Rights versus Responsibilities

Globally these days, rights are commonly fused with responsibilities in discussion, as though one cannot have one without the other. The Left and the Right in America believe in this fusion as dearly as they believe in the concept of involuntary servitude embodied in obligatory national service. Rightly so, rights-as-fused-with-responsibilities is as collectivistic as obligatory national service.

We have discussed the proper concept of rights and some counterfeit "rights" on 6th Column Against Jihad. Readers will find information there and references to other sources for greater detail.

Here, it is necessary to mention only certain key aspects of the concept of rights in order to set the context for blowing the notion of fused rights and responsibilities out of the water.

First, rights are moral principles derived from the facts of human nature, namely that each human must provide for the upkeep and furtherance of his own individual life. That is his basic responsibility. Rights are actions needed for providing that upkeep and furtherance. They are born into each human, and they are, to quote Thomas Jefferson, "unalienable," meaning that they CAN NOT be taken away, given away, or granted. They may be violated, and the proper role of a government is protect each citizen's rights. Thus, all humans individually are born with the four fundamental rights to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All other authentic "rights" are derivative from these fundamental rights.

That brings up the second real responsibility. Rights can be violated by the initiation of physical force directly or by the initiation of indirect equivalents of physical force such as fraud. Thus, each person has the responsibility not to violate the rights of any other human, or face civil and criminal action for doing so.

That's it. That is the end of the responsibilities: Responsibility for one's own upkeep and not initiating force against others.

The push globally to fuse rights and responsibilities reflects intent other than these two basic responsibilities because too many humans in America and globally view man from a collectivist perspective. Man, to them, must be harnessed to duties, they believe. These duties are the "responsibilities."

For example, the right to liberty means to these people that liberty contains a dark side. They portray liberty as freedom, sliding it into "license," meaning narcissistic impulsive action. They try to sell this notion as inherent in "liberty," which it is not. The responsibility of not violating the rights of others fully takes care of any rights violating behaviors by those given to it. But, some people have a vested interest in smuggling erroneous elements into concepts such as rights to take advantage of the poor understanding people have in general about rights. It is a softening up process to bilk people into accepting violation of authentic rights as "normal."

What the fusion crowd really objects to is that rights are selfish. They belong to each individual only and may be used by that individual only, solely to serve his own life. No self-respecing collectivist can tolerate that. Why? Well, because selfishness is bad, they say.

Why is it bad? Among other reasons offered, selfishness has no bonding of one human to another in the manner of being one's brothers' keeper. No, rights require each "brother" to be his own keeper and live by voluntary trade with others in freedom. Selfishness is not inherently bad. Narcissism is inherently bad. If it makes the issue clearer, modify selfishness to read "rational self-interest."

To many people, whether coming from religion or a secular orientation, all people must be duty-bound to others. However, duty and rights are polar opposites and are completely incompatible.

Take another example. The full, proper concept of rights permits any human to do with himself whatever he chooses providing he does not violate the rights of others. For example, if he chooses to take street drugs, that is his choice, as long as he is the sole victim. It is not an intelligent or moral choice, but it is his. He must be responsible for his own actions. In a society properly based on rights, most laws and regulations would either go away or never be instituted because the focus would be on the individual being responsible for himself.

Well, look at the uproar about warring on drugs. No one may be permitted, people of the Right and the Left say, to use drugs, to buy or to sell. Society would collapse, they state with completely evidence-free "certainty." So, the principle of living by permission becomes codified in law, and people's property, in the form of their money, is wrenched by force from them to finance drug war failure after failure after failure. What do these people do when they see their laws and wars against drugs are worse than worthless? Of course, they redouble their efforts and spend even more money to get more of the same.

I do not advocate use of street drugs. I see no reason for using these drugs other than some being useful for cancer pain control and the like. I also recognize that there are questions not covered in this discussion such as the care of children and the helpless, but the answers to those concerns does not invalidate the concept of rights--indeed, the answers further validate the proper concept of rights.

Just remember. Rights are sanctions of actions not entitlements to things. If someone has to provide you your "right," then it is no right. It is no one's "responsibility" to provide you the money, goods, property you want because you feel entitled to these, and the government has some law "giving you the right."

Once you understand this down to your toes, you are on the freedom trail.