The Right to Enslave?

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 12, 2011

Do we have a right to any good or service? For many in America and throughout the world, this question is rarely even asked; but an answer is nevertheless presumed: yes. Though the development of Occupy Wall Street and the passing of the federal health care mandate are perhaps the most blatant examples of this concept in recent years, the widely held belief that individuals or even groups have an inherent “human right” to a good or service has been pervasive in the US since the New Deal. Today we’re told we have a “right” to education, health care, affordable housing, a minimum wage, a job, even to the earnings of younger generations should we come to find out that our Social Security trust funds are empty. While it seems there’s no limit to what rights will be discovered next, what are being overlooked are the rights that are lost.

At least on a superficial level, it’s understandable why someone would consider certain goods and services a right. People have needs to survive and prosper in their lives, so it only makes sense that human beings must have a right to such things. But where do goods and services come from? Does a starving man have a “right” to enter a grocery store and take whatever food he wants? No one suggests that a loaf of bread or an automobile is simply conjured out of thin air. If you want Internet access in your office or a pizza delivered to your home, no one pretends to I Dream of Genie the product into existence with a fold of the arms and a nod of the head. These goods and services must be produced and provided by human beings. This may seem to be common sense, (and it should be) but unfortunately this fact is often disregarded when rights and the economy are being discussed.

It may be common knowledge but where goods and services come from is seldom considered by the average politician or American citizen due in part to the implications that follow from such a line of thinking. As man ponders the marvel of the division of labor and the advancements in society created by it, man must first recognize the material blessings that have been bestowed upon him. From this the individual observes that he has made conscious decisions to better his standard of living in one form or another. If this is so, then it follows that he is responsible for the actions that created the opportunities for those decisions to be made. In other words man owns those actions, hence he owns himself.

Self-ownership is simple enough, especially for Americans as this nation was founded upon it and from that the right of self-determination; but from this it follows that all individuals own themselves. This is why the perception that people have a right to a good or service is not often discussed in depth as it creates quite an inconsistency with the most fundamental principles of our society. If I own my actions, logic tells us that I must also own the results of those actions.

While the notion that private property is theft may only be claimed by outright communists, those who believe in rights to education, health care, a “living wage”, (whatever that means) etc. are ascribing to the same mindset if you follow it to its logical ends. Indeed, many involved with OWS feel the rich are depriving them of their “resource” as we’ll discuss later.

In actuality, private property rights are the foundation of freedom. As was mentioned above, goods and services must be produced and provided by the labor of individuals. Just as I am responsible for and own the results of any foolish or wrongful acts I commit, I am equally responsible for and own the results of my virtuous and productive actions; the fruits of my labor. Property is merely the manifestation and extension of the principle of self-ownership.

Contrary to the approved opinions of the D.C. establishment, free trade is not exploitation in any form but the very essence of mutual respect. Just as property is a statement of sovereignty and self-worth, free trade is an act of reverence for your fellow man. In all transactions or voluntary exchanges both parties benefit, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. If a woman seeks to purchase dinner from a restaurant, she only chooses to pay the stated price because she values the food more than the dollars in her purse and the restaurant owner only agrees to provide the service of making the meal because he values the revenue more than he does the product. The trade is an act of recognizing each other with dignity as free human beings.

Even some of the most ardent economic statists would agree with the benefits of trade and its moral superiority but many fail to observe that free trade is precisely what is taking place when an employer hires someone. I do not have a right to a job or set wage any more than I have a right to my neighbor’s car. Convinced that the wealthy business owner is seeking to exploit the worker, it is often argued that people have a “right” to a minimum wage. But in any other context would someone suggest you have a "right" to the money in someone else's bank account? Many supporters of OWS have even proposed a minimum wage of $20 an hour. Why stop at 20? Why not $2,000? The answer of course is obvious: higher forced wages cause unemployment and raise the wage high enough, no businesses will be able to afford to employ anyone. Just as the individual seeks to only spend his hard-earned money on the best product for the lowest cost, a minimum wage forces the employer to fire those who are less skilled or less productive or to hire less in order to stay in business.

While the left claims to want to end poverty, at some point apparently, you can earn too much. Who decides this? What’s the limit? Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore  has argued the rich do not actually own their wealth, it’s a “national resource”. Not only does this suggest that you do not own yourself and thus the fruits of your labor, it further suggests that at a certain point your labor no longer holds any value. But what exactly do Moore and his comrades feel the rich need to “give back” to society? As previously explained, in a free market, (where there is no government intervention) individuals only become wealthy by providing services that better the lives of their fellow man through voluntary exchange.

The notion of having rights to services or wages is what Robert Nozick called involuntary servitude as it suggests the provider of such services is duty bound to serve others under threat of force and without just compensation. What differentiates the sovereign from the slave is his right to property. As Nozick stated, to tax 5 months of a man’s income away is to take away 5 months of his life and render him to forced labor.

The very fact that such egalitarian desires must be enacted by decrees and the violence of government removes any possibility of such measures to be “human rights”; as they are by definition privileges derived not from an inalienable part of one’s humanity but from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. While it is truly saddening to witness the outcry for more legislative shackles to be placed on their fellow man, what is most tragic is that as the anti-capitalists grant the State more control, they are unwittingly consigning themselves to bondage as well.