TDL reader Shawn is confused when it comes to what a right is.
In one example he writes,
If the government’s only responsibility is to protect their citizens lives, property, and liberty – how does this NOT effect their responsibility to EDUCATE their citizens on health. When not doing so could KILL these citizens.
His basic premise is that since you have a right to your life, you subsequently have a right to be educated on XYZ topics, because a lack of education on those topics could result in death. In this particular case, Shawn is fixated on valid health and dietary knowledge. He is convinced that it is government’s responsibility to provide this, potentially life-saving knowledge, and if they don’t educate you, they are violating your rights.
This is of course logically absurd on every level you care to examine the basic premise.
The most easily observable is that if you had a right to knowledge, how could it be limited to just one area of life? That right would have to encompass every area of human life that were potentially life threatening. You would not only have a “right” to proper education on nutrition and exercise, you would also have a right to every other area of knowledge.
It would be government’s job to educate you on matters of self-defense, child birth, driving a car, eating and chewing properly (choking can kill you), safe sexual practices, hunting, fishing, boating, swimming, sleeping, heavy lifting, and anything else imaginable that could result in serious bodily injury, decreased quality of life, or death.
By this logic, if you were uneducated on matters of self-defense, and were mugged in a dark alley, you could sue “government” for not educating you properly on how to defend yourself from physical attack. You could sue government for losing your job because you were late to work too many times in a row (from a lack of knowledge in how to sleep properly).
And on, and on. This is all logically incoherent to the point that it is laughable.
What’s more, rights are always non-contradictory. If you claim a “right” that violates someone else’s rights, it ceases to be a right. This is like claiming the “right to freedom of speech”, and suing me for not allowing you to post on my private website.
It’s inconsistent enough for a 5 year old to understand.
In matters of “education”, a “right” to any form of education would entail someone else providing it, or someone else’s property providing for it, which would necessarily violate another persons’s right to their own life, the right to live it as they see best fit, and the right to own and dispose of their own property.
Bottom line: no one has a claim over any one else’s life.
I am not a slave. You are not my slave. Individuals operating in government are not your slave, anyone else’s slaves, or everyone’s slaves. They are free individuals just like you and I, and any claim to “service” — like education — is a complete nonsensical contradiction.
It’s so ridiculous (and dangerous) it’s worthy of harsh ridicule, just like the second bill of rights.
— Anthony Dream Johnson