Full disclaimer: I’m not a cult reader of political material. What I do have is a lot of time to think out here on the farm – a lot of quiet time.

I don’t have a smartphone. I don’t text. It’s just my thoughts and me running the chain saw, moving cows, just thinking.

We hear a lot these days about basic human rights. They’re expanding by the minute. We have a basic human right to healthcare, a college education, a living wage.

But what is a basic human right?

Plenty of Wealth

I spend most of my time with people on the liberal side of the political spectrum. You can’t be an ecologically minded farmer and local food advocate without pairing up with a lot of liberals.

The wealth in our country is truly astounding. I could say the world, but let’s just stick with the U.S.

The amount of money spent in Las Vegas, on NFL football, on lottery tickets, on coffee, on alcohol is staggering. None of this has anything to do with essential living; it’s all discretionary spending.

If we have a cultural problem that money can fix, then we have plenty of money to fix it. I can’t think of anything with a monetary solution that we can’t afford.

Demand for Compassion

That is the context in which I struggle, for example, in the arena of healthcare. I don’t want someone to die on the street because they can’t afford a doctor.

But many of the folks I rub shoulders with every day aggressively accuse me of hating people, of being prejudiced against the poor, of being insensitive and heartless. The constant pounding, I admit, sometimes makes me doubt myself.

I’m a stalwart small-government guy, but the statistics of need and dire straits, when trumpeted long enough and loud enough, can make even the most solid folks begin to doubt.

I’m prefacing my answer with this because out there in the workplace – the social place where you and I rub shoulders with people – the basic human right to be cared for by society when we know society has plenty of money to do it is an incessant demand to do the compassionate thing: “Oh, you win. Yes, denying healthcare to someone is heartless. Please forgive me.”

As the number of basic human rights increases in our entitlement society, then, how do we answer in a way that doesn’t seem uncaring?

Arguments like “I don’t think personal health is the government’s responsibility” and “Government programs always botch up what they do” are simply shallow. I won’t go into all the whys here, but if you start down that path, you won’t win.

You’ll still be heartless, especially given the ridiculous wealth of our country.

Everyone agrees that basic human rights exist. Those of us who remember the Declaration of Independence can recite them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Norman Rockwell ‘s iconic Four Freedoms expanded things: speech, worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Are those basic human rights? Some would say so.

How do we separate true basic human rights from the entitlement programs bandied about in today’s victim culture?

No Cost Required

Here’s my answer, and feel free to disagree. A basic human right is something that doesn’t cost anyone else anything in order for me to have.

Said another way, it’s something I possess that nobody else has to pay for.

If my right requires a cost to someone else, then it’s not a basic human right. You can live without requiring someone else’s goods and services.

Let’s return to healthcare because this is probably the most heartrending modern expansion of basic human rights.

In order for me to have healthcare, somebody has to pay for it. The government cannot give what it doesn’t first collect from someone else.

In order for you to have healthcare, my possessions or income must be decreased in order to pay for it.

That’s not necessary for happiness, for freedom, for life. None of those extract a material cost from anybody. These can be enjoyed fully by you without impoverishing me.

By definition, a basic human right must be something endowed to everyone; if it requires payment from someone else, then it can’t be universally autonomously enjoyed.

And at that point, it can’t be a basic human right.

This argument puts a moral entitlement in direct opposition to a moral robbery. Now we have moral against moral.

If we only have moral against political ideology, the moral will win every time. You can win an argument only by competing on an equal playing field.

An economic position needs an economic rebuttal. A moral position needs a moral rebuttal.

Next time someone begins the sanctimonious tirade about basic human rights, listen closely to see if it requires taking things from someone else. If it does, wade into the fray on high moral ground.

I’ll bet the proponent has never thought of it from that angle. Have fun.

Note: What do you think of Joel’s definition of basic human rights? Drop us a line here.