Rights being what they are...

There's a misconception that I want to address. You can see the evidence of it in legislative approaches to social problems all the time. It is the idea that "rights" are, or can be, in conflict.

A right constitutes proper authority, the power to make decisions and do as one pleases. It invokes higher law; it's something that is ordained by God or nature, not other people. Rights are, by definition, exclusive. Two individuals cannot claim a divine right to the same power or authority over the same property; if they do, one is right, the other is wrong. It's easier to understand when you consider a "right" as "the right," or the right thing to do. If course of action (A) is settled on as the right thing to do, then this is the same as saying all other courses of action are not the right thing to do. To bring this back to a more common application of the word, if an individual has the right to make decisions regarding a certain peice of property, then no other individual can claim the same right, unless the first person chooses to share it.

(Keep in mind, married folks, that wives and husbands only count as one individual).

The confusion arises when folks think of general rights as unlimited. They aren't. It isn't really accurate, for example, to say that you have a right to property. You have a right to some property unless you've been slacking, but of course you don't have a right to all property. You can't say that you have a right to free speech, because you don't have a right to stand in your neighbors house and scream shrilly after he's told you to be quiet. You have a right to some speech, some of the time, in some places.

Rights are limited like the borders of states; one ends where another starts. This lends itself quite well to one of my favorite phrases explaining the limitation of rights: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" (Richard Maybury).

There are a couple places where I've heard this erroneous argument used, and they are usually made in the context of justifying government intervention that encroaches upon actual individual rights.

For instance, you'll see immunization statutes that make a provision for exemption in situations where an individual has a bona fide religious conviction against immunization. However, many of these statutes specifically state that, in the case of an epidemic, this exemption will not be upheld.

This isn't, as some would suggest, a matter of competing or overlapping rights where the state has an right that is simply more important than the individual's. It would be silly to suggest that the parent has a right to not immunize in a given situation and that the state has a right to compel immunization in the same situation. Remember, you're appealing to a higher authority when you claim a right; God (or nature) isn't going to stand behind both opposing parties simultaneously proclaiming both to be properly excercising his authority.

It is a question of whether or not the individual does, in fact, have a right to adhere to their religious convictions in this situation at all. If they do, it can't be argued that a simple state interest outbalances a right. Rights, by definition, also trump interests. Take the scriptural example of the starving thief in Proverbs 6:30; his interest is acute and reasonable, but it doesn't negate the rights of the person he steals from.

To say that a right exists, but that it must be suspended or forfeited or encroached upon to serve even a pressing interest is a contradiction in terms. If I say this, then although I'm using the term "right," I'm actually assigning to the word the actual meaning "privilege."

"So what" you may say at this point. "What's the difference between saying that I don't actually have a right to do x and saying that I do have a right to do x but the government has a stronger right? Isn't the outcome the same?

Maybe, in some situations. The danger, though, rests in the assumption that arises when one incorrectly identifies the limitation of a right as an acceptable instance where a right is encroached upon. It is never proper, from a logical perspective or from a philosophical perspective, to say that it is ethically acceptable to encroach upon a right. That is exactly equivalent to saying that it is ethically acceptable to stop something from doing that God (or nature) has given them rightful authority to do. Instead, it is appropriate to identify the border of the dominion that God (or nature) established, and stop someone cold when they cross it.