This 4th of July morning, as I celebrate the boundless opportunities of this great country, I’m filled with joy for the vibrancy of life and our freedom to inspire a flourishing world. Yet, amid the fireworks and festivities, I’m mindful of the debates in our political system—and across the globe—about fairness, equity, and what truly constitutes human rights. As I prepare to spend four weeks in North Bay, Ontario, with dear Canadian friends, I anticipate lively discussions on these topics. In Canada, perspectives on human rights sometimes differ from American views, occasionally sparking division. As an American deeply rooted in the mission of Heroic and Heroic Arizona, I carry these reflections to my friends abroad, hoping to bridge understanding through our shared goal of a thriving humanity.
As members of the heroic community, we share a bold vision: to foster a world where 51% of humanity is flourishing. But what does it mean to flourish, and how do human rights fit into this equation? To answer this, we must grapple with the definition of human rights and consider which rights are truly universal—and which might conflict with the very freedoms they aim to protect.
Defining Human Rights: The Foundation of Flourishing
Human rights are often described as universal entitlements inherent to all individuals, regardless of nationality, creed, or circumstance. They are not granted by governments but are instead recognized as intrinsic to our existence—whether you attribute them to a creator, a universal truth, or the nature of life itself. In the United States, the Declaration of Independence eloquently names three core rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights form a bedrock for human flourishing, as they empower individuals to live freely, own property, create value, and chase their unique version of joy—without impeding others from doing the same.
But the conversation around human rights often grows complex. Some argue that rights extend beyond these fundamentals to include things like universal healthcare, housing, or education. These propositions raise critical questions: Who guarantees these rights? And can a right truly be universal if its enforcement requires taking away someone else’s freedom?
The Role of Government: Guarantor, Not Grantor
In human society, governments are the primary entities tasked with guaranteeing human rights. They exist to protect our ability to exercise our freedoms while ensuring that one person’s rights don’t trample another’s. However, governments are unique in their authority to take away property (through taxes), time (through incarceration), or even life (in extreme cases). This immense power demands caution. If we vest governments with the responsibility to enforce certain rights, we must carefully consider the cost—both to individual liberty and to the balance of a flourishing society.
The Nature of Rights: Fundamental vs. Entitlement-Based
Not all proposed human rights are created equal. Let’s break them down into two categories:
- Fundamental Rights: These are the inalienable rights that require no one else to sacrifice their own freedoms. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness fall here. Liberty, for instance, includes the right to own property (real or financial) and to use it to create value for yourself and others, as long as you don’t harm others in the process. The pursuit of happiness doesn’t guarantee happiness—it simply ensures your freedom to chase it on your terms. These rights are self-sustaining: my exercise of them doesn’t diminish yours.
- Entitlement-Based Rights: These are rights that require resources or services, such as universal healthcare, housing, or education. While these may be desirable societal goals, they differ fundamentally because guaranteeing them often involves taking from one person to give to another. Governments typically fund such programs through taxes, which are collected under the threat of penalties, incarceration, or worse. If someone refuses to pay, the government can seize their property, restrict their liberty, or, in extreme cases, endanger their life. This creates a paradox: to enforce one person’s “right,” another’s core rights may be violated.
The Universal Healthcare Debate: Right or Privilege?
Take universal healthcare as an example. Many argue it’s a human right, asserting that access to medical care is essential for a dignified life. On the surface, this seems compelling—health is undeniably foundational to flourishing. But guaranteeing universal healthcare requires significant resources, typically funded by taxing citizens. If I’m compelled to pay for someone else’s healthcare, my property (money) is taken, potentially limiting my own pursuit of happiness. If I refuse, the government’s authority to enforce payment could encroach on my liberty. This tension suggests that universal healthcare, while a worthy policy debate, may not qualify as a fundamental human right in the same way life or liberty does.
This isn’t to say society shouldn’t provide healthcare or other benefits. A compassionate, flourishing community might choose to prioritize such programs. But labeling them as human rights risks muddling the concept of rights altogether. True human rights should stand alone, requiring no one’s sacrifice to exist.
Wealth Distribution: A Barrier or a Boost to Flourishing?
Another critical debate tied to flourishing is wealth distribution or redistribution. Some argue that to achieve a world where the majority of humanity thrives, we must redistribute wealth to ensure equitable access to resources, regardless of what we define as human rights. While the intention is noble, this approach raises serious concerns about both fairness and long-term societal health.
First, let’s acknowledge the progress we’ve made. Data shows the world is getting better: over the past 20, 50, 100, and 200 years, humanity has seen unprecedented reductions in abject poverty and remarkable increases in access to education, healthcare, housing, and opportunity. Today, more people are rising into the middle class than ever before, and the environment is benefiting from technological advancements. This progress isn’t perfect—challenges remain—but it’s undeniable that free enterprise capitalism and democracy have been the engines of this transformation. These systems reward innovation, foster opportunity, and empower individuals to create value. Rather than abandoning them, we should stay the course, refining and improving as we go, because humanity’s trajectory is one of continuous improvement.
Second, the call for wealth redistribution often hinges on taking from some to give to others. This approach is problematic for two reasons. One, it violates the fundamental human rights of those whose property is taken. Forcibly redistributing wealth undermines the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by seizing what someone has earned through their efforts. Two, even if you set aside the rights argument, giving without requiring effort fosters dependency. Dependency erodes self-worth, which can spiral into destructive behaviors like substance abuse, family breakdown, and societal degradation. While giving may feel compassionate in the moment, history shows that unearned handouts often do more harm than good in the long run.
That said, a flourishing society must support those who are genuinely unable to care for themselves due to mental or physical limitations. A well-funded social safety net is a moral imperative—not as a human right, but as a societal choice to offer a hand-up rather than a handout whenever possible. For the truly frail, a handout may be necessary, and that’s okay; we should care for those who cannot care for themselves. But for those capable of mind and body, handouts risk personal and societal decline. True flourishing comes from empowering individuals to earn their way, not from redistributing wealth at the expense of others’ rights.
A Balanced Approach for the Heroic Community
As we strive for a world where 51% of humanity flourishes, we must anchor our efforts in a clear understanding of human rights. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are universal because they empower individuals without diminishing others. They align with the heroic community’s mission by fostering a world where people can innovate, create, and thrive freely.
When considering additional “rights” like healthcare or wealth redistribution, we should approach them as societal choices, not universal mandates. A flourishing society might decide to provide healthcare, education, or a safety net—not because they’re inalienable rights, but because they reflect our collective values. The distinction matters: conflating societal benefits with human rights risks empowering governments to overreach, potentially undermining the very freedoms that allow us to flourish.
Conclusion: Rights as the Bedrock of Flourishing
Human rights are the foundation of a flourishing world, but not all proposed rights are equal. The heroic community’s mission to see 51% of humanity thrive demands clarity on this point. Let’s champion the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights that empower without taking away. And let’s engage in thoughtful debate about societal benefits like healthcare and wealth distribution, recognizing that their implementation must respect the freedoms we hold dear.
What do you think? Should universal healthcare or wealth redistribution be considered human rights, or are they better framed as societal goals? Share your thoughts below, and let’s keep the conversation going as we work toward a flourishing future.
