The Question of Human Rights
Today we're hearing a great deal of discussion on the subject of human rights.
And possibly there isn't any other word in the English language that is as grossly overworked as the word rights.
We use it in a number of ways.
In fact, we use it in so many ways that it becomes confusing,
The Theory of Money and Credit
with Human Wrongs. What we're really concerned with here is using the word over against the
concept of privilege. When we have a right, we have something other than a privilege.
Now, this is a very abstract and a very sophisticated concept, so we have to spend a little time
Thinking about it. What we're really trying to say when we use the word right is this.
The individual having a right may do as he pleases within the area of his rights
without asking anyone's permission, and at the same time retain his moral position.
Now, if he has to ask someone's permission in order to maintain his moral position, then
we say he has a privilege. In other words, the word, as we use it in connection with
human rights or natural rights, in a sense exemplifies the fundamental idea that man
Man is a decision-maker and is capable of making independent judgments and of acting
independently without asking permission of anyone and at the same time being above reproach
when he does it. Now all of that is conveyed in the word right. So when a person says,
I have a right to live or I have some other kind of right, whatever it is, what he is
What he is really affirming is that he doesn't have to ask permission of anyone.
This is a place where he can operate, and he can operate morally, that is, he is going
to operate without violating the will of anyone, he is going to operate without molesting anyone,
he is not going to impose his will on anyone else, and at the same time, he can act volitionally
in this area. That is to say, he can make up his own mind, make his own decisions and act upon them
and still retain this moral position that he has. That's what is meant by the concept of right.
Now when we're talking about a privilege, what we mean is that the individual in order to act
morally must first obtain permission from someone else whose position to him in this particular
or Situation is superior, and therefore he goes to this other party to obtain permission
after which then his position would be a moral one.
Now it's very important that we really understand where this word comes from, and let me pinpoint
it directly. The word really denotes a kind of ownership. It always relates to something
say of him, that man has a right to live. We know he's probably not going to make it,
but we would say he has a right to live. That is, he doesn't have to ask anyone's permission.
If somehow he can manage to survive, his moral position is affirmed. That's all that this
This concept relates to a person's moral position as an owner of something. When we say a man has a right to his life, we're saying he owns his life. When we say a man has a right to be free, we mean that he can be free without asking anyone's permission.
When we say a man has a right to property or to whatever else it is, what we are saying
is he owns this. This is his. He can use it as he wishes without asking anybody else's
permission because he is the owner and not the other party. Now, when he comes up against
another party who is an owner and he wants to use a property belonging to the other party,
At this juncture, he has no rights. So he approaches the other party, who in this case
is the owner, and he says to him, may I? And then if the owner grants permission, then he
has a privilege. For example, let us suppose we're talking about a desk. The desk is mine.
I may do as I please with the desk. I can use it. I can give it away. I can sell it.
I can break it up for kindling. It's up to me. And the question of my moral relationship
with the desk doesn't arise, because the desk is mine, and therefore I have all rights over the desk.
I can do anything I wish with the desk, and I will not be immoral. Now, I might be stupid,
but I won't be immoral. I won't be hurting anybody else, because the desk is mine. Well,
what if it happened that somebody else needed the desk, and I didn't? Would I be immoral if I didn't
take into consideration their need for the desk. No, I wouldn't be immoral. I could
be a little bit stupid, but that doesn't mean that I'm immoral. I have a right not
to take the other fellow's need for a desk into consideration. I can still do as I please
with my desk, providing it is mine. But let's suppose this same desk isn't mine. It belongs
to you. Then what is my relationship with it? My relationship with the desk at this
This point is not one of rights. In fact, I have no relationship to the desk at all.
My relationship now has to be one with you. And before I can even so much as sit at the
desk or make use of it in any way, I must first approach you, the owner, and say, may
I, in respect to the desk. And you don't have to say yes. You can say yes or no, because
it's your desk and you have the rights over it. However, if you decide to, you could say,
Well yes, you may use my desk, or you may do thus and so with it, at which point you
have extended to me a privilege, because you're in a position of extending privilege, at which
point I could retain my moral position with you, because I've gotten your permission.
Now if you're the owner of the desk, and I don't go to you and ask for permission, but
but simply presumed to act as I will with the desk, then my position becomes a possible
molestation. If I violate your will in respect to something that you own, then I have imposed
my will over your will and am engaged in sacrificing you to some degree or molesting you to some
degree. And if I'm going to deal with you on a moral base, I cannot do that. So I have
have to recognize that your rights include your person and all of your property, and
in that area I don't have any rights at all. But my rights include my person and
all of my property, and in that area you don't have any rights. So when we come to deal with
each other, then we deal on the basis of privilege, in which we communicate first as to how far
either of us wishes to go, and then we accept this as an exchange basis, and we exchange
on the basis of the privilege granted, in each case, by the party having the right.
In other words, the right is always superior to the privilege.
Now, the question is, is it a fact that a human being, having the ability to reason
and to make decisions, is it possible for a person, any human being, to operate morally
without getting permission from anyone. Is that conceivable? Could it be done? Or must
a person always be subordinate to someone else? Must he be subservient? And must he always
be in a position of asking permission? Well, the answer is obvious. Of course a man could
operate on his own cognizance and at the same time retain his moral position. That's really
It is the man who retains his moral position by virtue of the fact that he recognizes the
limits of where his rights extend, and his rights extend totally, only to the extent
of his property, whatever it may be.
That is, he has total right over himself and total right over his property, whatever it
may be, and beyond that he has no rights at all.
He is simply in a state of either an amoral condition where the question of rights has
not been resolved, or he is in a position of privilege where someone else has the rights
and he has to be of necessity subordinate to them.
Now there are other meanings here relating to this word.
If it is true, and it is demonstrably true, that a man, any man, could retain his moral
The concept of rights is also predicated on that idea, to wit, the universality of rights.
If I have rights over my life, then you have rights over yours. If it is possible for me
If you want me to have rights over my property, then it is just as possible for you to have rights over yours.
The difference is simply the boundary line between us. I have no rights over your property. You have no rights over mine.
But over your property, you have total rights over mine. I have total rights. And that's what is meant here.
So when we say that all rights are universal, what we mean is that they would apply to every member of our species,
Irrespective of race or color or condition in life, it doesn't matter, or his age or
his wisdom, none of this has any bearing. All we are saying is that it is possible for
any human being, any member of the genus homo sapien, to operate on the basis of independent
judgment and yet retain his moral position. Now, there is another thought that goes with
If it is true that every human being is capable of having rights—if this is a part of the
real nature of man—then it would follow that no one man has any more rights than any
other man. And therefore we have the concept of equality of rights in addition to the universality
of rights. In other words, if I have a right to my life and to my property, then you have
have a right to your life and your property. Now you may be younger or older than I, and
therefore you could anticipate more or less time in reference to your life than I could.
Let us suppose that you are very young and I am very old, or the reverse if you like.
The fact would be that our lives would not be equal, but our rights over our lives would
would be equal. My right over my life, however much of it I have left, is total. And your
right over your life, however much of it you have left, is total. And thus my right over
my talents, such as they may be, large or small, great or indifferent, they would be
total. And your right over your talents, whatever they may be, would be total. You may be a
genius. I may be just a shade better than a moron. But it doesn't make any difference.
In other words, the concept of rights does not mean that all men are equal in talents.
It does not mean that all men are equal and will all live the same number of years and
have the same amount of property or the same amount of ability or anything of the sort.
The concept of equal rights means that every human being will be totally in charge of whatever
he has a right to, and his rights would operate in certain areas. For example, one man might
have a great deal of property. Another man have virtually none. Well, the idea of equal
rights does not mean that everybody has an equal amount of property. It means that whatever
For every property he has, his rights over it are total.
So we have a universality of rights, though we don't have equality insofar as life is
concerned or insofar as property is concerned or anything of this sort.
The concept of right denotes the moral position of authority, the authority of a person over
Whatever what is his and that is always a total concept. Whatever the person has a right
over is total, if he has a right. Very well, that's what that means. Now there is a necessary
corollary here, a necessary inference from the concept deduced from both universality
and Equality. And that is the concept of inalienability. If, in fact, all rights are equal, it follows
that no one could ever lose a right. Because if a person could lose a right, then from
that moment on rights would never be equal again. And that would be to say that one man
has fewer rights than the others and you have to discard the whole concept of equal rights.
So equal rights cannot possibly relate to a situation in which a man could lose a right,
or acquire an additional right, or exchange a right for another right, or accumulate rights,
or anything of the sort. You don't deal in rights. You deal because you have rights.
And your rights are equal, universal, and inalienable. Now, that takes us to a very
Where do rights come from? Obviously, there have been many statements made to the effect
that rights are a special dispensation granted by the Lord to humankind. I would like to
suggest that I simply don't know whether or not that is true, because I wasn't around
at the time that the granting was made, but I would point out that it doesn't really
We matter because whether this is the product of a special dispensation from a divine hierarchy
of some sort, or whether it is something else that has happened some other way, the fact
remains that it is in the nature of man to be able to operate morally by his own decision.
And therefore we have the concept of rights. Whether we have a God or whether we do not,
doesn't matter. We have a concept of rights because this is in the nature of man. I would
even go so far as to specify that within any given species we could have a concept of rights.
For instance, I would contend that although probably such things as lions are not capable
of reasoning this one through, I would say that lions could act and often do act as though
So they recognize the rights of other lions, because the whole concept of rights is within
a special framework. In other words, if a lion attacked a man, I doubt very much if
we would say or think, or if lions would say or think, well, that lion has violated the
rights of the man. Because between lions and men, there is a natural enmity. We're a different
I don't think of a lion's rights as being opposed to my rights. If I have to deal with
a lion, I would like to deal with him as a piece of property either belonging to me or
belonging to someone else. I want to deal equitably with any other person of my species.
When it comes to the lion, well, I would like to be kind to him because I like animals,
But I'm not going to try to deal equitably with him because I don't think I have to.
I think he's something else again.
And I venture to say, if we could ask the lions about it, they'd agree.
And they would say, well, we don't have to deal equitably with men.
As long as we deal on a fair basis with one another as fellow lions, we are recognizing
our rights, and as far as men are concerned, to heck with them.
They're fair game and we can eat them if we can catch them.
And I would have to agree with the lion because that's the nature of their species, just
as rights are a part of the nature of any species, including man. So what I'm trying
to say, what I'm getting at is that the concept of rights does not have to be viewed
as a theological concept. It derives from the nature of things as they are. Every living
Any entity capable of acting morally with its own species on the basis of independent
judgment—and I'm not sure lions have independent judgment, but let's assume that they have
for the moment to make the point—would be capable of having and acting in terms of a
concept of rights. And that's where we can correctly see ourselves. Men have rights only
Money when they recognize this and deal with one another in recognition of the rights that
the other party has. Remember all that a right does. It gives you a moral guarantee. That's
all. It doesn't guarantee anything else. It simply says that where you have a right,
then you can act any way you like, and your moral position is still uncontaminated. If
If you don't have a right, well, that's another matter. So, if a right then is what
we have said it is to it, it is universal, all human beings have them, it is equal, all
human beings have them equally in equal amounts, and it is unalienable, and cannot be lost,
it follows then that rights are a product of the nature of man as they are, and they
They Cannot Be Lost. Very well. Then rights do not derive from human conduct. It doesn't
make any difference what a person does. He does not lose a right as a result of how he
behaves because the right inheres in him anyway. Now think what that means. If you cannot lose
There is a right. That means that if I were to take your life, I would be wrong. That means that it wouldn't make any difference whether other people thought I ought to take your life or not.
The taking of your life would be a wrong in itself because there is no way, no possible way, where I could get a right over your life.
This would also mean that if you own a piece of property, there is no way that I could take that property away from you against your will rightfully.
Now, it is obviously true that any time a person owns something, he is vulnerable insofar as the ownership is concerned.
I may own a piece of property. That is no guarantee that it won't be stolen from me.
I may own my life, but that is no guarantee that I might not be killed, or that ultimately
I won't die. Obviously I will die at one time, and obviously anything that I own can
be taken from me. What we are saying here, insofar as rights are concerned, is that where
the right exists, although you may be vulnerable, your morality isn't vulnerable. Your morality
is nailed down. There's a guarantee that if you have a right, then you can't lose it.
And that's what he's meant. Therefore, any time the life of another party is taken from
him against his will, we have a wrongful and not a rightful act. It doesn't make any difference
whether a court of law has made this decision, whether the decision has been reached on the
in the battlefield or wherever it has been reached, the decision is a wrong in itself.
There is no way where you can obtain a right over another party for any reason, irrespective
of his conduct. If his conduct has been wrong, then it has been wrong. If you now impose on
him, that's a second wrong. One-on-one makes two. One doesn't eliminate the other. You
So, this is a very important thing to keep in mind when we're talking in terms of human rights.
Now, in this area of rights, we've had a great many arguments and discussions. I'm going to just build a kind of an extensive syllogism here to see if this sort of makes sense to you.
Let me begin by the proposition that each man has a right to his life. Either that is true
or it is false. Now let's consider whether or not it is true. If it is true, it would
have to apply to all men universally, and it would indicate that all men could survive,
it would be possible for them to survive without asking anyone's permission and make the kind
of decision that would not entail molestation of anyone. Is that possible? Obviously, it's
possible. Therefore, that statement could be true.
But let's consider alternates. If we could say, each man has a right to his life, we
could also say, no man has a right to his life. Is such a statement possible? No, that
That statement would be a denial of the nature of man. It is clearly possible for a man to
operate morally without molesting anyone and be on absolutely moral sound ground in spite
of the fact that he is making his own decisions. So clearly the statement that no man has a
right is a false statement. It can't be true because it is contrary to the nature of man.
Now if we were to say, some men have rights and others don't, then it would follow that
we have confused our terms because we are talking of rights as something that applies
to all men equally and now when we say, well, some men have it and some men don't, we are
in effect saying all we're dealing with is privilege because some men have it and that's
a privilege and others don't and they don't have the privilege.
So we've moved out of the context of rights. The whole concept here deals with a universality
idea. So the concept that each man has a right to his life is potentially valid. Let's see
where it takes us. Assuming this is a given, that each man has a right to his life, if
If that is true, then it follows that since each man has a right to his life, each man
has a right to sustain his life.
Because if he has a right to live for one instant, certainly he would have a right to
live for two instances and so on indefinitely as long as he could do it morally.
If a man could live at a given instant morally, then all he has to do is continue to live
Morally, tomorrow and the day after and the day after, and he is engaged in sustaining his life.
If he has a right to do it once, he has a right to do it twice, and so on indefinitely,
so long as he continues to operate within this moral context. So if a man has a right to live
at all, he has a right to sustain his life. Now that means, of course, that he does not have a
If this is true, then it follows that if a man has a right to sustain his life, that
that he also has a right to own the necessary things that make it possible for him to sustain
his life, and that would relate to food, clothing, shelter, the things that are necessary in
order to sustain his life. If that is true, then it would follow that if a man has a right
to his life and to sustain it and to own the things that are necessary, then he would have
have a right to consume what he owns, he would have a right not to consume or to save what
he owns, or he would have a right to invest what he owns, because he could do as he pleases
with what he owns because that is a prerequisite to sustaining his life and he has a right
to life. All I've said there is that a man has a right to be a property owner, and we'll
We'll take up that a little later.
Thanks very much.