Rights versus Rights; T. Machan

RIGHTS VERSUS "RIGHTS" 309 Here then are two insights-one from political philosophy and one from ethics that make a crucial difference as to how one morally evaluates the activities of persons within a capitalistic socioeconomic system. The idea that individual rights provide the basis for a political/legal context that pro tects the exercise of practical reason by individuals and the idea that the human good is objective, but individualized, are funda mental. It is important for anyone taking up issues in business ethics not to forget the import of these ideas-as well as others from political philosophy and ethics-for the understanding of capitalism. D 1. See Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1991) for a defense of individual rights. 2. Eric Mack, "The Ethics of Taxation: Rights Versus Public Goods," in Dwight R. Lee, ed., Taxation and Deficit Economy (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1986), pp. 489-490.

3. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 172. 4. See Douglas B. Rasmussen, "Capitalism and Morality: The Role of Practical Reason," in Robert W. McGee, ed., Business Ethics & Common Sense (Westport: Conn.: Quorum Books, 1992),pp. 31-44. Yet, also see Douglas J. Den Uyl, The Virtue of Prudence (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) as well as Liberty and Nature. Rights versus "Rights" by Tibor R. Machan F or the past 200 years or so a debate has ensued in political philosophy, on the issue of what sorts of rights human beings have. This is not the debate about whether we have rights at all, which is different. (Some hold that rights were identified by Dr. Machan is Professor of Philosophy at Au burn University, Alabama. His latest book is Private Rights and Public Illusions, from Trans action Books . He is a contributing editor ofThe Freeman. John Locke and others to bolster certain hidden goals, not because these rights ac tually exist.) What the rights versus "rights" debate is about is whether human beings have rights other than negative rights not to be killed, assaulted, kidnapped, or robbed. Negative rights, not to be intruded upon, are what Locke, the major seven teenth-century individual rights theorist, ar gued we all possess by nature. That is, we require certain social conditions when we 310 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1995 form communities, because of the kind of being we are. We require the respect of our negative rights.

In response to Locke and his students, critics argued that the rights Locke identi fiedare only some of those we possess. They maintained that we also have what are called "positive" rights: others must not only refrain from killing, assaulting, kidnapping, or robbing us but owe us services such as welfare, health care, and education. The point isn't that it is decent and morally proper for others to help us when we are in need. Rather they can be forced to pro vide us with what they can to help-their work, their earnings, the fruits of their talents-just as others may be forced to desist from murdering or assaulting us. The recent debate in the United States about government-supplied health care il lustrates the conflict between these two views of rights. Negative rights theorists argue that individuals ought to strive for living properly, for flourishing in voluntary association with each other, while positive rights theorists argue that individuals natu rally belong to each other, as parts of an organic body. While Locke put on record the former theory, Karl Marx, who thought little of rights, spawned this alternative view of social relations. He declared that "The human essence is the true collectivity of man," meaning we are essentially "species beings," parts of the larger organic body of humanity. Others proceeded to soften this hard-line collectivist position into the milder sounding positive rights theory.

Some misunderstand the nature of posi tive rights, thinking that they simply arise out of an elaboration of negative rights. When columnist George Will noted a while ago that one official in our government leaned toward authoritarianism by inventing positive rights, ones not listed in the U.S. Constitution, someone criticized him along these lines: "[T]he Constitution has been amended in the past to include the 'right' to vote for African-Americans, women and 18-year-olds, as well as the right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude." The amendments the critic mentions are, however, drastically different from those advocated by many big-government theo rists. Many of the amendments are simple elaborations, for more specialized cases, of the basic negative rights everyone possesses by nature. The' 'right to vote" is an appli cation of the right to liberty to the area of politicalaction: governmentmay not prevent an adult citizenfrom fully participatingin the political system. The right to be free from slavery is a simple corollary of the negative right to liberty, as is the right to be free from involuntaryservitude.Just howdifferentsuch amendments are from those proposed by advocates of positive rights can be appreci ated when we consider that all positive rights imply involuntary servitude. If one is forced to make provisionsfor the health care, social security, or related needs of others, one is forced to serve them, plain and simple.

The debate is important but one must be careful not to misunderstand it. Basic neg ative rights need at times to be spelled out in some detail, made applicable to new areas of human conduct and problem-solving. For example, the right to freedom of speech which spells out the right to liberty for communication-may need to be developed further in light of the growth of the elec tronic communications "superhighway. " The right to own property had to be devel oped further to clarify ownership of portions of the electromagnetic (broadcast) spec trum. It can be shown, by careful logical reasoning, that these refinements follow from our basic negative rights. Positive rights, however, violate our basic negative rights, place us in servitude to others, and therefore can only be fraudu lently presented as things derived from our natural rights. We should be on guard when those who wish to solve social problems advocate unjustified power for the govern ment by distorting the rights we all have. We have only negative rights. Positive "rights"

are deceptive inventions that capitalize on the soundness of the theory of negative rights for dangerous purposes, leading, in deed, to the subversion of the original func tion of the concept of basic individual rights. 0 A Matter of Principle In Praise of Pain I n recent months, we have heard daily alarms concerning legislation proposed by the new Congress. Babies will starve, modem Chicken Lit tles warn, because teenage mothers will be deprived of "their" food stamps. Little children in schools will go hungry, because the new Scrooges on Capitol Hill will rob them of "their" school lunches. The elderly will lose "their" Medicare and Social Se curity. Opera enthusiasts will lose tax subsidized encounters with Wagner and Puccini, and preschoolers the daily inspi ration of Barney the Dinosaur, all because of plans to close down "their" local public broadcasting stations. Never mind that none of this unearned largess is truly' 'theirs. " Never mind that no one has a right to that which he has not produced-that no one can lay legitimate claim to goods and services belonging to others-that all of those ' 'entitlements' , entail legalized plunder of the taxpayers. In addition, none of the claims by special interests is even true.