Under the yoke of rights?

Rights are one of the most crucial political concepts in the modern world. They are an expression of Enlightenment humanism and often serve as the moral foundation of Western society. But is it possible for certain rights to be detrimental to the individual? Is it possible for a concept designed to guarantee freedom to lead to tyranny?

These are, of course, big questions whose answers could fill hundreds of volumes. In this article I will attempt to examine some basic characteristics of rights and demonstrate how some aspects of the political system that are currently called "rights" actually pose a threat to the personal freedom of the individual.

The generally accepted definition of a “right” is “the moral or legal privilege of someone to do something.” Rights have four basic characteristics:

1. Law always has a subject.The subject of the right defines the “owner” of the right. For example,human rightshave all belonging to the species homo sapiens, andrights of a Bulgarian citizenonly people under the official jurisdiction of the Bulgarian state have.
2. Law always has an object.The object essentially specifies the privilege of the subject, describing the action that is associated with that right. For example, "human right"of free movement" means the privilege of every homo sapiens to move unrestrictedly in space (to perform the action "move").

3. Law is immutable in time and space.

In temporal terms, rights have a strictly defined duration, which is equal to the duration of the existence of their subject. In spatial terms, rights apply universally, regardless of where he is in the universe. For example, if Ivan has human rights, he has them only from the moment of his birth until the moment of his death (since he is homo sapiens). This applies regardless of where Ivan is - he would have these rights even if he settled to live on another planet.

4. Rights generate obligations.“Rights” are an abstract concept that exists only in the world of language, i.e. in the world of people. By defining the object and the subject, rights axiomatically oblige all other people to respect the described privilege. For example, if Ivan has the right not to invite people to his home, then it logically follows that all other people are obliged not to enter Ivan’s home without his invitation. In other words, a right for one always carries with it an obligation for another.

So, giving a precise definition and considering the main characteristics, let's quickly analyze a few basic parvas that have become an integral part of modern culture.

The right to private property.

Subject: Manufacturer

Object: Full control over every product that has been produced by the manufacturer

Obligation: No action shall be taken with any product without the permission of its manufacturer.

Comment: The right to private property can be rationally proven, since it arises from the fact that every man is the owner of his own body, and therefore the owner of the products of his labor. One consequence of this is that the act of imposing taxes and regulations by the state constitutes a violation of the right to private property.

The right to free expression

Subject: All people

Object: Complete control over the means of expression that are owned by the individual (including their body).

Obligation: No one should violate the integrity of an individual's means of expression.

Comment: Like the right to private property (and usually accompanying it), this right derives from the natural capacity of people to communicate.

The right to a specific product (e.g. protection, education, healthcare, shelter, food, etc.)

Subject: Users of the relevant product

Object: Specific product

Obligation: The manufacturer of the product or service in question to provide it to the consumer free of charge (i.e. at his own expense)

Comment: It is not surprising that the provision of this type of right is closely tied to the activity of the state, since the state is in a position to mobilize the necessary financial resources due to its unique ability to impose taxes. In the modern world, this type of right serves as a pretext for otherwise market products and services to be defined as “public goods” and to be regulated/monopolized by the state. In essence, this type of right justifies the redistribution of private property and the intervention of the state in more and more aspects of human life. This type of right is not compatible with the right to private property.

Collective rights

Subject: Specific social group

Object: Depending on the local context, generally some kind of "public goods" i.e. products.

Obligation: All individuals who are not part of this social group are obliged to provide these products free of charge (i.e. at their own expense)

Comment: Collective rights are inherently discriminatory and anti-egalitarian, as they create a privileged group in society. For example, if in a society women are entitled to free gynecological services, this means that men are collectively obliged to pay for these services, even though they themselves do not use them. This type of rights is not compatible with the right to private property, and often with the right to free expression, since nowadays the state punishes people who express positions against certain privileged social groups.

The list of rights is long and varied, but this analysis can be applied as a template to reveal the potential negative consequences for individual freedom of the expansion of rights. Below I have extracted a few excerpts from key documents related to rights. I would invite the reader to "decipher" their true meaning for themselves.

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection" (Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

"Citizens have the right to health insurance, granting them accessible medical care, and to free use of medical services under the conditions and procedures determined by law" (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria)

"Everyone has the right to education and to access to vocational and continuing training. This right includes the opportunity to receive free compulsory education" (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU)

Conclusion

From the above examples, we can clearly see that some types of “rights” can serve as a pretext for sharp collective interference in the private life of the individual. This effect is amplified by the fact that democracy creates motivation for a wide range of social groups and lobbies to insist on rights and privileges. Since liberalism is the basis of Western civilization (of which Bulgaria is a part), we are often misled by the positive-sounding word “rights” and approach the political demands of these groups favorably, considering them a priori fair.

In Bulgaria, for example, the so-called "citizen pressure" is in vogue, aimed at pressuring the state to implement a certain political agenda, launched by one group or another. So my advice is the next time someone talks to you about rights in the public space, listen carefully. It is quite possible that this fighter for social justice is trying to pick your pocket.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!