Rights and obligations

A standard dictionary defines a “right,” in the sense that we are considering the term here, as “a just claim or title.” Notice, however, that the standard Webster dictionary definition does not elaborate on exactly what constitutes a right. It merely states that a right is a “just claim.” It does not furnish us with the necessary elements of a just claim.

That is the purpose of today’s column: to more narrowly define the parameters of a genuine human right, of a “just claim”–to state what it is and what it is not. I begin by first asserting what a right is: a negative philosophical construct. By “negative,” I mean that a right requires that others not do certain things against us. A right is certainly not positive. By “positive,” I simply mean that rights do not require that others do things for us. Rights are inherently negative, not positive.

A “right” is a negative philosophical construct that logically demands that others refrain from doing certain things (such as rape or murder) to (or against) us. A right, in other words, is a justified injunction against others not to interfere in our liberty or affairs. “The concept of a ‘right’ . . .,” states Ayn Rand, “means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.” This definition must be accepted because it would be complete tyranny to view “rights” in any other conception.

Positive rights do not exist. One has the negative right not to be beaten, not to be raped, not to be robbed, not to be assaulted, sacrificed or maimed. One, however, does not have the right to affirmative action, the right to free medical care, the right to shelter, food, or other positive welfare “right” items that necessarily require the violation of the rights of others to secure these rights in the first place. In other words, in order to provide these “rights” to some individuals, other individuals must necessarily be robbed, violated, or somehow forced to provide. As philosopher Ayn Rand declared, “Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right . . . There can be no such thing as the ‘right to enslave.’”

Rights are neither relative nor arbitrary.
“What about the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate, and the disabled?” someone might ask. Don’t they have any positive rights? Don’t they have the right to relief?

Again, the answer is a resounding and emphatic “no.” They have no such rights. They have no right to force, coerce, or extort others to provide for their needs, however desperate and deplorable those needs might be. If relief is to be provided, it must be done voluntarily.
People have no right to violate the rights of others to secure their alleged (but false) positive rights. To paraphrase Ayn Rand in the Virtue of Selfishness, “The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as . . . [a legitimate compromise of his natural rights].”

Is this an act of blatant injustice? On the contrary, it is perfectly just, because justice, like “right,” is also a negative concept. As philosopher Frederic Bastiat argued in The Law: “This negative concept of the law is so true that the statement, ‘the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign,’ is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the ‘purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning . . . Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.