Children’s Rights Defined
If you engage in the political landscape, it is likely you have heard a demand for America to pass children’s rights laws. The claim of many politicians, activists, and parents is that all children are owed certain benefits, services, and opportunities, and it is the government’s responsibility to ensure these services are provided equitably.
This is hardly a new idea. In 1989, children’s rights breached national borders and ascended into the foggy ether of international law when the United Nations adopted the treaty Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty outlines “a child’s right” to certain social services, such as:
- healthcare and nutrition,
- quality education,
- a stable, loving, and nurturing environment, and
- clean water and electric power.
Today, children’s rights are being marketed to everyday Americans as humane, helpful, and harmless. After all, who would not want children to have quality education? However, it is our responsibility as citizens to critically examine the premise of children’s rights and consider its consequences.
The Premise of Children’s Rights
When written out simply, the argument of children’s rights activists goes something like this:
All people have the right to certain government services.
All children are people.
Therefore, children have the right to certain government services.
When dealing with a logical syllogism, one must always consider the truthfulness of the premise because the conclusion is drawn from the premise. So, in this article, we will consider the question, “Do people have the right to certain government services?”
Natural Rights vs. Provisional Rights
Two Basic Categories of Rights
The declaration “That is my right!” is extremely common in today’s American culture. Whether we are talking about healthcare, guns, education, privacy, or transgender surgeries, it seems that everyone, regardless of party, ends up falling back on the claim, “That is my right.”
To navigate this conversation, we must identify two basic categories of “rights” commonly used in America: natural rights and provisional rights.
- A natural right, otherwise known as a negative right, is a right derived from the natural law and is determined by what the individual retains. Examples are the right to worship, bear arms, and own property.
- A provisional right, otherwise known as a “positive right,” is a “right” granted by the government and is defined by what it provides an individual with. Examples may be “the right” to healthcare, education, or clean water.
Natural Rights
History clearly demonstrates the American conviction that natural rights both exist and require protection. Thomas Jefferson made this point clearly in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Notice Jefferson’s declaration lays out the criteria for natural rights:
- endowed by God
- derived from the natural law
- ought to be protected by the government
In practice, these criteria limit the ability of the government to infringe upon the natural rights of its citizens by placing them out of the government’s jurisdiction.
Conversely, the idea of provisional rights is not represented in America’s founding documents. This is because our founders did not understand rights as a service owed; rather, they recognized that they are a responsibility to be protected.
Provisional Rights Are No Rights at All
In her article, “The Inversion of Rights: From Protection to Provision,” Lauren Gideon identifies the genesis of provisional rights in the 20th century with President Roosevelt’s “Economic Bill of Rights” and the increased popularity of the Soviet Union’s Ten Planks of Marxist theory.
She argues that, at its root, provisional rights demand coercion, saying, “It demands that someone else’s labor, property, or income be seized by the state and redistributed, violating the negative rights of others.”
Is Free Education a Right?
Consider this in the context of education. If children are owed “quality education,” as defined by the United Nations, the government is responsible for providing that service, and the taxpayer is burdened with footing the bill. When a service is owed to someone, a resource is taken from someone else.
But does someone really have the “inalienable right” to their neighbors’ resources? Natural law, scripture, and American political tradition all unite in responding with a resounding “No!” Your neighbor is not owed your riches or property. Likewise, you are not owed your neighbors’ riches or property.
As Gideon writes, instead of demanding services, “we need to have the clarity and wisdom to recognize these commodities as objects of personal responsibility, so we can look for solutions to secure them for ourselves and voluntarily help provide them for those in need.”
The Conclusion of Children’s Rights
Now that we have examined the premise of children’s rights, let’s look once again at the entire argument:
All people have the right to certain government services.
All children are people.
Therefore, children have the right to certain government services.
If provisional rights are not rights at all, the entire argument for children’s rights begins to crumble. Is that to say that children have no rights? Of course not! Children have the same unalienable natural rights that God gave to adults.
So, rather than demanding services that weaken our resolve for true liberty, let us hold fast to our God-given natural rights and use them to promote prosperity and protect independence for ourselves and our posterity.
Helpful Resource: Discerning a Natural Right
The distinction to keep in mind when engaging in this debate is that of natural rights versus provisional rights. Here are some questions you can ask yourself to discern between a natural right and a demand for services:
- Is this “right” demanding a function from the government?
- Does this “right” take anything away from someone else?
- Does scripture say anything about this “right?”
- Is this right mentioned in the American founding documents?
- Does this “right” meet the three criteria of a natural right?
Written by:
