I have been reading a lot lately, in The 5000 Year Leap and elsewhere, about natural law. Natural law is a very old concept (very, very old, in fact since the time of Adam and Eve), and is the basis for government. In Cicero’s words, “True law is right reason in agreement with nature...; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.” John Locke said that if a ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.
Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rights that he refers to here are negative rights.
(from Wikipedia) “Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions.”
Negative rights are not very controversial, but positive rights are. The Constitution guarantees certain positive rights such as the right to trial by jury, but the list is very short. Generally speaking, it leaves people alone, neither doing things for them (positive rights) nor doing things to them (negative rights.) The trouble starts when the government begins “doing nice things for people.” If government gets into the business of taking my money and building libraries, where does that end? I can complain that there isn’t a library near me, that the libraries don’t have books that I prefer, that there are things in them that violate my standards, and on and on. The same can be said for the schools, the roads, public transportation, health care, and the whole package of welfare services. (Yes I get free lunch, but they don’t serve the food I like! I am entitled to pizza on Thursdays!)
What it comes down to is this: Do I have a claim on someone else to provide for me things that I need (positive rights)? In my view, yes and no. As a minor child I have a claim upon my parents or extended family to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. As a person down-on-his-luck, I have a claim upon society to keep me from starving until I get back on my feet. But too often society is confused with government. I have no LEGAL claim to your property, but I have an ethical one. The Golden Rule is far more than 2000 years old and is found in Christian and non-Christian countries. God’s plan is that we care for each other.
People often look back to the 1800s (before government welfare was widespread) and think that because the poor were REALLY POOR, private charities were ineffective at stemming the tide of suffering. But what they forget is that the standard of living was low for most people, since we were just starting to become an industrialized, wealthy country. I would be curious to see what would happen in our nation if all those on welfare (including Native Americans on reservations, people in government slums, etc.) were given five years to figure out how to care for themselves. I believe there would be an explosion of productivity, as people went back to school, started up businesses, and began to look around for opportunities to transform from a parasitic into a symbiotic relationship with our society. Yes, there would still be those unable to care for themselves, but private charities are notable for being much more effective at getting the resources to the needs (think of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Americans are very generous, even under the present heavy tax burden (40% of the average family’s income when all the layers of taxes are added in). Think what would happen if we had some of that legal plunder back in our pockets.
And speaking of Bastiat, I believe that The Law spells out this principle as clearly as daylight:
“This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
“We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.... And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice....
“Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice – under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility – that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve – slowly, no doubt, but certainly – God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.”
