With the recent campaign for the abolition of student debt, there has been a lot of debate around the question of whether or not education is a right. There is also a similar debate around health care, so it would be good to take some time to clarify the issue.
A human right is something that should be guaranteed and provided to all people free of charge, financed by some form of taxation. To say that something is a human right is to say that everyone deserves to get it, regardless of who they are and what they do in their lives. Society and government already recognize many such rights either explicitly or implicitly. You have the right to protection against violent attack by individuals and by foreign armed forces. You have the right to seek punishment against someone who has wronged you by taking them to court. You have the right to speak freely in most public places. And so on.
Why do you have these rights? Most societies in human history did not guarantee any rights in any systematic way. For example, if you lived in 16th century England and someone killed your brother, you could not get them punished if they were higher than you in the social hierarchy, so basic justice and security were not treated as rights. But in recent centuries, more and more societies have come to agree that there are certain basic things which all human beings deserve to have simply for being human.
First of all, we deserve to live and to be protected from physical harm. This is the reason why the government provides us with protection against those who might try to murder us. And it is precisely for the same reason that health care is a human right. After all, if your life is threatened, what difference does it make if the threat comes in the form of a gun or a cancerous tumor? They are both equally capable of killing or severely hurting you. And the government needs money – tax money – to fight either one of them. If we get tax-funded protection from murderers, rapists and even petty thieves, why should we not also get tax-funded protection from diseases and injuries?
In fact, most people already implicitly agree that at least some kinds of health care are a human right. If you get hit by a car, the paramedics won’t ask you for cash or a credit card before they save your life. That kind of medical service is provided for free – in other words, it’s provided as a right. This is because it’s necessary to save people from a critical injury that happened to them through no fault of their own. Now the question is: how is that different from heart disease, or cancer? Just like a car crash, those things hit you without warning and through no fault of your own. If we agree that all people deserve life-saving treatment when they get hit by a car, then logically all people deserve life-saving treatment every time a medical problem threatens their lives.
Another category of human rights are those considered necessary for people to live decent lives or to have a good society. Free speech is a good example. Being able to speak freely about your opinions is good for you for obvious reasons, and it is also good for society because it encourages lively debate and open criticism of those who hold great wealth and power. Free speech enhances people’s opportunities in life, develops creative and inquiring minds and makes us all better informed.
Education also provides exactly the same benefits to you and to society, and to an even greater degree. This is especially true of education at the college level and higher. An educated population is better able to make informed decisions at the ballot box, it is more likely to come up with new ideas and inventions and it is better able to look at major events and organizations with a critical eye. In addition, of course, education provides each individual with greater opportunities in life.
So why don’t we treat education as a human right? Well, we already do, but only to a limited extent. From primary school to high school, education is already provided as a right. We have public schools which provide education for free. No one in their right mind would suggest that all primary schools should charge money for their services. It is obvious what that would do to our society: children born to poor parents would not be able to go to school at all, creating a permanent underclass of people trapped in a cycle of poverty with no hope of escape. We could not tolerate that. Yet we already tolerate a milder version of the same thing. The massive and ever-increasing cost of college hasn’t created a permanent underclass yet, but it has robbed millions of people of the opportunities that come with education. And it has robbed society of the ideas, inventions and discoveries that could have come from those people if they were given a chance.
Certainly, providing free university education for all would cost money. But all human rights cost money. Free speech is protected by an expensive system of courts, judges and the associated staff. The government could always pay for higher education by diverting money from other uses – like, say, the bloated defense budget – or by slightly increasing taxes on the rich. Many other developed countries already provide university education as a human right.
I know there are conservatives and libertarians who like to draw a distinction between “negative rights” and “positive rights” in order to claim that the government should only uphold the negative ones. These so-called “negative rights” are those that can be described as “leave-me-alone” rights, in the sense that they only require other people to refrain from interfering with you, instead of requiring other people to provide something for you.
But this is a false distinction. Any right is meaningless unless it is protected. The right to not be murdered means nothing unless you have someone to protect you from murderers. The right to free speech means nothing unless you can sue those who try to silence you. And such protection costs money. Cops and judges don’t work for free. The police, the courts and the military are funded with tax money. Therefore, in reality, all rights are positive. All rights require other people to provide something for you, and usually that “something” is money. Health care and education are just as important – and just as costly – as the rights to life and free speech. They are all human rights.
Mike Tudoreanu is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
![By freestocks.org [Creative Commons Zero], via Wikimedia Commons](https://dailycollegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Picture1-1.png)
Mike • May 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The fewer expensive services, the better, in my opinion. Non bias arbitration is one of the very base levels of services that you need to have a stable society. Yes, I am making an argument that at a certain point, these services need to stop. In the instance of civil disputes the cost is much lower for the state than in criminal proceedings where state appointed attorneys often represent both sides. You need courts to prevent anarchy, you don’t need college diplomas and full health coverage.
I oppose taxing people for healthcare and education as I don’t believe I am entitled to someone else paying for my healthcare and most certainly not my college education. I concede that there are some compelling arguments towards the benefits of public healthcare, but I refuse to acknowledge someone else paying your medical bills as your right.
With a high-school education you are more than equipped to do almost whatever you want, to include college if you want to pay for it. The idea that it is a human RIGHT to get your college paid for by somebody else absurd. If you don’t want to or have no means to pay for college yourself, find an employer who will pay for your to go to school, or get a job, or take loans. I don’t owe you your degree.
Mike
Leni • May 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm
If all that courts and judges did was to “make sure the government isn’t taking advantage of you”, then you might have a point. But, the last time I checked, courts and judges did a lot more than that.
Only a small part of the activity of courts and judges has anything to do with protecting people from government abuses. For the most part, what courts and judges do is (1) settle disputes between private individuals, and (2) punish the perpetrators of crimes. In other words, the vast majority of the time, courts and judges are engaged in what you call “using peoples money to buy things for other people.” (where the “things” in question consist of dispute resolution services and law enforcement)
So, again, tell me why you oppose taxing people to pay for healthcare and education but you support (for example) taxing people to pay for a court system that will settle a dispute you have with your cousin over the inheritance of your grandfather’s house.
Mike • May 4, 2012 at 8:58 pm
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If you can’t see how tax funded college education for everyone is different from a system of courts and judges in place to ensure the government doesn’t step on your fundamental human rights (which also seems to be an alien idea), then I don’t think were really even looking at the same book as to how we believe a country should be run and what is a good use of tax money.
Regardless, I’ll bite. Courts and judges make sure the government isn’t taking advantage of you. Basically, because of courts and judges, you are free to pursue your dreams whatever they may be. This is completely different from using peoples money to buy things for other people.
Mike
Leni • May 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Mike, do you believe that a police force – funded by “your neighbor” through taxes – should exist to protect you from crime? And do you believe that we should tax people to pay for judges and courts? If yes, then why don’t you also support a tax-funded right to healthcare and education? What’s the difference? ALL of your objections to government-funded healthcare apply to government-funded police and judges as well! I think that was the point of this article. It is illogical and inconsistent to oppose government provision of healthcare and education while supporting government provision of other necessary services.
Mike • May 3, 2012 at 10:39 am
Regardless of what you believe, the case for fundamental human rights is pretty well established. Basically, human beings rights are decided by what is ethically viable (yes of course this will vary, but in the U.S, we looked largely to John Locke, and many people have come to agree on this stance). A society should allow for the expression of these rights. In America, you ALREADY have every right to educate yourself in whatever you chose protected. Be a politician, be a soldier, be a firefighter, be a lawyer, be a doctor, be a nazi, etc… This doesn’t mean that because you have the right to learn about various things, your peers should be expected to spend their money (which is often equal to their time, and their life) to get you a piece of paper saying you are great at whatever you chose to pursue.
On the topic of healthcare. In the U.S, your right to life is already protected. You are allowed to defend yourself from enemies and from disease. I’m sure the author would not be in favor of everybody being provided an AR15 and a pistol courtesy of the government (funds come from other people). At some point, people need to be responsible for themselves.
My definition of rights is far from meaningless. If, for example, the U.S. forbode us from studying or saying certain things, I’d be all in favor of overturning that. That doesn’t mean I think my neighbor should pay for my degree.
Mike
Jessica • May 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Mike, your example about Iran shows precisely why your definition of “rights” is meaningless: You say the people of Iran DO have a right to free speech, but they can’t exercise it. Well, then, how is that different from not having the right at all? If you can’t exercise a right, then, as far as you’re concerned, everything is exactly as if you did not have that right at all.
This is why something needs to be GUARANTEED to you through services offered at a cost in order for it to be a real right. Because a right that is not guaranteed is like free speech in Iran. It might as well not be a right at all.
Mike • May 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Just because you can try to do something, doesn’t make it a fundamental human right. I’ll try this again. You have the right to freedom of speech as it applies to the government. The federal party can NOT interfere with what you say or believe.
You have the right to defend yourself. A federal authority cannot deny you the ability to do so. This extends into your right to life. However, the local/state/federal government does not HAVE to protect you for you to have this right. Likewise, they do not HAVE TO provide you with healthcare. I can still protect myself if their are no cops. I can still form a militia and protect my locality if we have no standing military. You did realize one thing, your right to life is universal, not simply an “American Thing,” good work. This is the same for your right to free speech and to freely practice religion.
You don’t have the right to willy-nilly try to overthrow the government. The second you start killing innocent people, even if they are politicians, you are infringing on others individual human rights. However, there are of course some instances in which revolutions, even violent revolutions, are ok.
The idea that in order for something to be a right it needs to be GUARANTEED to you through services offered at a cost to others is absurd. People in Iran have the right to free speech just as you or I do; it’s just stepped on by their government.
Jessica • May 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm
And regarding free speech, I think the author of the article already pointed out that the right to free speech requires the existence of courts and judges (so you can sue people who try to restrict your free speech), which cost money.
Jessica • May 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Mike, your argument doesn’t seem to make sense to me. If a right to life just means that you’re allowed to defend yourself, then how can you NOT have a right to life? In what society are you NOT allowed to defend yourself from murderers, if you can? In what society are you NOT allowed to defend yourself from rapists or armed robbers, if you can? In what society are you NOT free to try to get health care or education, if you can? By your definition, there is no way to NOT have rights.
If the only thing a “right to X” means is that you are free to TRY to get X for yourself, with no guarantee that you’ll actually get it, then everyone always has a right to everything (because you’re always free to try whatever you like, in any society – it’s only your chances of success that differ). You even have a right to overthrow the government, since you can always TRY to do that.
Really, this is a ridiculous definition of “rights”. A right must be something GUARANTEED to you (what you call a “service”), otherwise it’s just an empty word.
Mike • May 1, 2012 at 8:31 am
You’re still off base. The main purpose of the police are to enforce laws (to include putting away bad people) and investigate crime. If you really think the police will stop your murder… good luck, plenty of those happen a year. The police are a piece in a greater picture, just as your door locks, fists, knives, guns, whatever you choose are the other more prominent pieces.
What about free speech? For the most part, free speech relies on the government or authorities stepping back. When they don’t, they end up wasting tax money fighting themselves.
The point I was making is the author seems to have no understanding of what the difference between a human right is vs what a privilege or service is. If you think someone covering your medical bills or sending you to college is a right, or even paying for your own security is a RIGHT, then you clearly have no idea what a RIGHT is.
Brian • May 1, 2012 at 2:05 am
Mike, everything that actually MATTERS is provided to you at a cost. When people talk about having a right not to be murdered, for example, what they usually mean is that they can call the police to stop murderers and then get them punished in a court of law. Not the fact that you are free to defend yourself (if you can). OF COURSE you’re free to defend yourself. You are ALWAYS free to defend yourself, even if you live in the middle of a brutal civil war where people get shot left and right on a daily basis. If that was all a “right” meant – if you could be said to have a “right to live” even while being chased by armed gangs (because you’re free to defend yourself from them) – then “rights” would be meaningless.
David Hunt '90 • Apr 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Mike;
You’re wasting your time. These people think that government manna falls from heaven.
Mike • Apr 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm
The author of this article clearly has no grasp on what is even considered a human right in the United States today.
The United States government protecting you is not your RIGHT, it is a SERVICE they provide. You are, however, afforded the RIGHT to protect yourself. That’s right, a standing military and police are a SERVICE, you have the RIGHT to arm yourself and form a militia.
Likewise, you have a right to get an education and learn freely, public schools, however, are still a SERVICE.
You have a right to healthcare, however you do not have a RIGHT to the service as provided by others, whether or not that service is made available has nothing to do with whether or not it is an inalienable human RIGHT.
You don’t PROVIDE rights, you prevent them from being INFRINGED. A service provided to you at cost so that you can take advantage of those rights is completely different.
Mike
Brian • Apr 27, 2012 at 6:13 am
Allow me to predict the right-wing response:
“But… but… the tax-funded services that I LIKE are inalienable rights that must never be touched or tampered with, because they are the bedrock of our republic and they make America great. If I see a suspicious man wearing a hoodie in my neighborhood, the police had better come right away! Meanwhile, the tax-funded services that YOU LIKE are socialist government entitlements for whiny liberals. If you see a suspicious growth on your abdomen, you can’t expect the government to pay for a doctor to look at it right away. That would be a handout!!”