What Does It Mean to Say Somebody Has a 'Right' to Something – HotAir

Most people agree that we don’t want to live in a society with people starving and living on the streets. We want everybody to have the basics necessary to live. 





But does it make sense to say that people have a “right” to such things? Is it outrageous to demand that able-bodied people work to feed and house themselves?

Many people who call themselves socialists think so. Everybody should have a right to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and all the basics that we expect today. 

Socialists always skip the producer. They talk endlessly about consumption as if food grows in grocery stores, homes build themselves, electricity appears by magic, and doctors don’t have to work. Every “basic necessity” they demand is someone else’s profession, skill, investment, and effort. They speak as though declaring something a right somehow abolishes the need for someone else to create it. It doesn’t. If you make consumption the entitlement while treating production as an obligation, you don’t eliminate scarcity. You eliminate the incentive to produce.

This claim, though, is based on a fundamentally broken understanding of how those “basics” come to be. None of them merely exist in nature; each of them is the product of somebody’s labor, and when you make the claim that everybody has a “right” to them, it is equivalent to saying that they have the right to others’ labor. 





Food doesn’t just appear. Houses and apartments don’t just grow out of the ground. Medical care is not magically produced in the air. All these things are produced, and one reason they are unevenly distributed is that some people and some systems are far better at producing them than others. 

Industrial capitalism is extraordinarily good at producing them—so good, in fact, that the burden for giving them away is relatively small and people are willing to give them away without thinking that much about them. Some of that is out of the goodness of their hearts, and some is just a practical decision based on the fact that we don’t want to be stepping over drug addicts who poop in the streets. 

Whatever the reason, it’s not that the recipients of others’ largesse have a “right” to the labor and efforts of others. And if we rearrange our societies based on the mistaken notion that they do, it turns out the very system that produces all that extra wealth we are generally happy to share collapses.

It’s not theoretical that this is the case. Socialism has been tried in many forms and many places. The Nordic countries, which many socialists wrongly believe are socialist, gave up on the idea back in the 80s and 90s and are now free-market systems (in many cases freer than our own, which has become bogged down with excessive government regulations) with a high level of social insurance. 

One of the reasons why all these countries are working mightily to kick migrants out is that they treat that social insurance as a “right” to state support and thus abuse the system, which is supposed to be for the aged, infirm, and those in temporary distress. When people demand something for free, they are really demanding that others do all the work while they get to consume the product of others’ labor. 





This is why communes tend to fall apart. I looked it up, and 90% of all communes fall apart within the first year. Almost none persist for any length of time. There are always makers and takers. 

On a practical level, you can see how perverse the incentives are just by looking at the arguments around SNAP benefits, or all the welfare fraud that we have seen over the past few years. The less people feel that welfare is something to be avoided, the more people abuse the system. 

Telling people they have a “right” to something inevitably means that they have no obligations attached to getting it. 

When some states removed sugary drinks, snacks, cakes, and cookies from eligibility for SNAP benefits, the internet exploded with outrage. Democrats went apoplectic, based on the bizarre notion that it is wrong for taxpayers to have a say in how their money is spent. 





Is it any wonder that people get angry? When steak, lobster, and cakes are free for people who don’t work, while many of the same items are out of reach for people who do, resentment is natural. 

The “basics” aren’t manna from heaven. They only exist because people produce them. And there is more than enough to go around, and people are willing to share with others less fortunate, only when you have an economic system that generates a lot of surplus. 

That’s capitalism. Before capitalism, every society lived on the edge of famine. Under capitalism, starvation is nonexistent. 

We can argue about the appropriate level of social insurance, who should receive it, and for how long. But once you cross the line into claiming that people have a “right” to the labor of others, you’ve gone off the rails. 


Editor’s Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! Help HotAir celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust.

Join HotAir VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership.



You May Also Like

JoJo Siwa makes surprise return to her real name ahead of the new year

JoJo Siwa is ringing in the New Year with a rebrand. Siwa…

Nikki Garcia requests full custody of her and Artem Chigvintsev’s son in divorce

Nikki Garcia is seeking full custody of her and Artem Chigvintsev’s 4-year-old…

Jeremy Renner reveals graphic details of near-fatal snowplow accident in new memoir

On New Year’s Day 2023, Jeremy Renner died. The “Avengers” star opened…

Scheffler Surges Late to Win 2025 Procore Championship

Getty Scottie Scheffler of the United States with his son and wife…