If we examine nearly any political issue, from health care to housing, from jobs to wages, we will find claims of conflicting “rights.” Individuals claim that they have a right to decent housing, while landlords claim that they have a right to choose their tenants. Employees claim that they have a right to a “living wage,” while employers claim that they have a right to set the terms and conditions (including pay) or employment.
The apparent conflict arises because of a perverted view of “rights.” A right is the freedom to take action. The right to free speech means the freedom to speak or write without censor or penalties from the government. The right to freedom of religion means the freedom to practice one’s beliefs without recrimination from the government. In short, rights mean the freedom to act on one’s own judgment without physical interference from others.
But if one has a right to housing, or a “living wage,” or health care, this means that others must provide that object, regardless of their own desires, judgments, or values. It means that if a landlord refuses to rent a house to an unemployed derelict, the landlord has violated the rights of the irresponsible individual. If an employer refuses to pay an employee more than he is worth, the employer is guilty of violating the rights of the unskilled. If a doctor refuses to provide treatment to someone who can’t pay him, he is guilty of violating the rights of the ill.
But if the landlord is forced to rent to someone he thinks unworthy, if the employer is forced to pay more than he thinks an individual deserves, if a doctor is forced to treat someone who can’t pay him, each is deprived of the freedom to act on his own judgment. Each is denied his rights to live and act as he chooses.
The perceived conflict between rights disappears if we understand what rights truly mean. But until that occurs, we will be subjected to a perpetual conflict between “rights.” And in the end, that usually means that actual rights are violated.