THE MEANING OF RIGHTS

Stuart K. Hayashi


( The interpretation of rights below stems mostly from the philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. The most logical parts were incorporated by Ayn Rand, and later Hawaii Pacific University economist Ken Schoolland in his book The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey.)


           Rights stem, not from what people think they deserve and do not have, but merely from self-ownership. Each individual owns his or her own self, which means that he or she owns his own mind, body, and and what it produces, unless he or she chooses to give one or more of them up. To own one's own mind and body means to have rights to life, liberty, and property.

           To lose your life is to lose your future, which is a part of who you are. If another kills you, he is violating your ownership over your own body. It's your body; not the murderer's. To lose your liberty is to lose your present options, and it makes life so much more difficult. Liberty is integral to flourishing life, and your present is a part of who you are. You have a right to property, because your property is a product of your past. To lose your property to thugs is to lose what you worked so hard for.

           People have said, "Human rights [and now, animal 'rights'] before property rights!" In truth, all rights are property rights. You have a right to freedom of religion or to have none at all, because you own your own mind and your own life. You have a right to free speech, because you own your own thoughts and your own mouth. You have a right not to be raped or murdered, because your body belongs to you and no one else.
           Ownership of something means control over it, including its disposal. If you own something, you can relinquish your ownership over it at any time, or can share it. Thus, one can share one's own body or take one's own life when one chooses. One can also give something away, which means passing ownership of one material item to another person, or trade. These things are all keeping in rights.

           The price of having rights means respecting those of others. This is because, if everyone stole, raped, and murdered, then no one would be safe and no rights would exist. Adhering to the rights of others is the price of a free society. This is why respecting the rights of others is integral to having rights of one's own.
           Criminals who have initiated violence--rapists and murderers; and violators of property--robbers and vandals; do not have rights. By violating the rights of others, they have forefeited their own. If such goons were still considered to have rights, then no one would ever need to respect rights, and the whole concept of rights would be obliterated. Breachers of contract, thieves, and looters have given up some rights, and murderers have given up all of their own. Criminals, like dogs, do not have rights. This is not speciesism; this is just logical consistency.

           A right only means the absence of starting violence; it does not guarantee anything. A right to property means that others cannot steal it or destroy it; it does not mean that others must be conscribed into service to provide property for others; that would mean that there is a right to violate rights, which would invalidate the entire concept. A right to life means that others cannot murder another; it does not mean that one is entitled to violate the rights of others to sustain his own life. A right to free speech means that one can express his or her own opinions without others shutting him or her up by threatening violence. It does not mean that others be forced to listen to him or her, or that movie studios be compelled to buy his or her screenplays when they do not wish to purchase them.
           A right is not an "entitlement." A right is inalienable, which means that it cannot be violated by anyone for any reason. It should not be violated by freelance goons, the Mafia, or even the government, which means: not even the Environmental Protection Agency. It cannot be, in good conscience, violated for any reason: not for "the public good," or to feed other people.
           A minor property right may sometimes be ignored to preserve one's right to life, such as one temporarily stealing an icepick to kill a mad gunman. This would not eliminate the initiation of force, but it would at least minimize it. But such an uncommon act is not the same as permitting the violation of rights to "help" others; in the case of welfare, the violation of rights begins and ends with the government saying, "Your money or your life!"

           In the case of mentally-challenged and children, their rights stem from more than just belonging to our species. Children will someday be able to respect rights, because they can think. The mentally-challenged have a more difficult time with this, but their consciousness still far exceeds that of fishes, lobsters, foxes, and even chimpanzees. In the case of the comatose, mentally-challenged, and children, what we have our rights-structures similar to trusteeships. The parents and/or caretakers act as trustees, with the comatose, mentally-challenged, and children as their beneficiaries, who still have the potential to gain autonomy one day.
           One may then argue that the concept of "pet ownership" should then be changed to "adopting a pet." Yet, as explained above, children will some day be able to respect rights, while gerbils never will.

           A right is not an entitlement for anything. A right means being left alone, unless freely choosing otherwise.



Return to Controversial Essay Page!

Back to Main



The above essay is Copyright © 2000 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his expressed written consent. All rights reserved.