"Right to life" vs "one must be free to live", do you see a difference?

[hazek]

EDIT: it turns out what I had in mind were positive rights blurred together with negative rights so keep that in mind when you read this post

So am I the only one who has a problem with the concept of rights?

Hmm just thinking about this question I already anticipate the instant backlash this post will probably receive from people who wont even bother to read beyond the first sentence. But could you please just stop for a second and hear me out?

The reason I have a problem with the concept of rights is that to me they imply entitlement. And whenever the concept of entitlement is introduced I get the sense that it becomes all too easy for people to start demanding things based on some convoluted moral or philosophical theory and seeing a gang of violent thungs willing to rob a certain group of other people in order to provide those things as beneficial and welcoming, how ever inefficient they may be and while they take a huge cut for themselves of course. In essence I fear it's the primary reason why the state exists and always seems develop only in one direction - getting bigger.


So I'd like to ask you: Do you see a difference if we live by the principle that "people must be free to live" vs the principle that "people have a right to life" and how would you justify each?

To me the difference is that in the first case the principle reads more like a condition. If something must be, meaning it's required, then usually we can ask the question why it's required and what would happen if the requirement isn't met meaning a condition can be objectively tested for it's validity and isn't based on some theory but rather on facts. It's also very hard to misconstrue a condition as an entitlement or use it's validity as a valid reason to establish other conditions because it wouldn't hold up to a test.

In the second case though I don't really know how you justify rights.. or how you verify rights. Some use moral theories that can't be verified, others use philosophical theories that never seem to stand up to a rigorous debate, some use invisible friends and their words as justification but basically all these methods essentially boil down to the "because I said so" justification. And the worst part is that this "because I said so" reasoning can be applied to virtually any entitlement imaginable.

I don't know but to me the concept of rights just feels very counterproductive and frankly outdated. Thoughts?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Hazek, the difference between "Right to Life" and "One must be free to live" is semantics.

If I turn your statement in to "I must be free to live" you see, it instantly becomes a sort of whiney "entitlement" like you described.

The real problem here is NOT the right to life... it's not an outdated concept in the slightest, so long as more people are born every second, they will be born with the instinct to preserve their own life - they will not be born pacifists - thus it is a natural right.

The real problem is that people now have a confused sense of what a Right and Entitlement are; most importantly the Right to Liberty.

[Eagles' Wings]

Quote from Ron Paul, from his book, "Liberty Defined", page 6

"A society that readily condones abortion invites attacks on personal liberty. If all life is not precious, how can all liberty be held up as important? It seems that if some life can be thrown away, our right to personally choose what is best for us is more difficult to defend. I've become convinced that resolving the abortion issue is required for a healthy defense of a free society."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There is no right to life, but of life, which is to say the former implies justifications for thievery, etc. If you have a right to life, then you have the right to the sustenance of life regardless of the context. It's best to think of rights as property rights, as that is all they are. Your rights extend only as far to the rights of others. No one can deprive you of your life morally, is very different than I have the right to life.

Once you understand this, then our natural liberties or rights, make complete sense as they are all derived from our self-propriety, itself derived from our humanity or autonomy. Thus, the state of nature. No matter how enslaved we may be, we still have complete autonomy over our being. To act, or not to act, is entirely our individual choice.

[Nickels]

There is no right to life, but of life, which is to say the former implies justifications for thievery, etc. If you have a right to life, then you have the right to the sustenance of life regardless of the context. It's best to think of rights as property rights, as that is all they are. Your rights extend only as far to the rights of others. No one can deprive you of your life morally, is very different than I have the right to life.

Once you understand this, then our natural liberties or rights, make complete sense as they are all derived from our self-propriety, itself derived from our humanity or autonomy. Thus, the state of nature. No matter how enslaved we may be, we still have complete autonomy over our being. To act, or not to act, is entirely our individual choice.

are you basically saying that if there was "right to life" then mandated health care would be the logical conclusion for anybody who isn't suicidal?

[July]

are you basically saying that if there was "right to life" then mandated health care would be the logical conclusion for anybody who isn't suicidal?

This is why, I think, there is a concept of negative versus positive rights. A negative right to life implies person A is required to refrain from taking the life of person B. A positive right to life, implies person A is required to act to preserve the life of person B. So in the one case, one is required to refrain from acting (killing, maiming, obstructing someone from seeking self preservation, etc), and in the other, one is required to act (which might include anything from being required to heal, provide sustenance, shelter, protection, etc). An over emphasis on positive rights is where things get hairy, I think, because they can be defined so broadly. If one has a positive right to life, then where do we draw the line? What is the limit to the actions society is required to take to protect and sustain life.

Hazek, is that the distinction you are trying to make with "right to life" versus "free to live"?

And yes, this is kinda a very important distinction to make. Controlling the meaning or redefining what 'rights' are, is how the State gets away with blurring the lines between rights and privileges, and interpreting the Constitution in any old way it feels like. If one believes that the Constitution was written based around negative rights, and that the federal govt. is thus obliged to refrain from acting in ways that obstruct our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then that is a HUGE difference from interpreting these as positive rights. If you say that these are positive rights, then that implies the govt. has an obligation to act...and the argument then becomes, where is the line? That is basically where we are at today.

[hazek]

July you are spot on and yes that's exactly what I had in mind. I wish we could use another word for "negative rights" or at the very least that someone in our movement perhaps composed a lecture around this idea so that it can easily be accessed and explained if need be.

[July]

I agree, the definition needs to be boiled down somehow. Talking about negative and positive rights is kinda technical...in politics, most politicians and voters are all working off the same assumption that we are talking about positive rights, in many cases. So when people like Ron or Rand say they don't think healthcare or gay marriage is a 'right' -- people interpret it that as being cold and heartless, because they don't really understand what is meant.