For the past several months, public officials in Seattle have been considering an ordinance that would legalize theft, assault, and nearly one hundred other misdemeanors. While critics have argued that the law would invite a dramatic increase in crime, they are failing to address the fundamental issue—the premise that individuals have a right to a value.
Anita Khandelwal, the top public defender for King County, which encompasses the Seattle area, helped draft the proposed law. She said,
In a situation where you took that sandwich because you were hungry and you were trying to meet your basic need of satisfying your hunger; we as the community will know that we should not punish that. That conduct is excused.
In other words, individuals have a right to a sandwich. Stealing a sandwich is simply an exercise of that right. But the notion that individuals have a right to a value is not new to Seattle (or virtually every city in America).
Seattle was one of the first cities to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That increase was founded on the premise that individuals have a right to a value—a “living wage.” Forcing businesses to pay higher wages was simply protecting that alleged right.
Rights pertain to freedom of action, including the freedom to take the actions necessary to produce or earn the values that we want and need. We have a right to produce or buy the ingredients for a sandwich. We do not have a right to steal a sandwich. We have a right to develop the skills and expertise that will command a higher wage. We do not have a right to force business owners to pay us a wage that we have not earned.
If we have a right to a value—whether it is a “living wage,” a sandwich, education, housing, or health care—then others violate our rights when they fail to provide those values to us. This means the destruction of all rights.
If a business owner must pay a “living wage,” then he is prohibited from acting as he thinks best. If he must provide a sandwich to any individual demanding food, then he cannot act on his own judgment. If he must provide for the education, housing, or health care of others, regardless of his own desires, then his freedom of action is restricted. When an individual must provide values to others, contrary to his own judgment, then his rights are violated.
Sadly, Seattle is not alone in believing that individuals have a right to a value. Until that premise is rejected, the demands for values will only grow in intensity and in scope.