On rights and freedom of action
Ho Say Peng
This article can be considered a footnote to my first article “Rights: The foundation of a free society“.
Howard Roark
“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need. I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.” – Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
One of the misconceptions of rights today is that man has a ‘right to a job’, a ‘right to health care’, a ‘right to education’, a ‘right to a house’ – that man has a ‘right’ to things simply because he claims he needs or wants them.
The sanction of such alleged ‘rights’ is the first step toward the destruction of rights. If man has ‘rights’ to health care, to education, to a house, then the appropriate questions to be asked next are: Who is to provide them? And at whose expense?
Jobs, health care, education and houses are not products of nature, nor can they be products of government – because by the nature of government, it cannot be a corporation and a producer – but the products of the men who produced them.
If a man is entitled by ‘right’ to the products of others, it means that those others are deprived of their rights to earn and keep their own property and their rights to sell to whomever they choose. If a man is entitled by ‘right’ to the products of others, those others are essentially condemned to slave labor. A ‘right’ that violates the rights of others is a contradiction in terms. No such ‘rights’ can exist.
The principle of rights is a concept defining and sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social context. It pertains only to action – specifically, to freedom of action. It means that a man is free to take any action he wishes, as long as he does not violate the rights of others.
A man’s right to life means the right to be free to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action, which means the right to support his life by his own effort and through his own work. It does not mean that others are bound by his ‘right’ to provide him the physical necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothes.
A man’s right to property means the right to be free to pursue the necessary economic action to earn property and the right to keep, use and dispose of it as per his wish. It does not mean that others are bound by his ‘right’ to provide him property.
A man’s right to free speech means the right to be free to speak and express his thoughts without restraint and danger of suppression. It does not mean that others are bound by his ‘right’ to provide him a speakerphone, a stage, an audience or even pen and paper through which to express his ideas.
A man’s right to free trade means the right to be free to buy and sell goods and services if there is sufficient supply and demand. It does not mean that others are bound by his ‘right’ to buy and sell goods and services to him.
A man’s right to his own faith means the right to be to free to choose his own religion and engage in religious practice. It does not mean that others are bound by his ‘right’ to provide him a synagogue, a temple or bible through which to carry out his religious practice.
Every man has the right to make his own decision and no man has the right to force his decision onto others. Any action that involves more than one man requires the voluntary consent of those involved.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a ‘right to a job’ – there is only a right to free trade, i.e., the right to take a job if another man chooses to employ him – no such thing as a ‘right to a house’ – there is only a right to free trade, i.e., the right to buy a house if another man chooses to sell it to him – no such thing as a ‘right to health care’ – there is only a right to free trade, i.e., the right to buy health care if another man chooses to sell it to him – no such thing as a ‘right to a safe working environment’ – there is only the right to be free to choose to work in a safe environment; if it is unsafe, he is free to decline the job and choose to work someplace else – no such thing as a ‘right to a decent wage’ – there is only the right to be free to choose a job that pays a decent wage; if it does not, he is free to decline the job and choose another job.
The principle of rights is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man’s freedom of action. It imposes no obligation, except a negative obligation implicit in the nature of rights: to refrain from violating the rights of others.
The man who claims he has a ‘right’ to your property or the products of your labor is a man who claims he has a ‘right’ to your life. Such a man does not have a place in a free society.
sorry, but your point being?
are you advocating for something or against something?
In “Rights: The foundation of a free society”, I mentioned, but did not elaborate, today’s wide-spread misconceptions of rights. With this article and more to come, I intend to systematically expose, refute and correct these misconceptions.
Who would propound the alleged ‘rights’ I mentioned in my article?
1. Politicians who wish to violate rights. But since they cannot outright deny rights, what they do is corrupt the real meaning of it and turn it in itself. They promulgate some newfangled ‘rights’ so that people do not realize the actual meaning of rights has been reversed.
2. Other than politicians, anyone who thinks that it is the moral duty of a person to help his neighbor, who thinks a person is his brother’s keeper, e.g., a socialist.
[...] Discourse – Trapper’s Swamp: Broad definitions make for bad laws – New Asia Republic: On rights and freedom of action [Thanks Donaldson] – The Temasek Review: Only 11 cases of successful Public Assistance (PA) [...]
yawn please lah ho say peng “philosopher and student of ayn rand” your prolix entries on “rights of man” nobody really reads them. gosh you must be one of those internet nerds who are really happier writing these long entries at night without a life outside. when was the last time u had contact with the civilization outside your objectivism cave? get a life YAWN
To the anonymous person above, you are obviously not a student of history. Perhaps, when your country falls under a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, will you then realize the value of my writings. Until that time arrives, you are free not to read anything I write. And believe me, my words are not intended for eyes such as yours.
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Your post is a breath of fresh air in these times when most online posting are about the “rights” of Singaporeans to cheap HDB flats, jobs, places in university, and “affordable” healthcare.
The people clamour for the government to give them what is theirs “by right”, and ironically it is this very government that has bred an “entitlement complex” and a “subsidy addiction” in the people (to borrow a term from Alex Au’s latest post); but even the almighty government is not proof against the basic laws of economics.
It seems to me that these people who argue for such “rights” are people who do not themselves supply the products required, but expect others who are capable of producing them to give them up at a low price, or else to be subsidised by those who pay more taxes – and of course under our current taxation system it is those who MAKE more money who are taxed more (I am sure you know why I capitalised the word ‘make’). It is as if these people think that if all our resources are pooled together and each man is given an equal share of it, they will emerge richer, and are glad of it.
I am not sure which I detest more: the government that produced such a state of affairs, or the one which will replace it by promising to give these “rights” to these people.
Angry Doc: “and of course under our current taxation system it is those who MAKE more money who are taxed more”
Those who make more money also CONSUME more. A man who makes one-tenth of your wage has less need for the police, the army, the hospitals, the government, higher education, roads, etc.
It is not always a zero-sum game when you are taxed more. If we pool our resources for security, education, medical needs, etc, the outcome can be superior to the case in which we all acquire them individually.
There is also a whole other argument about the Matthew effect. Those who have more can usually make more and those who have less will make less. For example, people from rich and middle class families have a better chance of acquiring higher education than those of working class background. They have access to the social capital that makes it easier for them to acquire financial success. It is these inequalities that redistributive policies try to ameliorate (and not eliminate).
[...] social workers – Trapper’s Swamp: Broad definitions make for bad laws – New Asia Republic: On rights and freedom of action [Thanks Donaldson] – The Temasek Review: Only 11 cases of successful Public Assistance (PA) [...]
“Those who make more money also CONSUME more. A man who makes one-tenth of your wage has less need for the police, the army, the hospitals, the government, higher education, roads, etc.”
That is not true, Fox, especially in our local context.
Take healthcare for example. A rich man may be able to afford to stay in an A class ward, in which case he spends more (and you may even argue he consumes more), but does he really consume more tax- or public money in the form of subsidy? If anything, the poor man who stays in a C class ward consumes more than the rich man! Or if our rich man chooses to stay in a C class ward, then with means-testing, he pays more than the poor man for the same services they both consume, which means that he indirectly consumes less. Even without means-tesing, he will consume the same amount of subsidy, but never more! And if the poor man is truly poor, his bills are paid for by Medifund, which comes again from taxes.
When the rich buy a car, they pay for COE and road tax the same as a poor man. Do the cars of the rich occupy more road space or do their tyres wear out the roads more than the cars of the poor?
Do the rich commit more crimes that they take up more police resources to investigate and arrest them? Are the homes of the rich patrolled more by the police than those of the poor (or are they often harassed by loan sharks and require the police to stake out at thier homes to catch those who vanadlise their homes)?
I acknowledge the need for taxes, Fox – there are things which our individual resources cannot achieve alone. What I object to is those who contribute so little to the pool, but demand so much out of it. The rich do not consume more taxes than the poor, Fox. That they CAN pay more taxes is merely a mathematical fact; but that the rich DO pay more taxes than the poor is merely state-sanctioned extortion of those who produce more by those who produce less. Why SHOULD the rich pay more taxes? What makes people think they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labour?
As for the Matthew Effect, well I submit that it is precisely the function of parents to ensure that their offsprings have a headstart in life. We attain things in life (“socail capital”) partly with the aim of making things better for our children. I do not apologise for that, and I think the man who thinks he has the right to take things from me to enrich others without my consent (via “redistributive policies”) is not better than a thief. As long as we do not use the advantages we have attained to help our children in a fraudulent manner, we have not robbed another man of his rights. (Nepotism, with no regard for merit, is another kettle of fish altogether…)
“Why SHOULD the rich pay more taxes? What makes people think they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labour?”
Probably because the rich make their money in a safe harmonious society that is the product of collectivised employment of resources. It is not so much poor people have the right to take your money as it is the necessary for a properly functioning society to collect taxes to ensure its continuance.
Do a fair accounting to what you have taken from society to reach your station in life. Did you go to private schools? Did you build your own roads? And so on.
“Do the rich commit more crimes that they take up more police resources to investigate and arrest them? Are the homes of the rich patrolled more by the police than those of the poor (or are they often harassed by loan sharks and require the police to stake out at thier homes to catch those who vanadlise their homes)?”
The rich have more assets to protect.
Suppose you’re a rich businessman. Your home is protected by the police. Your office is protected by the police. If there were no police and the office is burgled, who loses more money? The businessman or his secretary? If there is an electrical fire in the office, who suffers a greater loss? I can go on and on.
You don’t make your money in a vacuum. You are able to do so as part of a complex society. Roads have to be built, teachers have to be paid, hospitals have to be run, etc.
Did you go to private schools from primary school to university? Did you grew up in a gated community? Did you have your own private security force? Are your patients all members of the private sector who grew up in gated communities, went to private school, had their own private security guards, etc? Have you worked in the private sector all your life?
What? No?
Now, now, Fox – I already acknowledged the need for taxes; what we differ over is whether the rich consume more tax money than the poor. You stated that they did, I disputed that, and now you have changed your position to one that the rich consume more because they stand to lose more if the police and fire department did not function properly. Subtle difference, and I am not sure either you or I have the statistics to prove that buildings owned by the rich do consume proportionately more police and civil defence resources.
“You don’t make your money in a vacuum. You are able to do so as part of a complex society. Roads have to be built, teachers have to be paid, hospitals have to be run, etc.”
Certianly, Fox, but those things exist for all of us, rich or poor, and I have already stated why I think the rich do not consume more of these tax-funded resources than the poor. If I happen to be able to make more money out of using these same things, why should I pay more for them? People who paid taxes did not do so so that “I” could use the roads and make money – they did so so that “they” could use the roads too.
It is as though two men are renting identical units in a building, but man who has a higher salary is made to pay a higher rent. You think that is fair, I do not.
“Subtle difference, and I am not sure either you or I have the statistics to prove that buildings owned by the rich do consume proportionately more police and civil defence resources.”
Look there are two simple (not necessarily independent) arguments as to why the rich should pay more:
1. They consume more of society’s resources.
2. They benefit more too.
I understand that you do not subscribe to argument no. 2.
I said that As you have pointed out, there is a subtle difference: they *benefit* more from having the police and firemen around. I don’t find this argument any less morally persuasive. Your method of accounting only includes the benefits directly accrued by the rich. However, you fail to account for the indirect benefits. It is pretty obvious that the rich do benefit more from having a well-structured harmonious society with some degree of collectivisation of resources through taxes.
You are looking at the cost side of things and I am looking at the benefits side of things. I simply think it is fair that you pay more on the basis of what you can benefit.
The confusion that you have is over cost and price. Most of the time, the price of something is higher than the cost of it. This discrepancy is simply caused by demand. Of course, the government decides what your demand is for what we may describe as society’s membership fee but that is the function of governments. In that case, your beef is really with the whole concept of having government being able to impose any kind of taxes, and not about the proportion of taxes that you pay. In any case, the coercion factor is not absolute and you can try moving to places with a less, shall we say, repressive tax regime, like Somalia.
If you think that having a discrepancy between cost and price is unfair, then why is a Filipino doctor who has approximately the same professional skill level paid less than 1/2 of what you charge? The discrepancy cannot be entirely due to the fact that you live in Singapore and that medical school costs a lot more in Singapore. You can also try moving to the Philipines to restart your professional career and see how much you can earn.
angrydoc: “If I happen to be able to make more money out of using these same things, why should I pay more for them?”
Because without those same things, you cannot make more money.
I like to add: You can try finding those things in other countries but I suspect that your ability to make money out of them would be reduced.
Somebody should write an economic-cum-philosophical commentary on determining a fair price. Maybe me.
“… your beef is really with the whole concept of having government being able to impose any kind of taxes, and not about the proportion of taxes that you pay.”
No, Fox – I have already acknowledged the need for taxes. Collecitvism is a necessary evil; what I disagree with is the fact that the rich are taxed more.
Angrydoc,
I’ll explain this again. The income you receive is not purely the fruit of your labour only. It is highly dependent on the kind of society and economic ecosystem that you live in. You can move to the Philippines and make less money or move to the United States and make a lot more.
What you perhaps cannot distinguish is the difference between the raw cost of something and its opportunity cost, the same kind of mistake that many Singaporeans make when they compare the cost of constructing HDB flats and the price set by HDB. Let’s say that you choose not to pay for that extra policeman. The risk to you is greater than the risk to a road sweeper. Your opportunity cost of not paying for that extra policeman is much higher.
Should you pay more? Well that depends. Do you think you should pay more for a new 5-room HDB flat in Toa Payoh Central than for an identical one in Sengkang even though their constructions costs are the same?
Sure, Fox – a loaf of bread should cost more to the man who is starving than to the man who still has food even though the cost to make the loaf is the same…
In an unrestricted free market, the starving man will have to pay more for the bread if it is within his economic capacity to do so. That is why we need the government to step in to subsidize bakers, flour and baking school to make bread affordable for the poor and hungry.
Of course, it is a bit rich to compare the wealthy to starving people…
Actually, Fox, my analogy is wrong. By your argument, the rich man should pay more for the same loaf of bread.
And a man who kills a rich man should be punished more severely than a man who kills a poor man, since a rich man presumably enjoys life more than the poor man?
And a man who steals $100 from a poor man should be punished more severely than a man who steals $100 from a rich man, since the same amount represents a smaller portion of the rich man’s assets?
“In an unrestricted free market, the starving man will have to pay more for the bread if it is within his economic capacity to do so.”
No, in a free market the baker who tries to profiteer from the poor man will find his competitor selling his bread at a price that the poor can afford, and still turn in a profit.
“That is why we need the government to step in to subsidize bakers, flour and baking school to make bread affordable for the poor and hungry.”
And why should those who earn enough money to pay taxes subsidise those who do not earn enough to buy bread?
Do you stop to ask why the poor are poor, or is the mere fact that they are poor reason enough for us to tax those who are not to feed them?
“And why should those who earn enough money to pay taxes subsidise those who do not earn enough to buy bread?”
Do you want the economic or the moral reasons?
Economic:
1. Social safety nets promote consumption which in turn stimulates economic growth. If we do not have enough social safety nets, people tend to save excessively which is bad for economic growth. Social safety nets and domestic consumption actually function as auto-stabilizers for the economy. Singapore has had see-saw economic growth for the last decade precisely because it lacks these domestic auto-stabilizers and lacks a developed consumption sector. If we see poor people starving on the street, we’ll save a lot more and cut back on our purchases. Thrift is great for the individual but terrible at the aggregate level.
2. The lack of safety nets also discourages people from having children. If you see many starving people on the streets, your tendency to save increases and you’ll avoid consumption. Unfortunately, having children do increase consumption and many people will avoid having or have fewer children. If you don’t think Singapore’s low sub-replacement birth rate is a long-term problem, then you can ignore this argument. Sure, it’s not a problem for YOU but it is a problem at the societal level.
3. There are other arguments about how the dearth of entrepreneurship can be attributed to the lack of social safety nets.
Moral:
1. Well, do you really want to see people starve on the street?
2. Economic hardship can be due to unforeseeable circumstances.
3. Some people are handicapped, started with a bad hand in life, etc.
4. Malnutrition can affect the mental and physical development of children.
5. Some people need a helping hand to get back on their feet and to help themselves.
“Do you stop to ask why the poor are poor, or is the mere fact that they are poor reason enough for us to tax those who are not to feed them?”
Sure. I ask that all the time. But first, have you asked yourself why the rich are rich?
“No, in a free market the baker who tries to profiteer from the poor man will find his competitor selling his bread at a price that the poor can afford, and still turn in a profit.”
I don’t think that is true in real life. Why do you think you are paid more than a Filipino or Indian doctor?
“But first, have you asked yourself why the rich are rich?”
Because they have money, and they have money because they have something of value to offer in exchange for it. They have earned it. Of course, they may also have inherited it, stolen it, robbed or cheated to attain it, but I assume you agree with me that these cases are not what we are looking at in this discussion?
“Why do you think you are paid more than a Filipino or Indian doctor?”
Why do you think then that I still have a job despite being more expensive to hire than them? And how long do you think these doctors remain in the service and why?
“1. Social safety nets promote consumption which in turn stimulates economic growth. If we do not have enough social safety nets, people tend to save excessively which is bad for economic growth.”
And taxing people more is supposed to stimulate expenditure? I pay enough income tax to have to consciously budget for it each year – that amount of money could have been used by me to make many smaller purchases, or saved to make a few larger purchase. The money would have been spent anyway, but now it is taken from me to be spent on things which I have not chosen to spend on.
“2. The lack of safety nets also discourages people from having children. If you see many starving people on the streets, your tendency to save increases and you’ll avoid consumption.”
And taxing people who earn more to subsidise those who do not so as to encourage them to have children is preferable to leaving these people their money so they could have more children?
If I see many starving people on the streets, my tendency is to make sure I earn enough money to be able to provide for my children. I will not have children and expect the state to feed them using money taken from other people. Will you?
“3. There are other arguments about how the dearth of entrepreneurship can be attributed to the lack of social safety nets.”
And I suppose I can in turn argue that taxing people who make more money blunts the enterpreneur spirit. Why take the risk and raise the money to start a venture when I will be taxed more than if I just drew a salary? Or why bother to make sure that my venture is sound if it doesn’t matter that I fail because the state will catch my fall?
As for your moral arguments, I have only this to say:
Some people need help, and I am not against charity or helping people. What I am against is the belief that society has the right to forcibly take the money from those who have earned them rightfully to help these people. You have the right to give your own money to the poor as guided by your moral principles, but you have no right to help the poor with money that is not yours. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is robbery as much as taking from the poor to give to the poor (or rich) is. If you want to feel noble, buy it with your own money, not mine.
The fact that people need help is no justification for society to take from some to give to others. This is not charity – it is state-sanctioned parasitism.
At this point I feel that I am merely rephrasing what the author of the article has already stated, so let me add something from my personal experience.
I deal with people who rest on the “social safety net” which you have praised in the course of my work – they are a sorry sight. They have come to see what is offered in charity as entitlement. Their spirits are broken, and the only thing they can offer in exchange for this help the state gives is their need. Their need is sufficient reason for them to take. Their need is rewarded. The only thing we can expect and we do see is that their need will expand.
Subsidy distorts the true cost and value of goods and things and makes men who are given help think that they have earned them by right. “Public assistance” does not lift a man, it makes a beggar a tyrant.
But we digress. I suspect the author’s original aim to to direct our attention to those who take from us without our consent, and give to those who have offered nothing in return, and taken a commission in the transaction. I offer the above as my final comments, and I look forward to more from the author.
Angry doc:
“Why do you think then that I still have a job despite being more expensive to hire than them?”
I don’t know. Singapore still recognizes a limited number of medical degrees (8 schools for the whole of India for instance) under the Medical Registration Act even after it has been greatly expanded. An Indian or Filipino medical graduate cannot come in here on a whim to set up a practice. Can you imagine what would happen to the wages of Singaporean medical doctors if there were no barriers to their entry in the *free* market you espouse? You obviously command a wage differential because there are institutional barriers to competitors. Can you lay claim to that wage differential?
I don’t wish to wish to repeat my arguments on the economic advantages of social welfare. All I can say is that they are usually made by professional economists.
“Subsidy distorts the true cost and value of goods and things and makes men who are given help think that they have earned them by right.”
Subsidies distorts the value of everything that is subsidized – education, roads, hospitals, public security, national defence, etc, all of which you were and are a recipient.
People on public assistance in Singapore are indeed a sorry sight.. because they can get so little from the public assistance relative to others in developed countries. No one in his or her right mind wants to be in a situation to be eligible for social welfare in Singapore. If they were such fantastic deals, why don’t you quit your job and try going on public assistance. Ask yourself, what do the families of the mentally and physically handicapped get in Singapore?
Voluntary charity from private altruism is not enough, especially in Singapore. Even the amount of blood we get from voluntary blood donation (which are given out of pure altruism) in Singapore is not enough. As you have admitted, some things are more efficient when collectivized.
As for taxes, they are compulsory and meant for funding the promotion of the overall good of society. Following the line of reasoning that you promulgate, why should the childless and businesses subsidize you and your kids’ education? They too get nothing directly in return.
Society does get something for public assistance. Public assistance is a safety net and provides an insurance for those who are out of luck to ensure that they get enough basic housing and sustenance. Safety nets in the form of civil defence, policing and public assistance are collective social insurances. The handouts only exceeds the paid contributions when people actually use them. When your house is on fire, do you think your personal tax contributions to civil defence would cover the cost of the mobilization of the equipment and personnel to fight the fire?
I’ve been asked about my position on taxes elsewhere. On re-reading my comments aboe I thought they are pretty clear, so I won’t repeat myself. Thanks.