Rights revisited

In previous columns, I have often addressed the issue of rights. Rights represent a vital political concept. They form the very basis of democratic self-government. They are central to freedom.

In the CNMI, we often speak of the rights of the indigenous people. In this respect, we speak primarily of our right to local self-government.

But our detractors also speak of rights. They speak in terms of “human rights”. They rally for the rights of our nonresident workers, which, properly understood, are not inconsistent with our democratic right to local self-government.

So both sides speak of rights. Yet they reach very different–and often contradictory–conclusions.

But let us be perfectly clear on this point: the right of local sovereignty does not, in any way, overrule the individual rights of nonresident workers. No government has the right to oppress individuals. No state has the right to trample on the rights of individuals. The right to abuse workers is not the right we are claiming when we push for our right to local self-government and self-determination.

All CNMI workers, foreign or domestic, have the right not to be deliberately harmed by others. All individuals have the right not to be beaten, raped, robbed, murdered or abused.

As I have already mentioned before, rights are a negative philosophical construct. Positive rights do not exist. One has the right not to be beaten. One, however, does not have the right to affirmative action, free medical care, shelter, food, or other items that require the violation of the rights of others–i.e., in order to provide these items to some individuals, other individuals must be robbed, violated, or otherwise forced to provide.

“What about the right to payment of wages?” a liberal might rejoin. “When workers demand the right to be paid for their services, aren’t they, in effect, clamoring for a positive right instead of a negative right–i.e., not the right not to be harmed, but rather, the right to be paid?”

To which I readily concede that workers must indeed be paid for services rendered. They clearly have this right. But it is still a negative right, since the RIGHT TO payment, while seemingly positive in nature, would necessarily have to be construed in negative terms if denied.

Remember that fraud constitutes force. This may be a legal fiction, but it is a perfectly logical movement. The failure to uphold a contractual obligation has to be regarded as a form of forcible robbery, which essentially amounts to a clear violation of the right not to be deliberately harmed–a negative right, the only kind that exists.

So on the question of nonresident worker rights, we all agree that workers should not be deliberately harmed. They all have a right not be beaten, robbed, and so forth. We are in complete agreement with our detractors on this point.

Where we differ is on the minimum wage issue. A claim for a higher minimum wage is essentially a claim for a nonexistent positive right. Nonresident workers have no greater claim to a $7 an hour minimum wage than I do to a million dollars. In other words, we have no right to expect others to confer benefits on us.

Unfortunately, far too many people mistake the withholding of a benefit for the inflicting of actual harm or damage. In other words, if I refuse to hand a beggar a $20 note, it is not the same as striking him in the face. The beggar has a right not to be struck by me (a negative right). He does not have the right to claim my money for his wants or needs (a so-called positive right).

Let us be perfectly clear on “rights.”