Gresham’s Law holds that “bad” money drives out “good” money. For example, if legal tender laws declare that a one ounce brass coin and a one ounce gold coin are both worth $10, the more valuable gold coin will disappear from circulation. While Gresham’s law pertains to economics, the same principle applies to rights.
When a false right is equated with a valid right, the valid right is ultimately destroyed. “Bad” rights drive out “good” rights. Housing advocates provide an example. They assert four “rights” in regard to housing:
- The right to choose
- The right to stay
- The right to equal treatment
- The right to have a say
These “rights” might sound good. Most people support freedom of choice and equality under the law. But that is not what housing advocates mean by the right to choose or the right to equal treatment. What they actually seek is the elimination of freedom of choice and unequal treatment under the law. And this is true of all of the “rights” alleged by housing advocates—they will destroy actual rights.
These alleged rights are an example of what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept.
An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .
The purpose of the “rights” asserted by housing advocates is to advance their political agenda by obliterating legitimate rights. They do this by using terminology that might sound appealing, but actually means the opposite of what one thinks it means.
Rights pertain to freedom of action—the freedom to act on one’s own judgment, so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. But housing advocates do not respect the freedom of others to act on their judgment. What they want is the freedom to act on their judgment while denying that same freedom to others. They want the “right” to force their views upon everyone else.
If housing advocates have their way, “bad” rights will drive out “good” rights. The freedom to act as one deems best will be replaced by institutionalized conformity.
Over the next two weeks we will examine each of these alleged rights more closely. We will see that these “rights” do not mean what housing advocates want us to believe.
One comment
Comments are closed.