It is increasingly common to hear someone state that the rights of individuals are in conflict. The use of phrases such as “tenants’ rights” or “housing is a right” are two examples. The confusion about the nature of rights gives rise to the view that rights conflict.
Rights pertain to freedom of action. Rights protect our freedom to act as we judge best, so long as we respect the freedom of others to do the same. This freedom applies to all individuals It applies to landlords and tenants, rich and poor, male and female, black and white.
Two mistaken views of rights lead to the claim that rights conflict. One view applies rights to groups rather than individuals, such as “tenants’ rights.” Tenants, this view holds, have rights that are separate and distinct from landlords. Tenants should have freedom of action while landlords should not. The second mistaken view applies rights to an object, such as housing. Individuals, this view holds, have a right to certain objects, regardless of their own actions and in spite of their actions.
Ironically, the view that rights conflict ultimately causes actual conflict. Proposals to protect “tenants’ rights” leads to conflict between landlords and tenants. Such proposals invariably protect “tenants’ rights” by limiting and restricting the rights of other individuals. Claims that individuals have a right to an object leads to conflict between producers and parasites. Such claims imply that producers have an obligation to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves.
The confusion regarding rights implies that freedom creates conflict. In truth, the absence of freedom creates conflict as individuals compete to influence legislators to pass favorable legislation. A proper view of rights will not eliminate all disagreement. But it will protect our freedom to act as we think best.