I’ve covered the definition of a right here and there. I
think it’s essential knowledge if you’re going to achieve freedom, prosperity,
and civilization, which is the goal here at the Spherical Model.
Bill of Rights in the US Constitution image from the National Archives |
In 2013 I wrote,
What is a right? Something you are entitled to just by virtue
of being born a human. God has granted it to you. Others are required to
respect your rights, but not to provide them out of thin air.
In the Economic Sphere section of the Spherical Model
website, in the section called “How to Tell What Is a Right,” I offer this:
Let’s be clear on what a right is: it is not a privilege,
something you might be granted under certain circumstances. It is something
that you deserve simply for being human. You do not have to earn a right; you
can’t rightfully be deprived of it (with possible forfeitures such as
committing capital crimes). If it is a right, it does not come from government;
it comes from God. Government may use its power to either guarantee a person’s
rights, or to deprive a person of his rights. Restraint from depriving a person
of his rights is not equivalent to granting rights. Rights simply do not come
from government.
So, if something is a right, it is a person’s natural right
whether there is a government entity guaranteeing it or not.
We’re born naked, impoverished, and inexperienced. It is by
growth, hard work, and gaining in expertise that we try to overcome this
condition throughout our life. We are born with the right to life, the right to
live free (not enslaved), and the right to pursue our own path to overcome the
naked impoverished state.
I came across an additional good source this weekend,
reading Dr. Larry Arnn’s book The Founders' Key. He does a good—and fair—job of laying out both the definition of
natural rights and the “progressive” definition of “positive rights,” as
defined by FDR. And then explains why we should prefer the way natural rights
are understood. He says,
The Founders thought that all our rights are connected. Our
right to property is based on the same facts as our freedom of speech. Our right
to the material things that we earn is founded in the same nature as our
freedom to worship and pray as we please. Our civil and political rights depend
on our ability to hold the means of our well-being in our own hands. We can have
no rights of any kind that do not leave “to everyone else the like advantage.” This means that nothing properly called a
right takes anything from anyone else.
[p. 62]
The highlight is mine. I thought that was a main idea worth
exploring.
Let’s look again at FDR’s list of “positive rights”:
In our day certain economic proofs have
become accepted as self-evident: a second bill of rights, under which a new
basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of
station or race or creed. Among these are:
·
the right to a useful and remunerative job, the
right to earn enough to provide food and clothing and recreation;
·
the right of every farmer to raise and sell his
products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
·
the right of every businessman, large and small,
to trade in an atmosphere of freedom—freedom from unfair competition and domination
by monopolies at home or abroad;
·
the right of every family to a decent home; the
right to adequate medical care, and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good
health;
·
the right to adequate protection from the
economic fears of old age—sickness, medicine, and unemployment;
·
the right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is
won, we must be prepared to move forward in the implementation of these rights
to new goals of happiness and well being. For unless there is security here and
home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
So, if you have the right to a “useful and remunerative job,”
then you have the right to an employer to provide it. If there’s a free-market
agreement between you and the employer, you both benefit. But if the employer
is coerced to provide for you, regardless of your skill or success in bringing
profit to the employer, the government must enslave the employer in order to
provide you with that “right.”
If you have the right, as a farmer, to raise and grow
whatever you want, regardless of market supply and demand, and receive a
particular government-set rate of return—even in a season when crops fail and
the farmer provides nothing of value to society—then someone is going to be
coerced into giving that farmer his “rightful” share, regardless of whether the
farmer provides value.
The right to trade in a free market is a good idea; a monopoly is not a free-market idea. There are
sensible laws to prevent monopolies from keeping supply and demand from working.
However, if a company innovates and creates something new, they aren’t required
to also create a competitor. They simply put their product out there and
compete when/if a competitor shows up. So that one depends on whether
government does its policing role to protect free trade, or steps in to pick
winners and losers, which ends up actually interfering with free trade.
If every family has a “right” to a “decent” home, who buys
it for the family that can’t afford it? And who decides what “decent” means? If
everyone has the “right” to adequate medical care, who is coerced to provide it
or pay for it? And who decides what “adequate” means? And while it sounds nice
to allow everyone the “opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” who
decides what the opportunity consists of? If illness or disabilities are
preventing that person from enjoying good health, who is required to intervene
and see to it that the person doesn’t have to suffer? And how, if a solution is
unknown?
If someone has the “right” to be free from financial worry
in old age—whether or not they work and save, or have higher than normal health
care costs because of inadequate self-care or just circumstances beyond their
control—who must be coerced to provide for that person?
If a person has a “right” to a “good” education, shouldn’t
teachers be providing that for free? Shouldn’t builders be building the
necessary buildings for free? If so, who works for free to provide housing and
food for the teachers and builders? And who gets to decide what qualifies as “good”?
While it sounds nice to “give” security to every citizen, a
government isn’t God; and a government isn’t a wealth source. Government is
power, and a cost. Everything government does is a cost to society. So anything
it “provides” that costs money must be taken from someone who earned that
money.
So let’s be clear: if government is “giving” us rights that
we weren’t born with, government is coercing someone to work to provide for
someone else it deems worthy. Government deprives Person A of his natural
rights to life, liberty, and/or property in order to give the illusion it is
providing the extra, “positive rights” for Person B. Whatever Person B feels, Person
A rightly feels oppressed by that arrangement.
image found here |
If we want people to have some basic shelter, food, health
care, and education, there’s a way a free people can do that: charitable
giving. Local charities and philanthropies are a lot better at identifying the
best way to provide those things than governments can ever be. Then, a person
decides when he can afford to offer from his surplus, and he can decide what
conditions apply when he makes his donation.
We can do that with anything that is not a natural, God-given
right, but is nice to have. We can accumulate enough to offer it freely to
those who can’t manage to work their way out of their naked, impoverished, and
inexperienced state. We can care about, and for, one another.
Government has no feelings. It is only coercion. That power should be limited to necessary protections of our life, liberty, and property.
No comments:
Post a Comment