Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess.
If I could contain my conservative ideology in a single, 634-word column, it would read something like Walter Williams’s latest, Bogus Rights. This idea of rights is the foundation of my belief in conservative principles. Williams writes:
The way our Constitution’s framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.
The key phrase is imposes no obligation upon another. I think we all agree with that. In theory. Williams continues:
Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights.
There was a time when people turned to family, the church, or charitable organizations for unmet needs, and many still do. These options were supplemented by massive government intervention during the Great Depression.
New Deal government handouts were more like bailouts designed to stimulate the economy. But this kind of intervention wasn’t yet considered a “right” akin to the freedom to say nasty things about the government without fear of imprisonment or decapitation. People still had a sense of pride.
Sometime in the 60s (and probably before that), attitudes began to change. As blacks struggled to be recognized as first class citizens, the true meaning of freedom stood in stark contrast to government-mandated race discrimination. After legal segregation was dismantled, the government tried to redress wrongs and provide opportunities for those shut out for so long. It was during this time the “right” to be taken care of by the government crystallized.
So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn’t earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.
The so-called right to decent housing is almost comical, isn’t it? I am obligated to help someone move into a house he can’t afford. The incentive to save and earn it yourself goes out the window. I am obligated to contribute toward another’s medication, and if I refuse to pay, I could go to jail. I am obligated to pay some lazy person’s grocery bill. Every time employed individuals pay taxes that go toward social programs, that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Williams points out the absurdity of extending this obligation to actual rights, not artful schemes we create to get something in return for absolutely nothing:
If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.
Williams concludes with his thieves analogy, one he writes and speaks about occasionally. Except for some ranting and raving, we’re pretty complacent about the redistribution of our hard-earned income to people who didn’t earn it. The “right” to other people’s stuff has become generationally entrenched. So has the necessary evil of allowing it to happen.
