Creating Human Rights

The more the far Left gets its stronghold in the Democratic Party and traditional liberals are sidelined, the list of “human rights” seems to be getting longer. Healthcare, housing, free education and a living wage are now pronounced “human rights.” These pronouncements are usually followed up with the justification “we are the richest country on the face of the earth” and therefore can afford and should be providing all these newly created “human rights” to those in need. The conservative rebuttal should be “we are the freest country on the face of the earth and no one should have their freedom and liberty stolen from them for the benefit of someone else.” In a free society you only have the right to something if it doesn’t come at a cost to another. The tenets of freedom and liberty demand that someone’s labor and income only be given voluntarily.

The Constitution provides the Bill of Rights that citizens have in this country. None of them compel the obligation of one person to provide for another. The right to free speech is just that- free in all definitions of the word. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean that you are owed and to be provided guns. You just have the right to own them if you choose to.

The JFK famous line “ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country,” invokes the concept that individual rights are lesser to greater obligations. That is the only way liberty and freedom can be sustained. You have the foremost obligation to take care of yourself. You have the right to do this however you choose without interference from the government or others. (Obviously unless it is illegal.) There is no “right” to oblige someone else to take care of you. That is done voluntarily either directly or through charity. The newly minted “human rights” take away the voluntary component of helping others and instead make it a government mandate. The “right” takes from some individuals and gives to others who have no obligations. This is antithetical to our founding document.

If one has a right to healthcare, then someone else has an obligation to provide it. That means a doctor or nurse must provide it regardless of their costs (including time) or the recipient’s ability to pay the charges. Those costs may be incurred by a hospital, but the concept is the same. If the government mandates the services and costs of healthcare, the providers no longer have the right to work on their own terms because of forced obligations. Their liberties and freedoms are taken away for the sake of others. How long will it take before doctors decide they don’t want the value of their work diminished to government dictates and then choose to leave the healthcare profession? How many young people will find a career with compensation by edict and tons of red tape appealing enough to go to school for 8+ years? Everyone will be forced to accept lower quality and less availability in healthcare across the board. This “human right” will certainly not result in the world class healthcare that is being promised.

If there is a “human right” to housing, what kind of housing is society obligated to provide? A house? An apartment? And as with any physical living space, there are costly up-keeps required in landscaping, HVAC, plumbing, etc. Is there an additional societal obligation to provide those services in this “human right?” As a general rule, government public housing doesn’t bring about visions of well-kept living areas. Look to Chicago’s Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor Homes as good historic examples of this failed idea. When people are given something for free, they feel less obligated to care for it.

Free higher education is another proposed “human right.” But the push for this right is different insomuch as it is about indoctrination as much as it is about education. If people are paying for far left messaging in colleges and universities now, one can only imagine the messaging when the government takes full control. The teachers unions in lower education have successfully prioritized climate change doctrine as more important than learning about historical events like the Civil War or the Holocaust. The ability to fully control the narrative about our country and its history by the Left in higher education will turn most students ungrateful to be living in the best conditions recorded in the history of the world. And why is government funding for trade schools never discussed as a “human right” alternative to a higher education? It is never discussed because there is no opportunity to indoctrinate Leftism in plumbing schools. Yet those plumbers will be obligated to help pay for “rights” of other’s higher education and get nothing in return.

The “human right” to a living wage is the farthest fetching. The concept is bantered about but there are never criteria attached to it. What is the purpose of this “human right?” If housing, healthcare, and education are already going to be established rights, does this mean society guarantees money to spend on food, drink and leisure? This is simply government handing out money from one to another. Again with no obligation to the recipient.

All these “human rights” are based on one way obligations. Those people who work hard to meet the primary obligation to take care of themselves will become obligated to take care of those who don’t and have no accountability. We need to get back to the founding philosophy of granting rights based on liberty. The only “human rights” given should be those that don’t come with costs or obligations from other citizens.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner