The "disability paradox" and negative rights.

Economics Political Theory
1

I am a swede, that is new to this forum. I view myself as a libertarian, even if view of libertarianism differ a great deal from mainstream libertarianism. I have found few that shares the concerns I have about liberalism, libertarianism and the question of rights, thus I have been forced to redefine some parts of standard libertarian thoughts.

But now I find it necessary to deal with this, philosophically and politically, and develop my view of libertarianism further.

The paradox is that standard versions of libertarianism would make me a slave. According to standard views of libertarianism my negative rights would be severely crippled.

Why?

Because I am disabled. I wear hearing aid.

And I have good friends that needs computers and electric wheelchairs to be able to participate in the society. They would face the same problem according to standard libertarianism.

(Please bear in mind that I come from Sweden. In sweden disabled have rights to wheelchairs, computers, etc. And people with problems hearing get hearing aid from the government.)

According to standard libertarian view children (as well as grownups) that suffer from disabilities have no RIGHT to hearing aid/electric wheelchairs etc. The relatives or private charity should help them. THAT is what bothers me. That is the paradox I am fighting with..

Because in the same moment as one says that private charity should take care of these things, and other disabled, are actively deprived from these things and do not have the RIGHT to them.

(Yes, many people are helpful and goodhearted and want to give money to disabled. But to get money via charity, is not the same as a RIGHT. Just imagine if we were to go to a private foundation and beg in order to be able to speak freely. Would that be freedom of speech? Hardly! Or to beg for the right to live?)

This bothers me. My mum was very poor and if I were born in a libertarian nation I would not, as a child, have had a RIGHT to hearing aid. I would perhaps have gotten it anyhow, but that is uncertain. We cannot say that I WOULD have gotten it anyhow, because charity is still not the same thing as a RIGHT.

For me it would have meant a kind of servitude!

Disabled people without a RIGHT to wheelchairs and computers would be far worse off than the slaves in the caribbean Sea 300 years ago! Bear in mind that without wheelchairs and computers many can basicly cant do NOTHING. Forget freedom of speech, freedom to live och property rights or anything for them! Yes they MIGHT get charity… MIGHT!

This bothers me so much that I, in my version of libertarianism has to include certain positive rights, otherwise the negative rights of all would not be protected. (I can explain that further some other time…)

So what do I, and other disabled, do that believe that our NEGATIVE RIGHTS needs to be protected, and that thinks that the only way we can ever protect our negative rights is via some positive rights?

/Torbjörn Jerlerup

PS

I know that the “welfare” system differs much in Europe and USA. I know that certain things are considered a right in Europe that is not so in USA…

2

Before I get into the specifics of the issues you raised; Can you give a clue why you consider yourself in the libertarian tradition?, and could you point to a few things associated with the progressive tradition that you oppose?

3

I view myself as libertarian, because my view is that the state should be as little as possible and has as its aim the protection of negative rights.

BUT I have come to the, somewhat problematic, conclusion that this would mean that this means that the state needs to pursue some positive rights too. If disabled people should have RIGHTS (not free speech and right to property, etc as charity only) on equal footing with other people it would mean that they need government support, some kind of welfare. (I really hate that word, welfare!)

(One could expand this further, but I keep it simple to begin with.)

I dont understand what you mean with your second question.

/T

4

While I would like to see answers to niaghram’s questions, I would like to ask a few basic ones myself more in direct response to your own concerns:

  1. What gives you the impression that charity would be less reliable or less ample in a free market society for these services than the government in, say, Sweden is now?

  2. How does government provide a certainity that charity does not? A government is just as much in risk of collapse, change due to voter opinion, takeover, lack of funding due to economic situations, or any number of other things as a voluntary charity is.

  3. In regards to a ‘slavery’ type situation, it would be no different from your situation now. As it stands, some people (perhaps you) were and are reliant on government to provide you with an assisted-living device. However, there is no ‘guarantee’ of such. ‘Rights’ as such can be challenged in court, voted away, or the government can simply run out of the necessary funding to provide such. Likewise, there is no ‘guarantee’ where voluntary charity is concerned. The difference is in the manner of funding. Disabilities are unfortunate, but do they give you ‘rights’ over another person? Is having a disability an excuse to tell someone else what to do with their well-being for the sake of your own? These questions can be answered from both a moral standpoint and an economic standpoint–that is, the morality of doing so, and the effect on the economy of doing so.

5

While I would like to see answers to the above questions, I would like to ask a few basic ones myself more in direct response to your own concerns:

  1. What gives you the impression that charity would be less reliable or less ample in a free market society for these services than the government in, say, Sweden is now?

  2. How does government provide a certainity that charity does not? A government is just as much in risk of collapse, change due to voter opinion, takeover, lack of funding due to economic situations, or any number of other things as a voluntary charity is.

  3. In regards to a ‘slavery’ type situation, it would be no different from your situation now. As it stands, some people (perhaps you) were and are reliant on government to provide you with an assisted-living device. However, there is no ‘guarantee’ of such. ‘Rights’ as such can be challenged in court, voted away, or the government can simply run out of the necessary funding to provide such. Likewise, there is no ‘guarantee’ where voluntary charity is concerned. The difference is in the manner of funding. Disabilities are unfortunate, but do they give you ‘rights’ over another person? Is having a disability an excuse to tell someone else what to do with their well-being for the sake of your own? These questions can be answered from both a moral standpoint and an economic standpoint–that is, the morality of doing so, and the effect on the economy of doing so.

6

To be more precise: I have seen few discussions, about the difference betwen charity and right, and about the problem that negative rights could be surpressed by lack of positive rights.

7

If the state didn’t provide food there would be no way the selfishness of people would help us get it, we must make food a RIGHT.

8

Jerlerup,

Welcome to the forums.

What you said is not a paradox. There is a paradox here, but it isn’t that libertarianism would make you a slave (which it wouldn’t). This is the paradox:

‘Positive rights’ always have associated ‘duties’. If you have a right to an apple a day, then someone has a duty to provide you an apple a day. What you call negative rights have no such associated duties. So, if you are claiming a right to a hearing aid, you are immediately making it impossible to protect the negative rights of all. By demanding such accommodations you are saying that someone out there must provide you with this hearing aid or you will use violence against them. You are assigning yourself (and other people with disabilities) a priveledged position at the expense of the negative rights of those who are not disabled. It is you who is enslaving them, Jerlerup.

You are correct in saying that it is uncertain that you would end up with a hearing aid if nobody was forced to give you one. You are correct in saying that makes you disadvanted to some extent because of it. But are you enslaved by them? No, of course not. Nobody is forcing you to do anything and slavery requires that.

9

You think that an electric wheelchair is a right. Does this mean that disabeled people prior to last century were all denied from their rights?

Are computers, internet, cars, suits, mobile phones also rights because you need them to participate in society? And what about food? Should the government also provide this?

Don’t get me wrong: I do think that we should do whatever is possible to help people in need. But saying that it’s a right doesn’t make things better. In fact, why would you force other people through violence to help you? Wouldn’t that disable other people in their freedom?

Things in the farmaceutical world would be A LOT cheaper in a free market society. I think you just make the error to compare the current situation with an identical situation just without government aid. That’s an error a lot of people seem to make. The fact is that Sweden could have been a lot wealthier if the government didn’t tread his citizens as elementary schoolchilds.

It makes me wonder. When do people should be free according to you? Because right now you’re just cherry-picking the government aid that benefits you.

As a final note, a positive rights libertarian is just another fancy name for a contradictory ideology.

10

Jerlerup,

Welcome to the forum. Very brave of you to discuss your situation and state your feelings about such a delicate and important issue.

  1. OK, to the heart of the matter. It is uncomfortable indeed to have to live by the good will of people.

The question is, is it a better feeling to know you are taking away their money by the use of force and violence? Because giving an invalid a right to a wheelchair really means someone else will have to work hard, make money, and then give the money to the invalid whether that worker wants to or not.

Although he worked for the money, he will not be allowed to spend it. If he refuses to give it to the invalid, he will be beaten and put in jail. If he resists going to jail, he will be injured and possibly killed. All because he worked hard and made money and wants to keep the money he earned. Your unfortunate circumstance, when turned into a right, has created misfortune for him as well. He is now a slave. His right to earn an honest living has been taken away to satisfy your right.

Would you feel better if the government, instead of giving you a wheelchair, gave you a machine gun? So you could invade people’s homes personally and force them to give you money? Surely you could do that part by yourself, though it may not be enjoyable to a man with dignity. Why do you rely on the government to do that unplesaant task? Is it not enough that they made the law giving you a right to a wheelchair?

  1. Another important aspect of this situation is the cost of the wheelchair and other accesories. When the government buys wheelchairs, or anything else, they pay a much higher price than a private person does. This is always the case. It is not their money, what do they care? And of course they buy it from the politically connected, meaning their is great corruption and theft involved. So the people who pay for your wheelchair are losing much more than you are gaining.

  2. Also taxes collected for the wheelchair are not just for the wheelchair. They are also collected to open offices all over the country, fill them with staff to do paperwork, buy storage houses for the wheelchairs, and many other wastes of money.

  3. If your parents or friends or a charity or a bank would lend you money to buy what you need, it will be much cheaper for all concerned. And you would enjoy the dignity of having paid for your own wheelchair, as opposed to have stolen one at gunpoint through your thugs.

  4. A person’s principles, if he has intellectual honesty, will lead him to conclusions as they may, whether they are convenient for him or not. If you are a libertarian because you think it profitable for you, then of course an exception must be made when you stand to lose a few dollars from the principle of liberty. But if you are a libertarian because you think and feel it right, then of course it is right even when you suffer some discomfort as a consequence.

11

Short answer: Buy your own darn hearing aid.

Hearing aids and wheelchairs aren’t that expensive as they are now, imagine how cheap they would be in a free market. It sounds like you prefer complete nationalization of the healthcare industry - which would one to advocate nationalization of housing, agriculture, etc since they involve things people value highly and thereby think they have a “right” to.

What a lack of imagination - if the government doesn’t give it to me I’ll never get it.

12
  1. What gives you the impression that charity would be less reliable or less ample in a free market society for these services than the government in, say, Sweden is now?
  • That a right is something more profound and far reaching than a charity. The right to free speech is something else than to need to beg for free speech, if you follow me! The same thing goes for the rights of a disabled person to a life. (Please remember that I still speak of some kind of libertarian society, not present day USA och SWeden)
  1. How does government provide a certainity that charity does not? A government is just as much in risk of collapse, change due to voter opinion, takeover, lack of funding due to economic situations, or any number of other things as a voluntary charity is.
  • Yes it is in risk of collapse. But for better and worse many European governments provide ALL disabled with wheelchairs and such. So it is possible to create conditions that are extremly good for all. And hopefully a libertarian socielty would be a bit more stabile than the system of today.

Voluntary charity is still something else than a RIGHT.

  1. In regards to a ‘slavery’ type situation, it would be no different from your situation now. As it stands, some people (perhaps you) were and are reliant on government to provide you with an assisted-living device. However, there is no ‘guarantee’ of such. ‘Rights’ as such can be challenged in court, voted away, or the government can simply run out of the necessary funding to provide such. Likewise, there is no ‘guarantee’ where voluntary charity …
  • Well government can deprive people of votingrights and freedom of speech too. But still we hold these rights as quite fundamental. By the way… Many governments and parliamanents here in Europe have voted yes to the data retention act!

Even if so, there is still a difference between a right and a charity.

13

Cporter. Thanks!

Well. This is problematic. Yes! The negative right of others will be trampled upon (tax/welfare, etc). But if this is not done the negative rights of the disabled will be tramped upon. Do you see the problem? It seems as it is impossible to protect the negative rights of ALL, without some kind of basic positive rights.

Well I have money. Today I can buy a hearing aid easily on the market. But imagine children?! Children are completely dependent on either welfare or charity, or their parents.

To force people to do NOTHING can be regarded as slavery too.

I would have been enslaved in a “soft” way if I had not had hearing aid as a child. MANY disadvantages. . But imagine a person with CP, dempending on his or her computer. Without that he or she is worse of than a slave!

That is what I am bothered about…

14

But if this is not done the negative rights of the disabled will be tramped upon

why do you think a wheelchair is a ‘negative right’ , what does ‘negative right’ mean to you ?

15

MTN DEW: Imagine a child. You cannot say that to a child. One cannot say “buy your own equipment”, to him or her! And… Some people are worse off than me and cant even survive without charity or some kind of support via government.

/T

16

Right to vote? O my goodness, are you even a libertarian? What aspects of your philosophy do you consider libertarian?

17

Imagine an adult. You cannot say that to an adult. One cannot say “pay for some other persons wheelchair”, to him or her!

18

Now I have to stop for a moment.

I seriously want to discuss this. But almost every time I try to do it I run into the same counterarguments.

  1. “Children with need of hearing aid, and disabled people can get support via charity in the future.”
  • If you belive so, it is fine. But that means that we do not have the RIGHT to this. Thus disabled people would not have the right to live, would not be free to speak, etc. Because they would need to beg charity first, and THEN speak or live.
  1. “Why are you libertarian, you seem to believe in welfare”.

To which I can only answer that I wish to define libertarianism so that many disabled people do not become dependent on charity in order to excersice their fundamental rights in a libertarian society.

Can we please skip these two approaches to this question?

:slight_smile:

/Torbjörn

19

Its clear to everyone that you wish for various things and you wish for them to be assured/have the status of ‘rights’ but its not clear to anyone why you use the word ‘negative’, do you have criteria?

20

So you want to force people to pay for your medical care so that you’re not a slave? You want to enslave others to stop yourself from being a slave? Do you not see the contradiction?