A further point on rights…

While pimping my blog out to my friends, a particularly astute friend of mine, a Mr. Brett Holton, raised what I think is a good point. Let me quote what he said (it was on facebook chat, so forgive both him and me for the choppiness):

In relation to the contraception proposal, does a government have the inherent obligation to fund a person's rights? A right to contraception, in my mind, does not equate to "buy me the pill, or you're oppressing me."

That to me is like saying "the government isn't buying my subscription to the New York Times, they're limiting my freedom of the press"

Brett raises a good point here, and it’s another question I have. Again, let us put aside the issue of a right to contraception. We’ll pretend that I am agnostic to that right, and besides, it’s not what I am questioning. I am more concerned about the language of rights, and their inherent meaning in our modern society. As Brett asks, are rights dependent upon funding? Are rights a form of entitlements, or rather, can entitlements be conceived of as rights? Is there a difference between the two? Should different categories of rights hold more sway over others?

Let’s create two groups of rights, call them rights of entitlement and rights of politics. The latter is easy to conceptualize. Think freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This is a more 18^th century, traditional conception of rights that involves the absence of government interference. The government allows everyone in their land a right to voice their opinion and engage in politics. Of course, common sense limitations on these rights can be applied, such as restricting shouting fire in a theater.

Entitlement rights are more modern in conception. Let us define entitlement rights as those rights requiring a good or service be provided for you on the basis of some condition. Food, shelter, and water are commonly referred to as rights, on the basis that one needs them to live. Notice that these rights require something be provided to you, not barriers removed. The provision element of these rights means that they are entirely dependent on someone else providing such a good. If someone chooses not to provide such a good, what then? Do such rights require a free provision of such goods, or merely that the person receives the goods. Assume that everyone has a right to food. If someone buys food, are his or her rights fulfilled in the same way as someone getting food for free? Why should they have to buy the food if they have a right to it? If we refuse to pay for that food, does that mean we are oppressors?

I think moral intuition tells us that oppressing someone’s right to free speech and refusing to provide a certain good, say birth control, is not the same level of oppression. The former is far worse than the latter, since it is assumed that the person requiring the birth control can easily buy it. But that doesn’t have to be the case. There is no justification or validation for holding that view. We could easily argue the former, and still be right. Who is to say that providing birth control is less important than freedom of speech?

This example raises the point of a hierarchy of rights. But, I still lack, perhaps again due to ignorance, a standard or metric for evaluating which rights predominate. Who are we, how are we to say what rights should come first?

I don’t think I’m being very clear. I don’t have a central point, just a lot of questions that I think remain largely unanswered.

Read this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=4&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

Again, for the lazy, it says that countries are no longer copying our constitution and are instead copying constitutions that have guarantees to numerous “entitlement rights.” Here’s a quote:

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care. [italics mine]

If you have rights based on the provision of material goods, then you have rights that are not inalienable but are subject to future occurrences and happenstance. What if you have a bad crop year, or your health care system collapses? What if the teachers strike? Are your rights no longer valid? Why do we limit ourselves to these? Surely the human needs entertainment, company, excitement to live. Shouldn’t we consider these rights as well?

If you have a time of austerity, and the government must cut back on public services, is that government oppressing its populace? Did that country become less free? If you believe in entitlements as rights, you have to believes this. Any curtailing of public spending would be a limiting or restriction of rights, and conversely any expansion in public spending would be a broadening, deepening, or improving of rights (the fact that the language is so clunky should give hints as to the veracity of the right as entitlement conception). 

It seems to me that there is no clear point, no clear line that we can draw and say, yes these are rights and these are not. Instead, it is based on whim and convention. Whatever society deems crucial to having, then it is a right.