What is a Right?

[GenSeneca]

What is a Right?

If you post the definition of a Right, you have failed. I'm looking for you to explain how you determine whether or not something is a Right, a formula if you will. I have an example that explains about 99% of what determines whether or not something is a Right: You can exercise the proposed Right all alone on a deserted island.

Right to free speech? Yes, I can exercise that Right while alone on a deserted island.

Rights do not require that other people take any action in order for you to exercise your Right.

Right to a Home? No, this is not a Right, I could not exercise this "Right" while alone on a deserted island as there is no one to build the house for me, I would have to build it myself.

Right to work? Yes, I can build my own home on a deserted island, this Right does not require an action on the part of anyone else.

Right to a Job? No, this is not a Right, there is no one around to give me a job.

Right to keep the products of my labor? Yes, I can keep the products of my labor to do with as I see fit.

Right to the products of someone elses labor? No, this is not a Right, there is no one else on the island from which I can take the products of their labor.

---

Now lets look at the difference between a Right and a Privilege: You do not need permission to legally exercise a Right.

Free speech? This is a Right, I do not need permission from anyone to legally exercise this Right.

Drive a car? This is a Privilege, I require permission in the form of a license to legally exercise this action.

---

So these are the questions I put before you, how do you determine what is, and what is not, a Right and how do you differentiate between a Right and a Privilege?

 

[steveox]

A Job is a right
Higher Education is a right
Housing is a right
Food is a right
Heath Protection is a right
Socialize with a relationship is a right
Free speech with thoughts is a right

 

[Rick]

To a leftwinger, everything they want to give their political constituencies is a right. Leftwingers also think they belong to groups.

Legally, rights in the US are those spelled out in the constitution.

My general definition of rights is those prerogatives of individuals that can be rationally determined to be beneficial to individuals first, and secondarily to society as a whole, and that are effective only if they can't be removed by the government or other social entities.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Something I wrote many years ago:

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

A Job is a right
Higher Education is a right
Housing is a right
Food is a right
Heath Protection is a right
Socialize with a relationship is a right
Free speech with thoughts is a right

Then I demand you give me a job, a college education, a house, food, health care, and a girlfriend. If I have the right to these things, then someone must be obligated to provide me with them. If that person is not you, then who is obligated to provide such things?

 

[GenSeneca]

To a leftwinger, everything they want to give their political constituencies is a right. Leftwingers also think they belong to groups.

Leftists seem to think anything they claim is a right, is a right... Just look at steve's reply.

Legally, rights in the US are those spelled out in the constitution.

Even the constitution states that not all our rights are enumerated in the Constitution.

My general definition of rights is those prerogatives of individuals that can be rationally determined to be beneficial to individuals first, and secondarily to society as a whole, and that are effective only if they can't be removed by the government or other social entities.

Way too much use of subjective terms... Who determines what is beneficial? Steve thinks he has a right to free healthcare... Since that is beneficial to him and arguably to society as a whole, wouldn't you have to argue in favor of free healthcare?

 

[GenSeneca]

Something I wrote many years ago:

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

Good stuff LA... I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what differentiates Rights from Privileges, if you're so inclined.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your body is yours to do with as you please. The resources of nature that have not been claimed are free to take from to meet your needs provided that you do not take more than you can use without waste. What you make with those resources with your own body is yours. Others violate rights if they harm or take what is yours and you violate rights if you take or harm what is theirs.

Rights are tied to property. As in life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness (property).

Both the founding fathers and I cheated since we both took those ideas from John Locke.

 

[Rick]

Leftists seem to think anything they claim is a right, is a right... Just look at steve's reply.


Even the constitution states that not all our rights are enumerated in the Constitution.


Way too much use of subjective terms... Who determines what is beneficial? Steve thinks he has a right to free healthcare... Since that is beneficial to him and arguably to society as a whole, wouldn't you have to argue in favor of free healthcare?

I posted the short answer. Free health care can't be considered as a right because:

1. There's no such thing

2. By free health care is meant government controlled health care by those who advocate it, which is not beneficial because in practice such systems ration care and let people die

3. No rational rights can be predicated on theft from other people which is what "free health care" does

etc etc etc

As to "beneficial" being subjective, I define it based on nearly universal values: although someone might be believe that the government has a right to kill you on a whim, the overwhelming majority agree that it does not - ergo it's an example of not being beneficial.

 

[GenSeneca]

2. By free health care is meant government controlled health care by those who advocate it, which is not beneficial because in practice such systems ration care and let people die

According to UHC advocates, the private sector rations care and lets people die by only providing health services to people who can afford them. UHC advocates think it's more fair for government to pick and choose who gets health services, i.e., they believe government can more equitably ration care than the private sector.

How do you argue against those claims?

3. No rational rights can be predicated on theft from other people which is what "free health care" does

I stated that, "Rights do not require that other people take any action in order for you to exercise your Right."

Do you agree with that statement?

As to "beneficial" being subjective, I define it based on nearly universal values: although someone might be believe that the government has a right to kill you on a whim, the overwhelming majority agree that it does not - ergo it's an example of not being beneficial.

I was using the example of UHC, not arbitrarily putting you to death, so lets stick with that example.

Steve believes it is beneficial for him to get free healthcare, UHC advocates also agree that it's not only to his benefit but the benefit of all society that he get free healthcare. Their argument is entirely rational, it just isn't moral, ethical, or just.

Now if you don't like that example, perhaps you will consider this.

I believe it is my right to destroy the products of my labor. For instance, building a wooden chair in my garage. Should I choose to destroy it, I gain no benefit and neither does society. According to your definition, do I have the right to destroy my own property?

 

[steveox]

Then I demand you give me a job, a college education, a house, food, health care, and a girlfriend. If I have the right to these things, then someone must be obligated to provide me with them. If that person is not you, then who is obligated to provide such things?

This old Soviet Union had those rights. Its called the Consitution of the Soviet Union. Look it up.

 

[GenSeneca]

This old Soviet Union had those rights. Its called the Consitution of the Soviet Union. Look it up.

You did not answer my question:

Who is obligated to provide me with those things?

 

[steveox]

You did not answer my question:

Who is obligated to provide me with those things?

Move to North Korea. They can provide you with those things.

 

[Rick]

According to UHC advocates, the private sector rations care and lets people die by only providing health services to people who can afford them.

That companies don't cover people who can't pay has nothing to do with a discussion of rights. Companies NEVER promised to cover people who can't pay. Thus the claim that they "let" people die is a falsehood when they never said they were going to cover them. Compare that with the demonstrably fraudulent claim of the government that it will offer universal health care, when all evidence points to the fact that that is simply false. But all that is neither here nor there in a discussion of RIGHTS.

UHC advocates think it's more fair for government to pick and choose who gets health services, i.e., they believe government can more equitably ration care than the private sector.

There's no evidence of that at all, but you have to decide what you're talking about - "fairness", or rights? They are two separate topics.

I stated that, "Rights do not require that other people take any action in order for you to exercise your Right."

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

I was using the example of UHC, not arbitrarily putting you to death, so lets stick with that example.

You missed the point - that example had nothing to do with healthcare, but was a response to your question as to who decides what's "beneficial". My point was that 99% of people will agree to a value system which at least delineates a core set of conditions which are "beneficial".

Steve believes it is beneficial for him to get free healthcare, UHC advocates also agree that it's not only to his benefit but the benefit of all society that he get free healthcare. Their argument is entirely rational, it just isn't moral, ethical, or just.

It's not even rational, in that it is based on a false claim. If 60 year olds are denied heart surgery by the NHS, with doctors ready, able, and willing to save their lives, than how can anyone claim that they are "getting health care?"

I believe it is my right to destroy the products of my labor. For instance, building a wooden chair in my garage. Should I choose to destroy it, I gain no benefit and neither does society. According to your definition, do I have the right to destroy my own property?

It IS beneficial, insofar as it is a free act. Although freedom is highly beneficial to a society, it itself is an item of value independent of whether it also leads to any side benefits.

 

[Apathy]

You can do anything you wish as long as you do not infringe on others.

Those who confuse rights with entitlements are gravely mistaken the world owes you nothing but death.