Rights vs. Wishes

Townhall.com ^ | September 25, 2002 | Walter Williams

[Federalist Society]

I read this article several years ago by economist Walter Williams. It bears reading again.

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?

If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"

As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."

By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.

Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

[Sacajaweau]

We need a new amendment to the Bill of Rights...Right to Medical Care without government interference....BUT, it's too late...we have Medicare and Medicaid and the powers of the government over your health issues will only increase.

Interesting that pregnant women will get the H1N1 vaccine first....but the government funds abortion through Planned Parenthood...

[NurdlyPeon]

A right confers no obligation on another.

Bingo. THE single most important statement in the entire piece.

[BuffaloJack]

You have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That doesn’t mean that you will get any of these rights because you want them. It just means that governments should not stand in your way of achieving them. If you aren’t happy, it is because you didn’t try hard enough to pursue the goals that would make you happy.

[Huebolt]

Alas, Rome did “bread and circuses”... for awhile. Here come the Huns, and Nero is set to fiddle, he’s just called “Zero” this time.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government.”
The “delegate to government” part is what needs to be reined in. While we specifically delegate to government to “provide for the common defense”, we do not delegate to them the right to prevent us from defending ourselves individually or even collectively. The greatest travesty has been in allowing government to assume the attitude exemplified by recent DemonRAT’s that our responsibility is to them, not vice - versa. Government has become the only entity that thinks it's recession proof, when in fact it should be the thing that is reduced in size during economic downturns. Congress critters have commandeered for themselves staffs, perks and benefits of royalty that they are not entitled to. Those should be immediately taken away and the cost savings used to pay off the national debt.

[EmilyGeiger]

Good post. Walter Williams has a good mind, love how he explains things.

[libertarian27]

A Wish is a Right

Ingsoc: Life, Liberty and the Department of Happiness

[BlueLancer]

"If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote."

"Larceny on the part of the individual is theft. Grand larceny on the part of the government is economics."
The Golden Rendezvous (Alistair Maclean)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESISTOR

Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for, someday, sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.

Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK)

[Graybeard58]

You didn't like this part?

If you're a Christian or simply a moral human being, you should be against these so-called rights. After all, when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure that he didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there is a majority vote in Congress. Moreover, I'm sure that if you were to have a heart-to-heart conversation with God and asked him, "God, is it OK to be a recipient of stolen property, property that Congress has taken from another American?" I'm guessing He'd say that being a recipient of stolen property is also sinful.

[DuncanWaring]

That would have also been a good place to work in “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”.