E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, March 31, 2014

"Positive" rights and "negative" rights

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

If you have to use force on someone else in order for you to have something, you do not have a "right" to that object or service. This was plainly obvious for most of our history, but many people (including many in positions of authority on our government) have lost sight of this principle.

In order for my to have the right to free speech or freedom of religion, no one has to give up anything. You may disagree with or even be offended by what I say, but you do not have to help disseminate my speech. I can have the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to due process or the right to be secure from unreasonable searches without taking anything away from anyone else. President Obama calls these "negative" liberties because they prohibit government from doing things to the people under its authority.

Obviously, there are limits to these "negative" liberties. You may not stand outside the mayor's bedroom window at 3:00 am and scream into a megaphone, regardless of the Constitution's protection of the right to petition government for redress of grievances. I do not need to list all of the exceptions, but the exceptions are just that - exceptions. Those exceptions are both rare and limited in scope, and limiting our rights requires a compelling interest by society. We should not sacrifice the normal on the alter of the abnormal.

Today, we see a "right" to something that is not and cannot be a "right" in the classic sense of the term. In order for someone to have a "right" to health care, government must forcibly confiscate wealth from others under threat of violence. In order to provide someone a "right" to health care, the private property rights of others must be abridged. We as a society may decide that government welfare programs are good public policy, but we should not confuse forced redistribution of wealth with the beneficiaries having a "right" to that wealth.

And this brings us to the debate over whether or not employers should be forced to provide chemical birth control to their employees - the essence of the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court. Over and over again, Leftists have bemoaned the danger of employers "forcing their religious beliefs on their employees." According to this backward definition, if someone does not give you money for what you want, or buy it themselves and give it to you directly, they are violating your "rights" or they are "forcing" their religion on you. It shows how far we have fallen as a culture when that argument is not immediately rejected as absurd.

In a free society, we should be free to make choices (within reason) without being forced to operate the way government demands. If an employer does not want to provide birth control because the owner's faith teaches birth control is wrong, the employee is free to purchase it herself or to seek other employment that provides the benefits she wants. Government should stay out of it and not mandate birth control coverage. Remember that a government that can mandate birth control coverage by a private employer can also prohibit it.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.