A Little Talk on Rights

An impromptu discussion of rights, following the IES-Europe/Cato seminar in Germany. (More detailed discussions can be found in “Saving Rights Theory from Its Friends” [Individual Rights Reconsidered, edited by Tibor Machan; Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2001] and my review of The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes, by Cass Sunstein and Stephen Holmes.)



5 Responses to “A Little Talk on Rights”

  1. As I was re-reading your review of “The Cost of Rights”, it struck me how ridiculous it is that Sunstein is a law professor at a very well-respected law school. To arrive at the conclusion they desire (“all rights aspire to be welfare rights”), they have to confuse rights violations with rights themselves, and defense with government.

    My right to free speech can be observed on a desereted island. My right to housing and health care cannot. It is the presence of others – society – that introduces the possibility of needing government. Even so, there are at least two leaps one must take before actually having govnerment. First, some member of society must attempt to violate my natural rights. Second, I must be unable to defend it myself.

    Only then – in the presence of a criminal and the absence of ability to self-defend (and with the assumption there are adequate numbers of others in society that recognize my right and the criminal’s violation of it) – would anyone consider forming a government.

    The (negative) right itself did not impose a cost. Even the introduction of society does not impose a cost for negative rights. Even the presence of someone who would violate my negative rights does not impose a cost on society if I am able to defend myself (though I accept that self-defense does “cost” something, at least on a lost opportunity basis.)

    Further, even if we assume a government created to defend everyone’s negative rights (I REALLY dislike that term…), there’s no necessity that it be funded by law-abiding citizens through taxes. It could just as well be funded by the rights violators through fines and penalties.

    Of course, Tom’s arguments against the theory are very strong and I endorse them. My mind just objected differently to the thesis of “The Cost of Rights”.

  2. Tom G. Palmer

    Thanks for the comments, Richard. I’ll think them over a bit.

    I think that, in general, your rights to free speech are not being observed on a deserted island. You need others to observe them. They can only be observed in a social context, just as they can only be violated in a social context.

  3. Lode Cossaer

    I would like to mention Nozick’s argumentation against Rawls and his theory of positive rights. Nozick mentions the fact that the problem of social justice doens’t exist in a society where there is no division of labour and increasing creation of wealth. I think Richard made the same point in mentioning that classical liberal’s view of rights exist – although they aren’t necesary because there is no one else around to violate them – on a desert island, while welfare rights cannot. Welfare rights, on a island, are very usefull, but can’t be respected, for obvious reasons.

  4. The notion of natural or human rights generally, and Tibor Machan’s conception more specifically, are attacked by L.A Rollins in The Myth of Natural Rights, soon to be republished by Nine Banded Books (the editor just finished putting it all together and it should be printed today or tomorrow). You can pre-order it now at Amazon.

    I should disclose that it contains a preface I wrote.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>