Individual Rights: An Introduction

We've all heard someone say, "It's my right." when they feel their freedom is being limited. But in modern democracies, rights are usually taken for granted, only noticed when they're threatened. [music] But what are rights exactly, and how have they evolved? Welcome to libertarianism.org's learning hub, an introduction to individual rights. Individual rights are claims to the freedom and dignity inherent to every person. They define the space in which we can think, speak, or act without [music] interference from others, including the government. In the classical liberal tradition, [music] the main purpose of government is to protect these basic rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Today, the protection of individual rights is fundamental to any [music] society that claims to be free. But the struggle to define and protect rights has taken hundreds of years. First, struggling with the question, where do rights come [music] from? For example, Aristotle introduced the idea that there is a natural order discoverable by reason, and that justice is rooted in this nature instead of the arbitrary wishes of rulers. [music] Later, the Roman writer Cicero developed these insights and argued that there are universal laws that apply to everyone, providing a foundation for equal just claims. Christian theology emphasized that all humans were made in the image of God, and therefore individuals deserved equal [music] dignity. Later thinkers like the English philosopher John Locke claimed that these inherent rights exist before the formation of political society, and that government mainly exists to protect the rights of citizens. [music] This tradition was essential to the American founding, and the Declaration of Independence famously asserts that people have certain unalienable rights derived from [music] the laws of nature and nature's God. Contemporary debates [music] around individual rights have shifted from where do they come from >> [music] >> to how they should be defined and applied in modern societies. This last [music] question entails two central debates. One, are individual [music] rights best understood as negative rights or protection [music] from interference, or as positive rights, that is, claims to goods and services? And [snorts] two, when rights [music] and the common good are at odds, which should come first? As we stated at the beginning of this video, >> [music] >> individual rights in the classical liberal tradition define the protected sphere of personal freedoms. We refer [music] to these as negative rights. Individuals should not infringe on the rights of others, and governments should protect people from having their rights violated. In contrast, positive rights are claims on others or on governments [music] to supply resources to ensure these rights. For example, >> [music] >> a claim to a right to health care, which is a service that some other individual or organization must provide. Most countries mix both, but liberal democracies such as the US [music] have traditionally emphasized negative rights. For example, the First Amendment states your right to freedom of speech. That means the government should not interfere with your ability to express yourself. But what if the government wants to limit your speech [music] in the name of the common good, as some countries have done by enacting hate speech laws? Proponents of classical liberalism, like the economist Friedrich Hayek, defend the priority of individual rights over the common good, while communitarians, like the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, affirm the common good should come first. The liberal tradition maintains that individual rights are inviolable, [music] even when at odds with the common good, for four reasons. One, individual freedom is the most important [music] political value and should be our starting point when considering government policies. Two, the common good is a vague term and therefore vulnerable to abuse. Throughout [music] history, governments have invoked it to justify rights violations. For example, in the US, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and detained, justified under national security during World War II. A more extreme example occurred in Germany. Under Adolf Hitler, Jews and other minorities were systematically stripped of their rights, supposedly for the health and unity of the nation. Three, because individual rights are negative rights, they set boundaries on what others, including the government, can do. No appeal to the common good should override these constraints. Finally, following the natural rights tradition, each individual has rights that predate the state. Sacrificing individual rights in the name of the common good undermines this foundation. In short, individual rights are the claims [music] to freedom that define the space in which we can think, speak, and act without unjustified [music] interference. While positive rights ask for goods and services from others, negative rights only ask for non-interference. [music] In other words, negative rights protect us from intrusion by others, especially [music] the government, even when they claim that limiting your rights would serve >> [music] >> the common good. Protecting these basic rights is not optional. It is the foundation [music] of any free, modern society. Want to know more? Visit our learning hub playlist for more videos, and we invite you to read through our resources [music] at libertarianism.org. And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel.