Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	© 2007 Daniel J. McLaughlin Accentuate The Negative There is an old song that tells us to “accentuate the positive”. That is an effective way to live happy, more productive lives. It really does help to find what is working, to look for the best, and seek the positive side of each situation. There are instances, however, when we should accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. As human beings, we have certain rights. These are spelled out in the Declaration Of Independence, and further clarified in the Bill Of Rights. They were and are considered unalienable rights, not just for Americans, but for citizens of the entire human race. In separating from a tyrant who abused those rights, the founders of this country established an official recognition of individual rights, and established protection of those rights for all who fall under it’s jurisdiction. They held the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as sacred and inviolable. These are what can be called negative rights. They, in essence, say what cannot be done. They forbid actions that abuse another person’s negative rights. Positive rights, on the other hand, impose an obligation on someone to act for the benefit of someone else. Familiar examples of assumed positive rights are a minimum standard of living, health care, education, employment, food, clothing, or housing. The only way for these rights to be fulfilled for some people is to take from someone else, to infringe on the rights of others. That is not to say that people shouldn’t be charitable. It does, in fact, imply a need for real charity. True charity can only occur under freedom of choice. Charity performed under coercion is not charity. It is merely coercion, the immoral use of power, to force action that was not freely motivated. Government charity is not charity. It is not even good. Charity of all types really does occur without government. Vast networks of non-profit charitable organizations were formed in response to needs, without any direction or planning from government. People really do care. They care less, however, when they assume that it’s government’s responsibility to provide for those in need. Government “charity” relieves individuals of the responsibility for private charity. It becomes someone else’s job. Positive rights and individual liberty are mutually exclusive. They both cannot be asserted together. Any time something is taken from someone for the benefit of another, that person’s rights are forfeited. Positive rights are the subordination of one person’s rights to those of another. Murder is subordination of the right to life to another person. Slavery is the subordination of one’s liberty to another. Theft is the subordination of one’s property rights. Subordination of those rights is still murder, slavery and theft whether that subordination is to another individual, to a group of individuals or to government, however well meaning. The United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights is a fairly comprehensive listing of the presumed rights of individuals. It includes negative rights, such as life, liberty and property, but it also includes a long laundry list of positive rights, things that people have a right to have provided for them. Society, by which they mean government, is the ultimate guarantor of that provision. Because it includes both positive and negative rights, the document is filled with inconsistencies and logical errors. You can’t have both one thing and it’s opposite together. You cannot have compulsion to act and freedom of choice at the same time. America is the first country in history to officially and formally recognize those negative rights that promote individual responsibility and progress. It prospered to the extent that those negative rights were protected. To the extent that this country substitutes positive rights for negative rights, it will stagnate and eventually collapse, as other societies have adequately demonstrated, and are demonstrating today. Our massive burden of government debt is merely delaying the day of reckoning, multiplying the inevitable problems. The interests of individuals in a society are harmonious when property rights are respected. A century and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat said “However much we love reconciliation, there are two principles that can never be reconciled: liberty and coercion.” Negative rights embody liberty, positive rights, coercion. While there will never be a society entirely free of coercion, there is a difference between putting up with a certain amount of an evil and embracing it as a good and virtuous way. The next time you hear discussion of government programs, think about accentuating the negative.
Contact us Privacy Policy Comments
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 03/18/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Accentuate The Negative

There is an old song that tells us to “accentuate the positive”. That is an effective way to live happy, more productive lives. It really does help to find what is working, to look for the best, and seek the positive side of each situation. There are instances, however, when we should accentuate the negative and ignore the positive.

As human beings, we have certain rights. These are spelled out in the Declaration Of Independence, and further clarified in the Bill Of Rights. They were and are considered unalienable rights, not just for Americans, but for citizens of the entire human race. In separating from a tyrant who abused those rights, the founders of this country established an official recognition of individual rights, and established protection of those rights for all who fall under it’s jurisdiction. They held the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as sacred and inviolable.

These are what can be called negative rights. They, in essence, say what cannot be done. They forbid actions that abuse another person’s negative rights.

Positive rights, on the other hand, impose an obligation on someone to act for the benefit of someone else. Familiar examples of assumed positive rights are a minimum standard of living, health care, education, employment, food, clothing, or housing. The only way for these rights to be fulfilled for some people is to take from someone else, to infringe on the rights of others.

That is not to say that people shouldn’t be charitable. It does, in fact, imply a need for real charity. True charity can only occur under freedom of choice. Charity performed under coercion is not charity. It is merely coercion, the immoral use of power, to force action that was not freely motivated. Government charity is not charity. It is not even good. Charity of all types really does occur without government. Vast networks of non-profit charitable organizations were formed in response to needs, without any direction or planning from government. People really do care. They care less, however, when they assume that it’s government’s responsibility to provide for those in need. Government “charity” relieves individuals of the responsibility for private charity. It becomes someone else’s job.

Positive rights and individual liberty are mutually exclusive. They both cannot be asserted together. Any time something is taken from someone for the benefit of another, that person’s rights are forfeited. Positive rights are the subordination of one person’s rights to those of another. Murder is subordination of the right to life to another person. Slavery is the subordination of one’s liberty to another. Theft is the subordination of one’s property rights. Subordination of those rights is still murder, slavery and theft whether that subordination is to another individual, to a group of individuals or to government, however well meaning.

The United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights is a fairly comprehensive listing of the presumed rights of individuals. It includes negative rights, such as life, liberty and property, but it also includes a long laundry list of positive rights, things that people have a right to have provided for them. Society, by which they mean government, is the ultimate guarantor of that provision. Because it includes both positive and negative rights, the document is filled with inconsistencies and logical errors. You can’t have both one thing and it’s opposite together. You cannot have compulsion to act and freedom of choice at the same time.

America is the first country in history to officially and formally recognize those negative rights that promote individual responsibility and progress. It prospered to the extent that those negative rights were protected. To the extent that this country substitutes positive rights for negative rights, it will stagnate and eventually collapse, as other societies have adequately demonstrated, and are demonstrating today. Our massive burden of government debt is merely delaying the day of reckoning, multiplying the inevitable problems.

The interests of individuals in a society are harmonious when property rights are respected. A century and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat said “However much we love reconciliation, there are two principles that can never be reconciled: liberty and coercion.” Negative rights embody liberty, positive rights, coercion.

While there will never be a society entirely free of coercion, there is a difference between putting up with a certain amount of an evil and embracing it as a good and virtuous way. The next time you hear discussion of government programs, think about accentuating the negative.

Hit Counter