My reader: “We must be careful with the creation of so-called “positive rights”, since they actually create an obligation on other people to provide the goal of the stipulated right. Consider “reproductive rights”, does this mean that other people are obligated to help me have children? Or a right to housing could imply that selected individuals have to share their home with unpleasant strangers, or even be locked out of their own home by squatters.”
My reader has neatly summarized a conviction common in conservative circles: namely, that when political and financial power limits and punishes people, it is somehow more moral and beneficial than if it sought their welfare. Roman Joch, former head of the Civic Institute in Prague, gave for many years a celebrated lecture in which he argued that this follows necessarily from the doctrine of original sin—a doctrine he of course regarded as unquestionable.
Let us try to unravel this reasoning. It is evident that whatever a government does will help some and harm others. When it builds homes, it benefits the builders and the future residents, but it harms those who might otherwise have grazed sheep on that land. When the government establishes the institution of private property, it favors those who become owners while disadvantaging those who would have preferred to enjoy those goods freely. Should it abolish property, the equation simply reverses.
Even a perfectly ideal government, untouched by private interests or lobbying, would still, in every decision, favor one party while disadvantaging another. Yet governments act, and they must act. Decisions are necessary not only for national development but even for simple survival.
What, then, distinguishes an ordinary governmental decision from the proclamation of a “right”? What makes a choice to support housing construction different from a declaration of a “right to housing”? In truth, nothing at all. It is merely a matter of wording. By such a proclamation, the government is simply declaring its intent to act in a certain manner. Should it change its mind, or should a new government take its place, the proclaimed “right” evaporates at once.
Conservatives often fear that someone might compel the government to carry out such programs against its will. But that, in principle, is impossible. If anyone had the authority to command the government, that person would be the true sovereign.