“If you think X is not a right”

So there was this claim:

60267569_10216492862768230_2831151963742142464_n

Never mind Joshua’s response for the moment.  Consider the original claim.

The inherent problem is that implicit Clara Sorrenti’s claims is that a “right” is something that someone (usually “the government”) must provide for you.  That is arrant nonsense.

Something being a right simply means that no one can legitimately forcibly take it from you. It does not mean that you can force others, under threat of violence (which is what government is), to provide it for you.
Some things might be justifiable to have government use its license to use force to do/provide, but not because they’re “rights”.  I have argued before that some small level of government is actually necessary if ones goal is to maximize liberty.

But to provide these things?  No.  Let’s put it another way.

Requiring “government” to provide these things mean you are willing to use force (for that is what government is–the license to use force to accomplish certain ends) to make other people provide them to you.  You are forcing other people to labor for you, not in exchange for mutually agreed remuneration but simply to provide what you want with threat of violence for refusal.

There is a term for that.  So:

If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with housing, you are a would be slave owner and evil.

If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with health care, you are a would be slave owner and evil.

If you believe that other people should be forced to provide you with education, you are a would be slave owner and evil.

Don’t be evil.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on ““If you think X is not a right””

  1. The usual counter-argument I run across is “but these are basic needs, everyone has a ‘right’ to basic needs.”

    I don’t waste time arguing with the true believers of Communism-endorsed slavery about who would be made to provide these basic needs, and where the money for it would come from (they believe that money should be abolished anyway) but a belief persists that under communism, those things would be sent to the state to be ‘fairly redistributed’. Pointing out that it’s been tried and eventually leads to inevitable corruption results in the retort that is ‘then real communism/socialism has never been tried and you hate poor people.’ People for communism hate people, full stop, IMHO.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This is the Socialist sequence:
    1: You work for nothing
    2: You are allowed to own nothing
    3: They promise to take care of you

    My observation: the slaves in the Pre-Civil-War South at least owned a few things…!

    My formulation:
    “No one has a Right to my goods or services!”
    Obviously, one’s own offspring have to be the Exception (that proves the Rule)….

    It will be Interesting to see how our future Artificially Intelligent servants react to Slavery…………………

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s