Rights and Wrongs

"It is the natural state of any man to want to live free."
--Guinevere (King Arthur)

GMU economist Walter E Williams discusses correct and incorrect definitions of rights. Correctly defined, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another--except that of non-interference.

This definition is correct because it is grounded in natural law. Although it is expressed in particular ways (e.g., right to self-defense, property rights, etc), the underlying right that each of us is born with is the right to freedom.

However, some people claim other rights--e.g., rights to health care, housing, food--regardless of whether the person can pay. However, if a person does not obtain these things through voluntary exchange with others (e.g., payment or charity), then the only way these things can be landed is by taking them from others.

Under this paradigm, the 'rights' of some people are achieved by compromising the rights of others.

As Williams observes, applying this arrangement to true rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide auditoriums (to support my freedom of speech), guns (to support my right to self-defense), etc.

Clearly, this is inconsistent with natural law as it requires the use of force on some for the benefit of others.

The only rights we can legitimately delegate to government are the ones that we possess. Thus, since each of us has a natural right to self-defense, we can delegate authority to government to protect us.

However, none of us has a natural right to forcefully take property from one person for the benefit of another. As such, we can not legitimately delegate this authority to government.

When people recruit the strong arm of government to forcefully take from others, they are not within their rights; they are doing wrong.