Image from en.wikipedia.org
It is a common belief that human beings have the right to education, the right to work, and the right to a minimum standard of living. Indeed, on 10 Dec 1948, the United Nations adopted a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in which they codified dozens of human rights, including education (Article 26), right to work (Article 23), and standard of living (Article 25). The framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights believed, like many people today, that recognition of "the inherent dignity and ... the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" is the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...". Having just witnessed two world wars where "disregard and contempt for human rights" had "resulted in barbarous acts which ... outraged the conscience of mankind", they aspired to "the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy ... freedom from fear and want".
It is noble to aspire to end barbarous acts and secure freedom from fear and want for our fellow human beings. The question is however: "Do we have a right to freedom from fear and want, and should our government be charged with securing these rights?"
The objectivist philosopher, Ayn Rand, suggested that any discussion of human rights should include the question "at whose expense?" That is, if one were to declare, "we have the right to education", that declaration should immediately be countered with "at whose expense?" If the answer to that question were anything other than "nobody's", then the right was not a right at all. For example, in the case of education, the answer to the question, "at whose expense?" would minimally be taxpayers and teachers. Taxpayers, because they would have to provide the funding. And teachers because sufficient manpower would be required to provide the training, and in the absence of sufficient manpower, securing the right to an education would require compelling people to teach, through force if necessary.
But why is knowing at whose expense a right is secured important? The root of the answer lies in a fundamental contradiction that even the framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights failed to address. Article 3 of the declaration states:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The contradiction lies in the unavoidable truth that if someone's right must be secured by taking the property of another, as in the case of taxes for education, or through another person to provide a service, as in the case of insufficient teachers, then that right necessarily infringes another's right to life, liberty and security of person. That is, if there are insufficient people to voluntarily provide money and labor, then to secure that right, the rights of others must be violated to compel them to give the money or perform the labor.
The authors of the declaration stated that the rights they were declaring were "equal and inalienable". When you infringe upon one person's rights to secure another's, you 1) alienate one person's rights, and 2) make one person's rights more important, or more equal than the others. This is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of any right that comes at someone else's expense.
True rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, require no expense. You have them without requiring anything from another person. Although it is a noble goal to end barbarous acts and secure freedom from fear and want from all people, this goal cannot be achieved through violating the rights of others. Using government to secure false rights, is to defeat your purpose.