Capital Goods and Capital

Recently while having coffee with an acquaintance of mine, we became involved in a discussion about rights. It soon became apparent that we had different definitions of what "rights" really are. I said that rights included such things as the right to use and enjoy your property as you saw fit, the right to speak on any subject, the right to be free from coercion, etc. He said my refusal to extend rights to such things as the right to food, housing, education, medical care, was a heartless, unfeeling position to hold. I replied that it had nothing to do with feelings or heart. He was framing the argument to suit himself.

Rights, true rights, are limited to those rights that when put into practice do not trample on other people’s rights. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

My right to own and use my property, practice my religion, speak my mind, associate with whom I please and be the sole beneficiary of my labor does not require any action on anyone else’s part, other than to be left alone by them. These are called "negative rights".

So called rights like the right to medical care, housing, food, education, etc. when put into practice require action on the part of others. These are called "positive rights".

For example, if housing is indeed a right, (separate the "right to housing" from the "right to own housing" or any other property, two very different things) then how does this housing come into being? I would have to assume that the government would seize other people’s wealth/property to pay for this "right to housing".

What the essential problem is that others are being asked (forced) to pay for this right to housing. This paying by others is a violation of their rights. The government violates their property rights by seizing their property to pay for the free housing. This is a violation because it limits their right to use and enjoy their property as they see fit. Obviously if your property is seized by the government it is tough to use and enjoy it as you see fit, not true?

Now we have to settle some other questions once we know who will pay for it. Who will have a right to it? Will it be based on income? Wealth? How many children you have? Alternatively, would everyone have the right to demand a house? Moreover, will it be a house? Will it be a small apartment? It seems unlikely that the government will be able to provide even a medium size house to everyone that will demand his or her free house. No matter how much wealth they seize. It becomes apparent that this would be a quagmire and a never-ending problem, a black hole for the nation’s wealth. Much like our healthcare system has become.

There are those who will argue that even if it is a violation of our property rights, we have a "moral obligation" to give up our property to provide this "housing right". It becomes obvious at this point that this is not a "right" but merely a "want" or a "need", and they are imposing their values onto us. Their definition of what a deserving charity is becomes our obligation to pay.

Editor