Individual Rights: An Introduction

Introduction 

We’ve all heard someone say, “It’s my right!” when they feel their freedom is limited. But individual rights are often taken for granted in modern democracies— only noticed when they’re threatened. But what are rights exactly, and how did they evolve?

Welcome to Lib​er​tar​i​an​ism​.org’s Learning Hub: An Introduction to Individual Rights 

Definition

Individual rights are claims about the freedom and dignity inherent in every person. They define the space in which we can think, speak, and act without interference from others, including the government. In the classical liberal tradition, the main purpose of the government is to protect these basic rights –such as life, liberty, and property. 

Context 

Today, the protection of individual rights is fundamental to societies that claim to be free, but the struggle to define and defend the idea of rights has taken many hundreds of years, first concentrating on where rights come from.

For example, Aristotle introduced the idea that there is a natural order discoverable by reason, and that justice is rooted in this nature instead of the arbitrary wishes of rulers. Later, the Roman writer Cicero developed these insights and argued that there are universal laws that applied to everyone, across time and place, providing a foundation for equal just claims. Christian theology emphasized that all humans were made in the image of God and therefore individuals deserved equal dignity. Later thinkers like the English philosopher John Locke claimed that these inherent rights exist before the formation of political society and that government mainly exists to protect the rights of citizens. This tradition was essential to the American Founding, and the Declaration of Independence famously asserts that people have “certain unalienable rights” derived from the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God”.

Contemporary debates around individual rights shifted from where do rights come from to how should they be applied and understood in modern societies. This last question entails two central debates:

1. Are individual rights best understood as negative rights –that is, protection from interference– or, as positive rights –that is, claims to certain goods and services–? And
2. When rights conflict with the “common good,” which should come first?

Negative Rights vs Positive Rights

As we stated at the beginning of this video, individual rights in the classical liberal tradition define the protected sphere of personal freedoms. We refer to these as negative rights: individuals should not infringe on the rights of others, and governments should protect people from having their rights violated. In contrast, positive rights are claims on others or on governments to supply resources to ensure these rights. For example, a claim to a right to health care, which is a service that some other individual or organization must provide.

Most countries mix both, but liberal democracies like the US have traditionally emphasized the importance of negative rights. For example, the first amendment states our right to freedom of speech: the government must not interfere with your ability to express yourself. 

But what if a government wants to limit your speech in the name of the “common good,” as some countries have done by enacting hate speech laws? 

Individual Rights vs The Common Good

Proponents of classical liberalism, like the economist Friedrich Hayek, defend the priority of individual rights over the common good, while communitarians, like the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, affirm the common good should come first. 

The liberal tradition maintains that individual rights are inviolable, even when at odds with the common good, for four reasons:

1. Individual freedom is the most important political value and should be our starting point when considering government policies.

2. The “common good” is a vague term, and therefore vulnerable to abuse. Throughout history, governments have invoked it to justify rights violations. For example:

   In the US, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and detained, justified under national security during WWII.

   A more extreme example occurred in Germany. Under Adolf Hitler, Jews and other minorities were systematically stripped of their rights, supposedly for the health and unity of the nation.

3. Because individual rights are negative rights, they set boundaries on what others, including the government, can do. No appeal to the common good should override these constraints.
4. Finally, following the natural rights tradition, each individual has rights that predate the state. Sacrificing individual rights in the name of the “common good” undermines this foundation. 

Conclusion

In short, individual rights are the claims to freedom that define the space in which we can think, speak, and act without unjustified interference. While positive rights make demands on others for goods or services, negative rights make no demands on others, only the minimal demand of non-​interference. Negative rights protect us from intrusion by others, including the government, even when a state claims that limiting them would serve the “common good.” Protecting these rights is not optional. It should be the very purpose of any government and the foundation of every free society. 

Want to know more? Visit our Learning Hub playlist for more videos like this one and read through our resources at Lib​er​tar​i​an​ism​.org for more content. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel!