What are Individual Rights? Do they Apply Equally to Doctors?

Man's Rights
by Ayn Rand

<<Ed. The use of the word "Man" and masculine pronouns below merely
reflects an accepted grammatical convention/ shorthand at the time of
writing, rather than gender bias. Ayn Rand, of course, was a
female…..>>

"If one wishes to advocate a free society, one must realize that its
indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights……If
one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of
today's intellectuals ( and politicians) , one may gauge it by the
fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted,
perverted and seldom discussed…..

"Rights" are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical
transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the
principles guiding his relationship with others- the concept that
preserves and protects individual morality in a social context- the
link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society,
between ethics and politics.

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant
ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-
collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some
higher authority, either mystical or social.


Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same
statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle,
limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody
strife and periodic collapse.

Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the
individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral
law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter- and the
inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded
as the main purpose of ethics in man's earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a
number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of
society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional
rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience-on the
implicit principle of:

"The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the
race, the nation), and the ruler's edicts are its voice on earth."

This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the
altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. "The Divine Right
of Kings" summarizes the political theory of the first-"Vox populi,
vox dei" of the second.

As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied
god-the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens- the welfare
state run by the Emperors of Rome- the Inquisition of the !ate Middle
Ages- the absolute monarchy of France- the welfare state of
Bismarck's Prussia- the gas chambers of Nazi Germany- the
slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union (or any of their modern day
equivalents).

All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-
collectivist ethics- and their common characteristic is the fact that
society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim
worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an
*amoral* society.

The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of
morality into the social system - as a limitation on the power of the
state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective,
as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the
first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the
ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States
regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the
peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals.

All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society,
that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any
freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society,
which may be revoked at any time.

The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means:
by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property
of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the
only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual
rights.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's
freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental
right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's
right to his own life.

...The right to life means.....the freedom to take all the actions
required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the
furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such
is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.)

The concept of a "right" pertains only to *action* - specifically, to
*freedom of action*. It means freedom from physical compulsion,
coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a
positive- of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own
goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.

As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except
of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights-and the right to
property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no
other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his
own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has
no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others
dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like
all the others: it is not the right to an "object", but to
the "action and the consequences of *producing or earning* that
object".

It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a
guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to
gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most
men have not grasped it fully to this day.

In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the
social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God- others, that
rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is
man's nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men "are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of
nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is
an entity of a specific kind- a rational being- that he cannot
function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary
condition of his particular mode of survival.

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law,
but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions
of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.

If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it
is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his
values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his
purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids
him the irrational." (Atlas Shrugged.)

To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against his own
judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one
way to do it: by the use of physical force.

There are two potential violators of man's rights: the criminals and
the government.

The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction
between these two- by forbidding to the second the legalized version
of the activities of the first.

The Declaration of Independence !aid down the principle that "to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

This provided the only valid justification of a government and
defined its only proper purpose: to *protect* man's rights (
including the rights of *doctors* to no less extent) by protecting
him from physical violence ( or individual or governmental coercion).

Thus the government's function was changed from the role of ruler to
the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from
criminals- and the Constitution was written to protect man from the
government.

The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but
against the government-as an explicit declaration that individual
rights supersede any public or social power.

The result was the pattern of a civilized society which- for the
brief span of some hundred and fifty years- America came close to
achieving.

A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from
human relationships- in which the government, acting as a policeman,
may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate
its use.

This was the essential meaning and intent of America's political
philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it
was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently
practiced.

America's inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics.
*Altruism* is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with
individual rights.

One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of
a sacrificial animal ( or medical serf...)

<< Important clarification: "Altruism" does * not * refer to
generosity, kindess, good will, charity, having respect or doing
nice things for others.

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist
for his own sake- that service to others is the only justification of
his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty,
virtue and value.

As such, the state and its leaders may sacrifice the rights and
life of any individual or group of individuals for any "social
good of society" that it alleges. It is the morality underlying
*statism*...which is the political institution underlying government-
financed medical care and government-sanctioned Managed Care>>

It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a
free society. It was with the *destruction of individual rights* that
the destruction of freedom had to begin.

A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright
confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a
process of internal corruption.

Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country's wealth is
accomplished by inflating the currency-so today one may witness the
process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights.

The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated "rights" that
people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is
being reversed.

Just as bad money drives out good money, so these "printing-press
rights" negate authentic rights.......The "gimmick" was the switch of
the concept of rights from the "political" to the *economic* realm.

The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly
and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration "will
reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote
into our national conscience sixteen years ago."

Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of "rights" when you
read the list which that platform offers:

"1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or
shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing
and recreation.

"3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a
return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home and abroad.

"5. The right of every family to a decent home.

"6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve
and enjoy good health.

"7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old
age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

"8. The right to a good education."

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make
the issue clear:

*At whose expense?*

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, *medical care*,
education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values-
goods and services produced by men.

Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of
others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and
condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of
the rights of another, *is not and cannot* be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an
unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can
be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by
other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation
by one's own effort.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding
Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness-not of
the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the
actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean
that others must make him happy.

The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life
by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will
carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the
necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the
economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose
of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express
his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive
action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide
him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through
which to express his ideas.

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the
voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the
right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his
decision on the others.

There is no such thing as "a right to a job'- there is only the right
of free trade, that is: a man's right to take a job if another man
chooses to hire him.

There is no "right to a home," only the right of free trade: the
right to build a home or to buy it.

There are no "rights to a 'fair' wage or a 'fair' price" if no one
chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product.

There are no "rights of consumers" to milk, shoes, movies or
champagne (……** or health care services**….) if no producers choose
to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture
them oneself).

There are no "rights" of special groups, there are no "rights of
farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of
the old, of the young, of the unborn."

There are only the Rights of Man- rights possessed by every
individual man and by all men as individuals.

Property rights and the right of free trade are man's only "economic
rights" (they are, in fact, political rights)-and there can be no
such thing as "an economic bill of rights." But observe that the
advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a
man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men.

Private citizens are not a threat to one another's rights or freedom.
A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the
rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against
him.

Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm
they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the
horrors-the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations,
the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions-
perpetrated by mankind's governments.

Potentially, ( the wrong kind of ) government is the most dangerous
threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of
physical force against legally disarmed victims.

When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is
men's deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private
actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was
written.......

...While people are clamoring about "economic rights", the concept of
political rights is vanishing.......

Such is the state of one of today's most crucial issues: political
rights versus "economic rights." It's either- or. One destroys the
other.

But there are, in fact, no "economic rights," no "collective rights,"
no "public-interest rights."

The term "individual rights" is a redundancy: there is no other kind
of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism << and free market
medicine >> are the only advocates of man's rights."

Ayn Rand (April 1963) , author "Atlas Shrugged"