In last week’s column, I drew upon the writings and ideas of various libertarian thinkers to synthesize and summarize a brief, and certainly not holistic, explanation of how we arrive at a theory of rights.
In that column, I concluded that man owns himself and, by extension, can lay claim to all previously unowned property with which he has mixed his labor. He not only owns the land but also the fruits of that land. He can engage in voluntary trade by exchanging his labor, his services or the products of his land for other goods, services or money.
Furthermore, any aggression against a person or his property violates that person’s rights. Therefore, man has the freedom to pursue whatever ends he chooses so long as he does not initiate force against another person.
So how do all of our other rights extend from this theory of property rights?
To illustrate, let’s use the right to keep and bear arms.
If we own ourselves and our belongings, then in order to exert absolute ownership over these things, we must be given the ability to defend them from aggression. For the state to prohibit someone from acquiring the means to protect themselves, it has asserted partial ownership over that person.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right to self-defense.
Therefore, when someone claims they have a right to something, like education or health care, it is necessary to ask whether such a right violates the principles discussed above.
Does a right to health care violate the rights of others?
It certainly does.
For one thing, health care is not a magical service that can be provided at will with no associated costs.
A right to health care violates the property rights of health care practitioners by demanding they offer their services, an extension of their self-ownership, to anyone and everyone who needs it, eliminating all just and voluntary transactions. Instead, a right to health care institutes a system of indentured servitude.
Furthermore, a right to health care also violates the property rights of the taxpayers because it requires, in order to subsidize care for those who cannot afford it, agents of the state to initiate force against its citizens to collect the funds necessary for these subsidies.
The same principles apply when someone argues for the right to education or the right to a living wage. In each case, the government must aggress upon the rights of all individuals to establish these rights.
Therefore, we can arrive at a general principle about determining the validity of rights.
A claim about rights is only valid if such a claim does not require the state, its agents or other individuals to violate the rights of others through the initiation of force.
But this discussion of rights helps further explain the ills of a growing government.
When arguing for or against certain government interventions, it is often not enough to cite statistics about the unintended consequences of those policies.
For every statistic one cites to argue against state intervention, statists will probably have three more to counter those arguments.
Proponents of a larger state also frequently share a sad story about someone who benefited from said policy to pull at the heart strings.
However, without an emphasis on the ethical implications of government intervention, facts and figures will never reveal the true aggressive and immoral nature of an expansive state.
Justin Hayes is pursuing a master’s degree in political communication. His column appears on Wednesdays. You can contact him via opinions@alligator.org.
