it is not an exercise of a true right. If a duty is placed on anyone else in order to fulfill, or exercise an activity, it is not a right.
It is one's natural right to voluntarily trade one's goods and services, but it is not a right to demand that one do so or to take by force the goods or services of another. This is no less so if it is done by a third party in the name of government through the use or threat of force. Everyone can participate in free trade at their discretion and no interference or conflict can occur even if all wish to participate simultaneously. We can offer to purchase the product or service of others at any price we wish, but no one is obliged to accept. No positive action is required.
This test is easily applied to all circumstances. If a positive action is required of others it is not a right.
Today the progressives have turned the meaning of rights upside down. They believe in a positive view of rights that imposes duties on others. A right to healthcare, housing, internet, college, etc. is a positive view, of a larger philosophy of legal positivism which claims a right is not an independent natural right, but anything the government dictates. The Jeffersonian and traditional view is a negative view, since it only restrains others from action. It imposes no positive action on others. The restraint is only one of non-interference of the rights of others. This includes the prohibition of interference by government. This is why many statist progressives will not recognize the true nature of rights.
The truly greedy and selfish among us are those progressives that would deny the rights of others and make them subservient to their Utopian dreams built on legal positivism. If they achieve their goal of complete legal positivism, the elites among them might live in their utopia, but the majority of us would find ourselves living as serfs in a hell of their making.
Summary: A right is prior to government, an integral part of an individual (there are no group rights). A need or desire does not constitute a right if it must be provided at someone else's expense, or effort. You have a right to anything you can acquire or achieve so long as no one else is compelled to provide it or its materials and it does not interfere with the free exercise of the rights of others.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Rights are "unalienable". This means they exist irrespective of and precede government. They are part and parcel of your existence. In our founder's time Jefferson wrote of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of independence. Many in his time considered them to be endowed to us by God, while others by nature, but either belief acknowledged their preeminent existence. Very influential to the founders was Locke's position and first principles of rights to life, liberty and property. They all stem from the primary truth that human beings own themselves and that property rights are a logical extension of this right. No one, group, or government agency has superior right to the fruits of your labor.
Rights are universal and cannot be in conflict with the rights of others. That is the test of a true right.
They belong to all or they are not a natural right. Kings do not have more rights than others. Rights can be exercised by all without conflict. They can be exercised by all simultaneously without conflict.
If I claim a right such as a right to a job that imposes a duty on others to provide that job, it can't actually be a right. If I claim as a right, food stamps or welfare that must be paid for by someone else, that imposes a duty on others. It is not a right. It is in contradiction with others' rights since it makes them subservient and forces them to make their rights subject to mine. It is therefore, not a true right. If one must make themselves or others subordinate in any way, then it is not an exercise of a true right. If a duty is placed on anyone else in order to fulfill, or exercise an activity, it is not a right.
It is one's natural right to voluntarily trade one's goods and services, but it is not a right to demand that one do so or to take by force the goods or services of another. This is no less so if it is done by a third party in the name of government through the use or threat of force. Everyone can participate in free trade at their discretion and no interference or conflict can occur even if all wish to participate simultaneously. We can offer to purchase the product or service of others at any price we wish, but no one is obliged to accept. No positive action is required.
This test is easily applied to all circumstances. If a positive action is required of others it is not a right.
Today the progressives have turned the meaning of rights upside down. They believe in a positive view of rights that imposes duties on others. A right to healthcare, housing, internet, college, etc. is a positive view, of a larger philosophy of legal positivism which claims a right is not an independent natural right, but anything the government dictates. The Jeffersonian and traditional view is a negative view, since it only restrains others from action. It imposes no positive action on others. The restraint is only one of non-interference of the rights of others. This includes the prohibition of interference by government. This is why many statist progressives will not recognize the true nature of rights.
The truly greedy and selfish among us are those progressives that would deny the rights of others and make them subservient to their Utopian dreams built on legal positivism. If they achieve their goal of complete legal positivism, the elites among them might live in their utopia, but the majority of us would find ourselves living as serfs in a hell of their making.
Summary: A right is prior to government, an integral part of an individual (there are no group rights). A need or desire does not constitute a right if it must be provided at someone else's expense, or effort. You have a right to anything you can acquire or achieve so long as no one else is compelled to provide it or its materials and it does not interfere with the free exercise of the rights of others.
Respectfully,
O.A.
