A Right is a Restriction

The use of the term “right”, as in ‘Americans have a right to…,’ has become watered down and incorrectly used in far too many instances. Generally, a right is a restriction on the authority of the government. By reserving certain powers to individuals, a right limits the strength of the government and prevents abuses of its citizens. However, a right is not an obligation to provide. While governments are, in some instances, obligated to provide certain items, these obligations are not rights. The distinction, while seemingly slight, is an important one that is often muddled in the popular arena.

Rights, as properly understood, are simply a restriction. They offer no direct provision to individuals. To understand this better one only needs to understand the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to religion. In the first instance, the right prevents the government from limiting what any individual can say. In the second instance, the right prevents the government from imposing a religion on any individual. In neither case is the government required to provide something to an individual. Other rights, such as the right to bear arms, can be understood in the same way. The right to bear arms is a restriction on the government’s monopolization of power. It prevents the government from encroaching on the personal lives of individuals, by restricting power.

However, many politicians incorrectly use the term ‘right’ to refer to certain things the government provides. Often this language is used in an attempt to expand entitlements and services. By using this language, politicians aim to make the provision of such items unassailable. This use, however, is incorrect when dealing with the rights an individual has vis-à-vis the government.

The ‘right to a minimum wage’ and the ‘right to healthcare’ are two such false rights. The reason these are not true rights is because they require the government to provide a service. A ‘right to a minimum wage’ demands that the government provide the means and structure for an individual to be provided with a certain wage. The ‘right to healthcare’ that is generally discussed when politicians try to cobble together a health reform package essentially demands that the government either directly or indirectly (eg. by establishing a legal system to force the provision from private sector) provides healthcare to every American. Since rights are defined as the restriction not the expansion of government roles, these claims cannot be rights. A properly defined right to healthcare would simply be defined as a restriction on the government not to prevent individuals from purchasing healthcare. Obviously, this is a relatively meaningless right and not what most proponents of a ‘right to healthcare’ discuss.

Civil rights are also an area where this distinction is very often incorrectly applied. Citizens undoubtedly have the right not to be persecuted or discriminated against based on racial, sexual, or other characteristics. The government is not allowed this power. However, civil rights do not mean that the government has an obligation to provide anything to people based on these same characteristics. In fact, if such an obligation existed it would most certainly violate other citizens’ rights (read: affirmative action).

The point of such a distinction is to correctly define the use of the term ‘rights’ in order to better understand the role of the government. Many policies on the left, and some on the right, tend to dismiss this definition of ‘right’ in order to expand the role of government and provide benefits to narrow slices of the electorate. However, by applying such a definition it is relatively easy to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate role of the government.

[As an added caveat the correct use of the word ‘rights’ does not imply that the government has no positive obligations. What is not a right reserved to the people (or states) is often a role for the government to play. For instance, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from each other (policing) and from external threats (military). This positive action is something the government must provide its citizens. However, it does not mean that such a positive obligation is a right that the citizens possess.]

Good Job Obama!!! Yeah, Right!

Finally Obama has made a good decision in his foreign policy. Or has he? The U.S. has rightfully decided to boycott the U.N. Conference on racism. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30282569. However, his boycott comes with the usual lack of conviction, as he expressed his “regret” at not being able to attend. Rather than regret, he should have expressed firm resolve not to take part in such a body. Obama waffled too much on this issue from the start. He lent too much credence to this sham of an institution. While he made the correct decision and backed out he shouldn’t have even considered going in the first place.

There should be no regret for not attending one of the most biased, anti-Semitic, and partisan bodies. This conference and the U.N. Human Rights Council are a mere sham to give a bunch of illiberal and oppressive regimes a platform to spew their vile rhetoric. The body mainly spends its time criticizing Israel, while failing to put much effort into dealing with real human rights issues throughout the world. (See here for the Human Rights Council website. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/).

Fortunately, Obama had the good sense to not attend and wholeheartedly embrace this body. But his hemming and hawing and expressed desire to take part is revealing of his misguided and unfortunate approach to foreign policy. Obama’s desire to interact and participate with the world community as an equal may seem noble on the surface, but it is dangerous and counter-productive.

It seems that he thinks one can garner greater respect through excessive humility and engagement. But the world community does not work this way. Every country has its own interests and will act according to what they see as the best path. Countries are not going to react just because someone is nice. They will be responsive to pressures and rewards they serve their interests. They may like, or say they like, Obama better, but it will have little impact on their policies.

Obama’s behavior doesn’t push the Human Rights Council away from bias and towards a more liberal and just handling of human rights issues. Instead it lends them legitimacy which they do not deserve. They are now liable to feel that their current path has been correct. After all, they have not changed anything and America has stepped closer to playing their game. Obama’s wimpy stance has lowered any positional power the US has, without any movement on the other side.

Unfortunately, this seems like Obama’s general approach on the world stage. He thinks that by diminishing our prestige and power in the eyes of our negotiating partners and enemies that they will suddenly be more amenable to our wishes. It is a foolhardy approach- and one that is likely to lead to much difficulty and loss of influence. He may have made the right policy decision here, but he took a very wrong and damaging path to get there. Hopefully, his time as president will not do irreparable harm to our global position.