Previously we looked at John Frame’s scriptural argument that government should offer protection from theft, not be an agent of redistribution.

I agree with this vision of justice. Scripture doesn’t support the modern idea of “social justice.”

I’m in good company.

Individual rights to property, free action, trade, and profit—these were the ideals of America’s founding fathers. On the basis of the equality of rational men, they created a society of rights.

But what are rights? Today hardly anyone knows. Founding fathers such as Patrick Henry spoke of “natural rights.” They did not accept our modern idea that rights are whatever society says they are. Rights are principles that always hold true for man—because he is man.

Ayn Rand best defined rights:


The founding fathers believed in the freedom to act without interference or impositions.

This idea can be understood as “negative rights.” Contrast it with the modern fallacy of “positive rights,” in which people are supposed to have the right to food, healthcare, schooling, etc. That is a complete inversion. Such so-called “positive rights” make real rights impossible.

There is a difference between saying the world would be better if everyone had shoes vs. saying everyone has a right to shoes, and that right must be protected by instruments of force. That is a much bigger claim, and it cannot be supported.

Rights are indeed negative.

We do not have a right to anything, but only a right to be left alone. The reason: if man is to live, it is right that he be able to produce and keep his product. It is right that man have ownership (exclusive control of) of that which he creates.

Why could one man owe any part of his life to another man? And how could it be right for the government to force him to give away what he does not choose? These are questions to which no one has ever given a satisfactory answer.

In this series:

1   2   3   4   5
6   7   8   9   10
11   12   13   14   15
16   17   18   19  20