The Objectivity of Man’s Rights

[morgan_polotan]

Clint Townsend

Today I want to share part of a term paper, written by my friend Clint Townsend, for his Peace Studies class. It is a bit longer than my usual blog posts, but it is a great read, and I encourage you to share your thoughts and opinions in the comments section.

—

Throughout all of human history, no political document other than that of America’s Declaration of Independence better articulated the notion of universal human rights. In it, it states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The concept of rights remains relatively new. Throughout all of history, humankind accepted his status as a subject of the king or monarch. Today little debate surrounds questions of negative rights, namely the right to be free from arbitrary force, fraud or injury, although many states continue to violate these principles. More argument, however, surrounds questions of the role of the state in providing a minimum standard of living. Some claim that basic access to healthcare, education, and work constitute humans rights. In order to adequately address this claim, we must first define what rights are.

In a nutshell, a human right is an entitlement, merely by virtue of being human, that can not be denied without just cause. The American tradition, under Lockean influence, has held that an individual has rights to life, liberty and property and the government serves the purpose of protecting these rights. Some scholars today, however, claim that there is no axiomatic truth regarding rights and that rights are simply relative to a given culture. Of course, our very own culture, with slavery and the denial of rights to women, has practiced this belief, rejecting the dictum that “all men are created equal.”

In this essay I will argue that in purely philosophic terms negative rights constitute human rights and that conferring positive rights, such as right to healthcare and education, must necessarily infringe upon the rights of others. Additionally, my contention will be that all states should recognize human rights to life, liberty and property, thus imposing international standards and expectations of foreign states to uphold universal rights. While I believe that each state should reserve sovereignty, this does not imply a belief in relative rights; all persons have natural rights independent of and preceding the state. I will argue against the concept of economic and social rights on the basis of an incompatibility between negative and positive rights. For the opposite reason, I will argue in favor of civil and political rights.

The American founders used the term “unalienable” to describe the nature of human rights. By it, they meant that rights were inherent upon human nature and that no government could either grant nor arbitrarily withhold those rights. The modern American conception of human rights has been influenced by the Lockean concept that rights precede and supersede the power of government. Regarding the origins of humans rights, some have claimed that rights are a gift of God, while others claim that rights are a gift of society or a social contract. However, both views miss the point that the source of rights is man’s nature. Ayn Rand explained that “rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.” Accepting such a view of the origins of rights, the question then becomes what are rights and which ones are necessary for man to live in accord with his nature. “A right”, as Rand explains, “is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.”

I believe that there is only one fundamental right to which all other rights are derived from: a man’s right to self-ownership. Man owns his life which means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generating action. The concept of rights pertains only to freedom of action, and freedom from physical compulsion, coercion and interference by other men. His rights impose no obligations on anyone else except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his own rights. As previously noted, self-ownership acts as the source for all other rights. We can broadly categorize self-ownership as a property right since one’s body is one’s property. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.

For example, if a man has a right to speech, but can not legally own a typewriter, how then does he manifest such a right? Additionally, how does a man sustain his life without the right to the product of his effort? Therefore, all rights, including life, liberty and property, are simply rights to action, never the right to an object, but simply to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.

As I have noted, all men are entitled to the same rights, those of life, liberty and property, solely by virtue of being human. No government has the right to deprive a man of his natural rights without due process of law. Therefore, in the question surrounding whether or not a country is free to determine its own laws and customs I argue in favor of sovereign, self-government, however I reject the notion that governments have the right to deprive their citizens of their natural rights on the basis of different cultural norms and practices. While Donnelly views “human rights as prima facie universal, but recognizes that culture [acts] as a limited source of exceptions and principles of interpretation”, I hold the view that no exceptions to one’s natural rights is acceptable. The assumption is often made that supporters of radical universal human rights would support international responses to violations of the principle of universalism. I do not hold, however, that outside regimes, whether the UN or other international organizations, have the moral authority to intervene in the affairs of another nation. The lack of defense against the violation of universal human rights does not indicate the absence of rights, rather it merely means that human rights have been violated.

For example, freedom of assembly in China is extremely restricted, which is in fact a violation of the rights of individuals to meet together peacefully, however a response in the form of violence, whether through direct military action or economic sanctions, only perpetuates further rights violations. That China refuses to recognize its citizens rights does not mean that those rights do not exist as relativists would claim in certain circumstances. Therefore, I conclude that while Donnelly is correct that countries should be free to “communal autonomy and self-determination” I disregard his argument that different cultures can determine the interpretations of these rights. Donnelly explains my position when he asks “If human rights are based in human nature…, and human nature is universal, then how can human rights be relative in any fundamental way?”

Lastly, I want to address the notion of economic and social rights. To the extent that property rights exist, only free trade and property rights can be included amongst economic and social rights. If rights are to impose to obligations on other men, then economic and social rights that claim man has a right to a certain standard of living, employment, healthcare, education, etc. can not exist without necessarily imposing on other men to provide these things for them through taxes. The right to life does not mean that others must provide an individual with the necessities of life. Likewise, the right to property does not mean that others must provide him with a home. Political rights versus economic rights is an either-or situation. One must necessarily destroy the other.

All in all, I have explained the origin of man’s rights, specifically that rights are inherent within man’s nature and that he must have them in order to act rationally. Human rights are strictly negative. They confer no obligation on that of another other than a purely negative one; no man has the right to restrict the peaceful action of another. I further argued that no state has the right to violate the rights of man by interpreting his rights in the context of a given culture. This view does not imply my support for international action against states who violate the rights of their subjects. Ultimately, I side with the universalist approach to human rights, claiming that rights are absolute, they are clearly defined, and no state has the right to modify rights based on cultural differences. Lastly, I defended only political and civil rights and denied the existence of economic and social rights as they required the state to take action, which necessarily infringes upon the rights of other individuals.

Cross post

[JayR]

I cant resist noting that while the author quoted Rand at the outset, he then went on to pepper the rest of this essay with word for word phrases and terminology from "Mans Rights" and other Rand sources without using any citation or quotation. And I checked the original document this time, no citation there either.