Below you'll find a statement concerning the difference between rights
and benefits from a man a few years younger than I am, but much wiser than my years of experience. A person I met during
our early teenage years. At the time we were Boy Scouts. The most memorable day of our acquaintance was the day our group of scouts
climbed Olallie Butte in central Oregon. During the course of conversation as we climbed, it
became very apparent that the Skousen boys, were in command of a great deal of
knowledge. Being a teenager, I suppose I felt a bit of jealousy. At the same
time I knew that they were destined to achieve something great. Now looking
back through the decades, I think that is quite evident. So now I share with
you the adult thoughts of a person I met and respected as a young boy. These
are thoughts expressed by Joel Skousen.
"The key to understanding what constitutes a true fundamental
right is to focus on this essential criteria: for a right to be true, it must
be non-conflicting with all others simultaneously claiming such right, and must
not require that anyone else serve your needs in exercising that right.
"False Rights: There are many false rights being promulgated
in today's society, mostly due to the politician's attempt to entice voters to
view benefits as if they were rights. Three of the most popular are the
so-called 'right' to a job, 'right' to medical care or the 'right' to an education. Let us apply these claims to the definition
of a true fundamental right and see if they qualify. Remember that the main
criteria that determines whether or not an action or state of being is
protected as a right is whether or not all men can simultaneously possess the 'right' in question without compelling anyone to perform a service in
their behalf.
"In the case of education, we cannot all receive an education
without compelling someone to teach, provide the facilities, the curriculum and
the books. Thus education, through others' efforts, must be a benefit based
upon contractual mutual obligations, and not a right--no matter how essential
it is deemed by the users thereof. On the other hand, self-education would be a
right as long as no one was compelled to assist you involuntarily.
"As to the 'right' to a job, we may ask, in like
manner, if all people can claim a right to a job without compelling someone to
provide that job and the money for a salary. Obviously not. In reality, a job
is the exclusive property of the employer who owns the money and the
facilities. The labor portion of the job is the exclusive property of the
laborer. The negotiations as to the rate of exchange for the owner's money and
the laborer's efforts must be left to the arena of free contract. Neither has a 'right' to attach the others' property or effort--each can only
voluntarily exchange what he owns for what he perceives the other offers in
return.
"Medical care can never be a fundamental right, either, as it
would clearly force doctors, nurses and hospital owners to become slaves to
those who demand the benefit. You may think they are not slaves because they
are being highly paid. But if you, the patients, are not paying, then someone
else is, and that person (even if a group of taxpayers) are partially enslaved
for the beneficiary's sake. Someone is always partially enslaved whenever the
direct beneficiary of any service doesn't have to pay, and someone else or some
group is not voluntarily paying the bill."
No comments:
Post a Comment