February 21, 2011

This is the second in a series exploring the questions I often ask when discussing liberty with those who believe that some form of involuntary "government" is both right and necessary.

First, let's dispense with the argument that some will make about the use of the word "rights." Some do not accept the idea of "rights" at all, or because people often preface the term with "God given." We're going to stipulate here that we're using the word "rights" as generally understood, as a frame of reference without going into the depths of intellectual nit picking.

A "right" is something that is yours as a part of being human, a condition of existence that does not depend on anyone else or their permission for you to exercise it.

So, what are the basic human rights?

The greatest is your right to live. You have an absolute right to live as long as you recognize and honor that same right for every other human being (the non aggression principle). Part of that right to life is the right to defend yourself and others. If someone or something attacks you or steals your property, you have a right to do whatever it might take to prevent that act of aggression.

You have a right to gain and keep property. Indeed, some scholars insist that property rights are the basis of all rights. Murry Rothbard in "Human Rights" as Property Rights says:

In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of "public policy" or the "public good."

What you gain through your own honest efforts, rather than aggression and theft, becomes your personal property just as much as is your body and choice of action.

From this comes the more abstract "rights" to free speech and travel; the right to enter into mutually agreeable contracts and to seek justice for theft, fraud and injury. It is the basis for the "Bill of Rights," but is not limited to that document.

Right away we can see that the word "right" is often terribly misunderstood and abused in our modern understanding and usage. The purely objective right to life and private property is something that does not require either permission from others, or the theft of their property to maintain.

Consider the difference between that and the so-called "right" to health care or "right" to "a living wage." Are these not subjective things? Can they be realized without taking something from one person and giving it to another? How does one have a "right" to the services of a doctor or payment of a wage not in agreement with the employer?

How about "gun rights" which include all manner of "permission" from the established "authorities" for their employment?

So, it is vital to truly understand human rights, and their relationship to non-aggression as a basic criteria for life. Then you are ready to ask this question when discussing freedom with others.