On Rights, Responsibility, and Rhetoric
I have a right to a laptop computer. I know, laptops are not in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers never could have foreseen readily-concealed, fully-automatic printing presses when they penned the First Amendment. Nonetheless, this right exists. It does not, however, imply that I am owed a laptop. I have the responsibility to buy one for myself if I want to exercise this right. I need to pay for the electricity to run it, and I have to pay for an internet service provider if I do not want to just use it on public WiFi. No one has an obligation to provide public WiFi or power if they do not wish to. A right imposes no obligation but non-interference with its exercise.
Yes, computers of all kinds have been depicted in film and television as tools for terrorists. People use computers to commit all manner of crimes. I even saw a movie where they hacked an alien space ship using a laptop. Surely no one has a right to such destructive technology! But media rarely portrays technology accurately, and literally millions of people use computers to better their lives peacefully every day. Even if they were as dangerous as that, though, I still have a right to a computer. It is my responsibility to use it in a way that does not violate the equal rights of others to their life, liberty, and property. It is not the place of government to deem my worthiness to exercise my rights, either.
Image credit
The same principle applies to all rights, whether the debate is about guns, automobiles, speech, medical care, vaping, immigration, housing, or anything else people might want to see regulated further, banned outright, or administered through a government monopoly. This should be a non-partisan principle: bans are bad, mandates are counterproductive, and calling a policy common-sense regulation and licensing is dishonest. Imposing prohibition or political controls at gunpoint is not a civilized, rational response; and condemning dissent is not serious debate.
Vices are not crimes, regardless of the law. People who do things you personally dislike, but do not infringe upon the rights of others, are not criminals. People who own objects you do not like are not automatically a threat to you, regardless of how you feel. Prohibitions tend to inflict harm rather than prevent it. Further, when regulations are imposed in the name of consumer protection, we see regulatory capture where crony corporations are able to absorb the new costs, lobby for exemptions, or receive grandfather clauses while small businesses are crushed under the new legal and financial burdens, further entrenching established interests. As for mandates, OSHA, the War on Poverty, the Clinton-era Assault Weapon Ban, and other landmark government interventions are not the clear-cut proof of political success as their advocates claim. The usual result is at best a continuation of a pre-existing positive trend, and at worst a statistical stagnation.
Legality does not define morality, and the unintended consequences of well-meaning legislation must be acknowledged. Let go of the control freak instinct. Do not support politicians who scratch that authoritarian itch. Stop relying on muckrakers, yellow journalists, and self-righteously indignant loudmouths for your political philosophy. It is not good for you or anyone else, regardless of their emotion-driven rhetoric and sensationalist pronouncements.
crazy talk😃
No, you don't have a "right" to a laptop because that DOES imply you are owed a laptop. This is why so many argue against calling health care a "right". To call a good or service a "right" implies that labor or wealth (which generally amounts to the same thing) must be extracted from someone else by force to provide it if necessary.
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not the same as a right to a gun. The first says that you may bear arms and no one can stop you, the second says that you must be provided arms. The first amendment right to free speech is not the same as the right to a printing press or even a pencil for the same reason.
While rights don't necessarily guarantee you access to tools or implements to exercise those rights, it's also true that no one can infringe on you rights by preventing you from obtaining those tools through the free exchange of goods.
The only obligation conferred with a right is the responsibility to not get in someone's way of exercising it. Not to provide it for them. That's why health care is a right, but providing it through government and "taxation" is slavery. You have a right to find whatever health care for yourself you can, through trade or charity. The FDA, DEA, and all doctor/practitioner rationing ("licensing") schemes interfere with this right.
I don't buy any of the arguments for rights as a positive obligation upon others, though. A right is that which I may do without infringing upon others, begging permission, or demanding their participation. The only way my right to a laptop imposes an obligation is when I pay someone for a laptop, and they have yet to fulfil their side of the terms of exchange. They accepted that obligation as part of the transaction, though. I did not impose it. Further, there is no right to laptops before laptops were invented. It is a subset of rights to property and trade, though.
But a property right is the right to do with what you want with your own property. It's not a right to a particular piece of property itself. The right to freely exchange goods and services is not a right to a particular good or service. I don't buy the argument that a right should be a positive obligation on others either but it depends on how you phrase a particular right as to whether you are implying that or not. Of course there can't be a right to a laptop if it doesn't exist. But there also can't be a right to a laptop if you can't afford one. So there can be no absolute right to a laptop period. That's my point.
You have the right to freely exchange other goods or services for a laptop provided someone else is willing to trade with you (and of course it exists). I just don't think that semantically equals "right to a laptop".
What if I rephrase, "I have a right to a laptop," as, "No one has the authority to forbid me from buying, owning, using, or carrying a laptop"? Does that solve your semantic problems? Because this is a blog post using a shorthand phrase in colloquial speech to make a point.
Then I would agree with your rephrasing :). Words matter and I just object to the "right to product X" language because it's often used to argue how the government should be providing something.
This isn't a scholarly paper, though, it's a blog post intended to reimagine a common statement, and the context should have filled in the blanks.
Outstanding. Thank you.
😄😇😉
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.