Nathan Key

Don't Panic

​
Contact Me

The Difference Between Universal Rights, Legislated Rights, and Goods & Services

7/3/2009

 

Earlier this week, I posted a blog about Universal Rights. I wanted to continue this idea today, especially since we're heading into the Independence Day celebrations here in the United States. It's always relevant to talk about rights, but it's especially relevant around holidays where we specifically celebrate them!

* * *
So what are rights anyway?

When the founding fathers of the United States were drafting our Declaration of Independence, they had been grappling with this question quite a bit. It was even more important to them because they had been living under the boot of oppression. They were colonists who were being taken advantage of in order for the "homeland" to finance wars, debt, and extravagances. Feeling the burden of injustice, they didn't merely fight back- they thought through their situation and came to a rational conclusion about why they felt slighted.

Most of them didn't want to be a free and independent State.
They merely wanted to be treated fairly and equally.

From their writings and the writings of contemporary philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and others, we've now got a rather nice framework from which we can address Universal Human Rights. I'm going to write about them a little differently than these men did, but this blog is entirely based on the principles they laid out- just so you know where I'm getting my ideas.

In order to fully understand Human Rights, it's important to distinguish between three sets. We'll call the first Goods & Services. These are things that people are able to produce or enact. The second category is Legislated Rights. These are entitlements that a particular government or community has given to its citizens. The final category is Universal Rights. These are rights and freedoms that are common to all humans on the basis of their existence rather than their citizenship, beliefs, or purchasing power.

Universal Rights.
In order for something to qualify as a legitimate Universal Right, it must fit within the following two criteria:

1. It must be accessible/inherent to all people, in at all times, in all places in the world.

In regard to number one, we must qualify Universal as ALL people. In the future, as technology changes, humanity might come across something that's good and beneficial for the folks living in that time period. But since those of us living today, and everyone who's lived before us were unable to benefit from that advancement, it cannot be a Universal Right. It doesn't meet the qualification of ALL people. So language, computers, cell phones, and the like cannot be rights because they are not common to all people in all time periods.

The same can be true of anything that is contingent upon living in a certain area of the world. We cannot say that anyone has the right to swim. Swimming is something that one can do only if they have access to water. In some areas of the world, there isn't any water readily available for swimming, and so this could not be classified as a Universal Right.

2. It must not be reliant upon another human being's existence, property, or will.

This criteria is a little more tricky, but it's true nonetheless. Basically, it says that we cannot claim as a Universal Right anything that is reliant upon someone else. For example, I cannot claim a Universal Right to Mutual Love. Mutual Love requires that another person exists and that they have the ability and desire to love us back.

In the same way, I can't ever say that I have a Universal Right to someone else's work or their food. This is because a Universal Right wouldn't just mean that I have a right to it, but that all people, in all places, and in all times have a right to this person's work or food. Even if that person agrees that everyone at all times can partake, we cannot say that this is a true Universal Right because it's still contingent upon that person's will- not to mention the fact that food and work are limited resources and therefore CANNOT ever be given to all people.

So, what are some Universal Rights?

Our founding father's decided that Life, Liberty, and Property were some.

Life- each man and woman is entitled to their life. No one should be allowed to take it from them needlessly.

Liberty- each man and woman is entitled to make their own decisions. Although we agree to give up some of our personal liberty in order to respect the "lifes and property" of others, all men are free (yes, was completely hypocritical for the men who owned slaves to write such a thing, but I believe it's true of all time, even if some people throughout history were denied this right)

Property- each man and woman is entitled to the work of their hands. If they make it, grow it, or construct it, they can claim it as their own and should not be required to surrender it against their will.

Legislated Rights. These are rights that are given to us because we live under a certain time period or a certain government or community. Voting is a good example of a legislated right. It cannot be Universal because it requires a Democracy or some other representative form of government, and let's face it, not all people live under a Democracy. Some other examples could include a Trial by Jury, Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent), and Marriage. Legislated Rights can also entail the rights that a person might have to another person's Universal Rights based on fulfillment or violation of contracts- for instance, I might be entitled to another person's property if they have agreed to give it to me for a sum of money or service and I provide that money or service. It could also be said that if an individual violates the Universal Rights of an individual- takes their life, liberty, or property without their consent, the individual who violates those rights may have abandoned their own and be required to give up their life, liberty, or property as a result.

Goods & Services.
The are things that are created, designed, grown, or provided by other humans for the benefit of others. These include food, clothing, homes, land, manicures, cell phones, medical care, education, and anything else that is given to us or provided by us.

This is where I'm probably going to get a lot of arguments, but I'm going to say VERY STRONGLY that we cannot EVER claim as a Universal Right anything that requires another person to provide it. Goods and Services cannot EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be Universal Rights.

Simply stated, if I cannot have a Universal Right to food because that would mean that the farmer who produces it has no property rights or liberty rights. If I have a right to it, I can take it without his consent. In fact, I could force him to grow it for me if it were truly a Universal Right.

Same thing for Education.

I cannot say that all humans are entitled to education because such a claim would first require that there be teachers and professors. Then, it would also mean that my claim to their services trumps any rights they have as to what their services are worth or who they'd like to give their services to.

Same thing for Healthcare.

I cannot say that all humans are entitled to medical care because such a claim would first require that there be doctors, nurses and medicine. But secondly, it would also mean that my right to their services trumps their right to give their services and their right to choose who to give their services to.

The conundrum: Both education (and soon Healthcare if we're not careful) are actually Legislated Rights in a lot of countries (including here in the US). This means that the government has taken the Universal Rights of Liberty and Property away from the individuals in the Education and Heathcare industries and given it to the rest of the citizens.

It may not seem like such a big deal- after all- it seems to benefit everyone, right?

But the problem is this- if you forcibly take away rights from some individuals, you take it away from ALL individuals. This means that claiming a right to Healthcare and Education actually dehumanizes all of us in the process. We all suffer the loss of our Universal Rights when we choose to take them forcibly from someone else.

This isn't to say that Education and Healthcare are unimportant. They are vital. They are almost as vital as food- which is another thing we're not "entitled to." So we need to look for ways to make sure that all people have access to Education, Healthcare, and food.

But the answer isn't redefining these things as Universal Rights or Legislating them. Because when we do, we all lose. The quality of life, liberty, property (and therefore education and Healthcare) all decrease when we try to manipulate the system into something that it's not.
Paige
7/3/2009 02:50:23 am

Hey Nate,
good post, good dialogue. I've been wrestling with this stuff myself, and keep hitting the same sticky wicket - that is, a Universal right can not be something that requires another person to provide it - but how do you reconcile that with your faith, the very basis of which requires someone Else's provision?
That's the part I'm stuck on - is it simple separation of politics vs. religion vs. worldview, or are you using a different filter for these ideas?

Nathan link
7/3/2009 03:17:52 am

Hey Paige, great comment!

I think Redemption still works within the framework I've established here because from what I understand of scripture, we can't stand in front of God and DEMAND His grace or salvation as if it were something that we inherently deserve.

I agree with Paul when he writes in Romans that Faith is the key- because there's no "contract" where we can do a certain number of things and guarantee our salvation as if it were a salary for the work we've done. See Romans 4 for more details.

Chad Hogg link
7/4/2009 08:16:02 am

You say very explicitly that a universal right must be something accessible to all people at all times, then point out that liberty was not accessible to slaves but somehow "was true of all time". What does that mean? Why cannot I not equally say that while healthcare was denied to some people at some times but that it is "true of all time"? I do not mean to be contrary, but if you are going to try to make specific, hard classifications, then it does not really work to make what seems to me arbitrary exceptions.

I can somewhat see your point about legislative rights to things like education taking away the liberty / property rights of others, but not really. No one is forced to work in education, nor to give their pedagogical services to any specific individual. If the supply of people who choose to do this work is insufficient, then market forces should naturally make it more lucrative until an equilibrium is met. Everyone else has part of their property taken from them by force in order to supply this service, but this does not seem to be the argument that you are making, and it is in any case true of many other things that are not considered rights such as highways and police departments.

Nathan link
7/4/2009 11:55:48 am

Chad,

Good question regarding Slavery. Perhaps it was my wording that threw you off.

Hopefully this will clarify my statement a bit... Liberty is something that we've agreed all men, in all times, and in all places have a Universal Right to (i.e. the "Endowed by their Creator..." language in the Declaration of Independence). Slavery was the denial of an inherent/Universal Right. It was denying people Liberty, which they had a RIGHT to by merely being a human being.

Unfortunately, slavery still exists, as does murder, and theft. And all these are agreeably still the denial of someone's Universal Rights. And I think that's where Government, specifically the Federal Government actually comes in. They SHOULD be primarily tasked with providing a framework of protection for ALL Universal Rights. They need to keep our Lives, Liberty, and Property safe.

And I don't mind paying taxes for them to do so!

The second sort of rights are the ones that are usually put in place to uphold our Universal Rights. So things like voting, trial by jury, marriage, etc are rights that are in place under our system of government to specifically help us preserve our Life, Liberty, and Property (assuming that all goes well). Again, these can rest at the Federal Level (and State Level if we respect the tenth amendment).

What I don't really like is when the Federal Government begins making "rights" out of the third category. Goods and Services can NOT be rights, and so when we make them so, we end up in deep water...

And honestly, although we've not had it happen in OUR country (yet) there are instances in history where people have been forced into education or healthcare or construction because the Federal Government was, indeed, regulating Goods and Services.

I believe that Communism is very much like this.

FTP Blog link
7/6/2009 08:59:43 am

So what ways would you suggest, to make health care, education, and food accessible to all without redefinition, or legislation? I have my comments but I just want to make sure I understand what is being presented.

Nathan Key link
7/6/2009 12:29:54 pm

I'm not for government-run goods and services on the Federal Level.

However, on the local level, as long as the people agree to it and have the ability to augment and change the policies that are in place at a rapid level providing some of these goods and services through "government" outlets would be acceptable.

For instance, we can't deny that roads are a good idea and although I have a feeling that the market would supply roads where needed, having road work down through the local city and state revenues definitely makes things more convenient.

That said, I think the very best possible route would be opening up the market more, rather than relying on the government. I think a lot of the crap that we've seen happening in the market lately is the fault of regulation and intervention rather than failure on behalf of businesses. I mean, I can't deny that business people made some bad choices, but the reality is, they're being propped up by the federal government. In a true market, we'd let them fail and someone ethical and reliable would quickly take their place.

That's exactly what happened with Southwest Airlines after 9/11. They rose to the top because they did business the right way, not because of a helping hand from the Feds.

WARNING: I'm writing this whilst heading for bed... it may not make ANY sense tomorrow morning!

FTP Blog link
7/7/2009 06:34:12 am

"That said, I think the very best possible route would be opening up the market more, rather than relying on the government. I think a lot of the crap that we've seen happening in the market lately is the fault of regulation and intervention rather than failure on behalf of businesses. I mean, I can't deny that business people made some bad choices, but the reality is, they're being propped up by the federal government. In a true market, we'd let them fail and someone ethical and reliable would quickly take their place.

That's exactly what happened with Southwest Airlines after 9/11. They rose to the top because they did business the right way, not because of a helping hand from the Feds."

Makes sense your comment. Now I think I have an understanding of what you are presenting. And in a general sense, I agree that too much control on the federal level may not be so much a good thing. If businesses are failing because of their own practices, then let them reap what they've sowed. Instead of supporting them with more funds, support the businesses that operate mostly on a local/state level, the start-ups, the ma-n-pa stores, non-profits etc.
Where it gets tricky for me is the relationship between businesses and the federal government. Looking back through history, one must sometimes wonder about who holds control within the relationship. And also the issue of rights, which is what you've been pointing at. I'd need to collect some thoughts before proceeding.

Scott
7/19/2009 04:39:17 am

Great post!!! It's wonderful to see others beginning to question the very foundations of our social construct. Here are my two cents -

You mention "Goods & Services. The are things that are created, designed, grown, or provided by other humans for the benefit of others. These include food, clothing, homes, land, manicures, cell phones, medical care, education, and anything else that is given to us or provided by us."

Can you explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that Land was "created, designed, grown, or provided" by man.

Equal and Free access to Land is THE FOUNDATION of Universal Rights. As Everyone must Live somewhere Land is a Basic Human Right. No one created the Land but it is something that we all need. With Equal and Free access to Land we set each other Free from the forced influences (even well intentioned ones) of one another. The Universal Right to Land is the only factor that can satisfy criteria #2. It is the foundation stone for Pure Democracy.

Love to debate a bit more on this.

Chad Hogg said -

"No one is forced to work in education, nor to give their pedagogical services to any specific individual."

When any individual is compelled to work in a system in order to earn money/wages so that they can "purchase/lease/rent" Land in order to live is under forced servitude. When all peoples have Free and Equal access to Land they are free to choose whether to work for another or not. Of course they must grow their own food and make their own clothes and build their own shelter. Not sure how many would actually do this but the point is that they now have a completely open door on what to do with his/her life with the exception of fulfilling the basic necessities of his/her existence. Natural Laws - ie, food, warmth (clothing), shelter (from elements), water, oxygen, etc... are the only rules which we are all bound by. These are the True Universal Rights.

Scott

Nathan link
7/19/2009 08:20:43 am

Hi Scott, thanks for the comment.

You are absolutely right about land. I was listing off other goods and services and because we just bought a house and now have "Land Ownership" I sort of lumped it in there without thinking. I agree that our idea of land ownership is a little skewed and should probably be revised under the Universal Rights Lens. Thanks for bringing this up.

I'll be considering this over the weekend, and probably all next week. It might make a great separate post.


Comments are closed.

    About Nathan

    Nathan Key likes to think about faith and philosophy and talk about it with others. He lives with his family in New Hampshire. He doesn't always refer to himself in the third person.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.