"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
It's apparent that Democrats have no understanding of the word, as they use it to mean whatever issue they happen to support.
Abortion? That's a right.
Forming a Union? That's a right.
Going to school? That's a right.
Silencing those who offend you? That's a right.
Yeah, Dems are real big on the inalienable nature of rights, well, until you get to some that they find a bit too icky.
Like the right to bear arms.
The right to disagree with them.
The right to worship God publicly. Unless your god is allah, in which case, they are ok with it.
Most importantly, in the world of a Democrat, their rights always trump yours.
Their right to feel "comfortable" in public trumps your right to defend yourself.
Their right to indoctrinate your children in their social paradigm trumps your right to raise your children according to your beliefs.
Their right to engineer society trumps your right to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
The rights of the group always trump the rights of the individual, unless that individual is part of a specially protected class.
Or a member of the elite. Right, Senator?
All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that the left just doesn't know what a right really is. It's not too surprising really, since whether by design or incompetence, we aren't taught a much about what a right is in government schools. Oh, they're really good at telling us about what rights we're given by the government, a statement which instantly demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the nature of rights, but as for the definition or origin of those rights, well, they get a bit vague.
"A right is something that you are given by the government."
"A right is a contract between you and society; as long as you follow society's rules, you can expect society to honor those rights."
"A right is something that can't be taken away from you."
"A right is something you are born with, inherent in your very nature."
That last one is hitting close to the mark, but ultimately fails to really explain anything. I was born with two eyes; that doesn't mean I have a right to see 20/20.
So, how do you define a right? What is it?
Let's try this definition for starters:
A right is an expectation of freedom of action.
It's a bit clunky, but it captures the essence of what I'm talking about. When we talk about having a right to do something, we're saying that we expect that we have the freedom to take action. For example:
"I have a right to my opinion," means that I expect to form and hold an opinion without suffering a negative consequence.
"I have a right to walk in the park," means that I expect to be able to walk through the park without suffering a negative consequence.
So it works, but it doesn't really go far enough. Why do I have that expectation of no negative consequences? Why do I have the expectation of any freedom of action?
As an ethicist, I could claim that "rights" are a useful fiction, used to bolster the dubious proposition that human life has some special value that must be preserved. Similarly, as a political scientist, I could claim that "rights" represent a social contract between society (the group) and the individual and represent nothing more than the degrees of freedom of action the individual refuses to surrender in order to maintain his place in the group. In these two definitions, rights are not absolute, but vary based on cultural priorities. That's a little bit too murky for me; if human rights depend on cultural biases and social contracts, then they really aren't rights as we usually think of them. Instead they are privileges granted to the weak individual by the powerful group. The nature of a right is that it is founded in the individual, not the group. It is a recognition of the inherent autonomy and freedom of the individual. At its heart, a right is nothing more than the self-recognition that the individual ultimately has more worth than the social group it inhabits.
And now we're getting somewhere. A right is the expression of an individual's recognition of his ultimate worth through an expectation of freedom of action.
"I am a being with value to myself, therefore, I expect that I can hold an opinion without fear of negative consequences."
That works. Sure it's a cumbersome definition, but if you think about it, a right is a very complex thing to define. It requires some depth and detail to nail it down.
Now, we often speak about how one person's rights end when they infringe on another person's rights, a saying that indicates an intuitive grasp of the definition we've just derived. But let's look at it a little bit closer, in light of our definition and see just why that statement is true. If my actions restrict the actions of another, then I have violated his rights. Unless we choose to assume that some individuals have more value than others, I have no way to justify my actions. Put generally, if a right is an expression and recognition of the value of an individual, it follows that any action which impinges on the freedom of actions of another individual cannot be a right. So, it seems clear that I have no right to take an action which restricts or impedes another person's rights, unless we have an agreement in place to voluntarily accept restrictions on our rights to foster a group or community.
Do you see the difference between the earlier definitions and this one? In the political science definition, the group held the power to determine the restrictions of rights, in effect destroying the autonomy of the individuals comprising the group. Using the correct definition, the individuals retain their rights, voluntarily restricting the expression of those rights. This difference is crucial to understanding the difference between the progressive, authoritarian approach to government and the conservative libertarian approach.
Let's look at health care for example. Liberals love to claim that access to quality health care is a right, but is it really? In order for everyone to have access to health care, somebody has to provide it. That means that a "right" to health care is going to restrict another individual's rights by forcing them to provide the health care, either by doing the work, or paying for it. By our definition of right, this is an impossibility. Remember, nobody has the right to restrict another individual's rights, except through common agreement. The use of force or coercion to extract that agreement is in itself a violation of their rights.
Obviously, health care cannot be a right, since it imposes a burden upon others who may not be willing to accept that burden. Now this doesn't mean that the group cannot impose that duty as a cost of membership in the group, but that makes health care a privilege of membership, not a right. And that privilege comes with the responsibility to pay the cost associated with it. In a perfect world, it should also come with the ability to opt out of the group if you are not willing to bear the burden or accept the benefit of the privilege, but that is problematic in the real world.
Looked at in this light, we see that a lot of the "rights" claimed by folks on both sides of the aisle are not really rights at all. They are privileges afforded by living in a wealthy, technologically advanced society. Education, housing, food, health care, social security, all of these are privileges, not rights, as each imposes burdens on other individuals with or without their consent.
So the next time you hear somebody spouting off about the "right" to this or that, just ask one simple question. Does it place a burden or restriction on another individual? If the answer is "Yes" then it isn't a right.
It really is that simple.
