I've noticed that when a lot of people mention "rights", they are just telling you how they want to violate you.
"____ rights are human rights". Well, OK, but in that case, there doesn't need to be a modifier. All humans alive have equal and identical rights. If what you're really demanding is an imaginary "right" to do things to other people that you have no right to do, an "extra right" beyond those shared by all, you can jump right off a cliff. And it does seem like this is what they are usually demanding.
Someone asked how to explain the concept that "food is a human right". It isn't, not the way they want it to be.
Here is how food is a human right: You have the right to grow, harvest, hunt, and prepare your own food. Any government rules that get in the way of this are illegitimate. That includes "hunting licenses" and barring people from foraging and hunting for food on "public" (unowned) land. It includes property codes that demand you grow a grass lawn instead of edible vegetables. It includes property codes that ban you from raising livestock. It includes any rule that prevents you from (or licenses) engaging in trade so you can buy food. Government is the primary criminal preventing access to food.
Here is how food is NOT a human right: You don't have the right to go to a store and demand they give you the specific kind of food you'd prefer, nor to rob someone and use their money to buy food. It's the same as forcing someone to work in the fields and grow crops for you.
You may not get exactly the kind of food you like. You may be eating "weeds" and sparrows rather than Twinkies and Big Macs. But that's as far as the right to food gets you.
You do have the right to ask for food or money with which to buy food. Again, it may not be exactly what you wanted to eat, but as long as it is food, your right is respected.
A right doesn't obligate anyone to do anything or give you anything. It doesn't entitle someone to anyone else's labor or property. It obligates them to not violate this right, just as you are obligated to not violate their equal and identical right. It's really not that hard, and most people who don't seem to understand don't want to understand or they would understand.
Thank you for reading.
Crystal clear as usual, Kent.
ReplyDeleteOne suggestion, re: "property codes that demand you grow a grass lawn instead of edible vegetables."
Those do indeed violate rights, but only because they are "codes" or laws imposed by outsiders, eg the whole Town. If you buy a home in on a street all of whose residents have made a compact to grow lawns instead of veggies, what you're buying includes an obligation to conform to that voluntary contract, would you not agree?
Socialists might then argue that the entire (small) town might make such a compact, and then what? My response would be: fine, but prove that every single property owner has signed on to it. A majority vote will not do.
I don't believe any agreement to violate the rights of others is legitimate. Even if it were unanimous (not counting the one violated). And you have the right to grow food on your property. Or try. (Whether it's possible is another issue.)
DeleteMy first house when I moved out of my parents' home was in a rural sort of neighborhood. A year or two after I'd moved in I got an anonymous letter in my mailbox listing all the rules of the "subdivision". No one had ever mentioned it was a subdivision or that there were any rules. I looked at the rules and noticed that no one in the area was following the rules, but someone was upset with me in particular. What I *suspect* they were upset over (I had to guess because they didn't say) wasn't even addressed by the rules. I ignored the letter. I got another one a few months later and ignored it as well, and nothing ever came of it.