At a seminar in the Czech parliament this week, a future member of parliament from the SPD (roughly analogous to Germany’s AfD) suggested that just as we now proclaim the right to free speech, one day we may need to proclaim a right to courtship. That is, no one should be punished simply for attempting—politely and respectfully—to initiate a romantic relationship with an adult woman. Given the behavior of bureaucracies and activists today, the idea is not without merit.
Other such “rights” come easily to mind. A right to gender indifference—that no one may be punished for the inability or unwillingness to address another person according to his or her “self-identified” gender. Or a right to safety after intimacy—that no one may be punished for sexual assault if the alleged victim failed to report it within thirty days, despite having the clear opportunity to do so.
Some object that proliferating rights only spoils citizens, and that what citizens need is stricter discipline. This is a misunderstanding. A right, after all, is not a magical force in the air. It is a declaration by a ruler, or ruling group, that it will govern according to certain principles. To proclaim a right to housing means: we intend to govern in such a way that every citizen has a place to live. To proclaim a right to work means: we intend to govern in such a way that every citizen has a job. Rights are not metaphysical guarantees; they are statements of intent.
Thus, every right automatically expires with the government that proclaimed it. Reality does not change. But rights remain useful, for they tell the people what they can expect from those in power—and they assure them that rulers are prepared to restrain their own officials when those officials would impose something else. Nothing more, nothing less.