A major source of political animosity and controversy today is the belief that the rights of individuals occasionally conflict. The issue then becomes whose “rights” will be protected and whose rights will be thrown under the bus.
As an example, last week the Corpus Christi Caller-Times published an editorial supporting restrictions and bans on vaping in order to protect the “rights” of non-vapers. While acknowledging that this would infringe on the rights of vapers, the editorial defended a ban to protect “an individual’s right not to breathe someone else’s secondhand vape.” Supposedly, this is an issue of vaper’s “rights” versus “non-vaper’s “rights.”
In truth, there are no such rights. There are only individual rights, and they apply to all individuals–vapers and non-vapers alike.
Rights pertain to freedom of action–the freedom to act as one deems best, so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. A vaper violates nobody’s rights by vaping. If others don’t want to breathe secondhand vapor, they can ask the individual to stop or remove themselves from the area. They are free to act as they think best.
Further, if a property owner wishes to ban vaping on his property, that is his prerogative. The right to property, which is an application of individual rights, protect an owner’s freedom to establish the terms and conditions for using his property.
But bans and restrictions on vaping do violate individual rights. They prohibit individuals from creating, trading, and using vaping products. They prohibit individuals from acting as they judge best.
The alleged conflict of rights is an intellectually dishonest attempt to impose the values of some upon others. The immediate victims are those who engage in a politically unpopular activity. But in the end, all of us are victims. Today, the rights of vapers are under attack. Tomorrow, it could be your rights.