What a Trucker Boycott of New York City Would Teach About Rights

Never let a teaching moment go to waste

Truckers are trying to organize a boycott (or, as I would call it, a “blockade”) of New York City in retaliation for the illegitimate persecution of Donald J. Trump and his family. I endorse the move. I wrote about it yesterday.

That’s the nuts-and-bolts of the case, but there’s a philosophical teaching moment we should not let pass.

A trucker boycott of New York City would be a perfect demonstration of rights. It would also elevate the value of truckers to that of teachers, doctors, and nurses.

What Are Rights?

About 30 years ago, in the midst of a debate on rights, I developed an analogy of sorts. It goes like this: if you were stranded alone on a desert island in the South Pacific, you would be in total possession of all your rights as a human being. But, as soon as one other person landed on that island, your rights and theirs would be in jeopardy.

The reason is simple: a right is the freedom you possess by your status as a human being. And only other humans—or beings with intellect, will, and physical ability to constrain your actions—can deprive you of your rights.

Accepting this definition of rights does not allow an exhaustive list of what those rights are, because the rights of man are infinite. Within the Christian ethic, you have the right to do anything of the good, meaning, you may do anything you wish that is in accord with the will of God.

While this definition does not tell us what all of our rights are, it does give is a great boundary for what our rights are not. For example, we have no right to be joined by other people on that island. Companionship cannot be a right because every human in the world has a right not to be your companion. Just because you’re stuck on an island doesn’t mean others must join you, giving up their right to be somewhere else.

Therefore, people do not have a right to education, or healthcare. They do not have a right to safety from the wiles of nature. They do not have the right be entertained.

Conversely, though, people do have the right to try to learn, to try to improve their health and overcome disease and injury, to try to build shelters against the elements and animals, and to find ways to humor themselves. They are possessed of the God-given right to liberty to experiment in all these things, which might summarized as life (and its continuity) and the pursuit of happiness. Especially when stranded alone on a desert island where your pursuit of happiness will not impose on another human being.

Further, because God gave man dominion over the earth and the animals and plants thereon, you have the right to kill every last living thing on the island. Doing so, you would hopeful realize in advance, would shorten your life, but you would be free to do so.

So, what happens when that second person washes up on shore? Do your rights change?

Other Persons Neither Increase Nor Reduce Your Rights

No. But your rights are now further constricted by the presence of another human. You may not realize it, but there were constraints on your rights even when alone. You had, for instance, a right to wish to be in Pittsburgh, but you had no right to be in Pittsburgh. You had the right to try to get to Pittsburgh, but not the right to arrive.

The other person has identical rights to you, even if you are a man and she a woman. But your are constrained by the fact she is entitled to the same rights as you. This means, if you had been planning to kill every living thing on the island, you are constrained from doing so for two reasons: 1) she has a right to use the plants and animals of the island equal to your rights to the same, and 2) she is an animal you must not kill, except to save your own life from her malicious intent to take it. You may not kill her out fear of insufficient resources for the both of you. You may not killer because she refuses to marry you. You may not kill her for sport or because you’d always dreamed of being the only living thing on the island.

And, yet, despite these constraints, you have all of your rights because you never had the right to deny the woman hers.

Rights Do Not Entitle You to the Talents of Others

Now, suppose this woman is a nurse, and suppose you’ve been suffering from a painful ingrown toenail since you arrived on the island. You learn in the course of conversation that she is something of an expert in relieving ingrown-toenail pain.

Twenty-first century thinking would say you have a right to be relieved of your ingrown toenail, but, if you’ve been reading along, you realize that’s absurd. You have the right to try to relieve your own pain, but you have no right to her talent at the task. She has the right not to fix your stupid toe.

As a man, your strength and speed might be able to force to work on your toe, but doing so would exceed the limits of your rights. And, most likely, leave you with a toe in much more pain, or no toe at all.

You do, however, have a right to try to obtain her help in curing your ailment or, at least, reducing its effects on your happiness. You might offer to teach her about the island’s edible plants and how to discriminate the poisonous ones. You might offer to harvest a tasty coconut or banana for her in exchange for medical services. You might even offer to catch a fish and prepare in a way that will not cause gastronomic distress. And you could teach her how to make a comfy pillow out of sand and leaves. In exchange one or more of your talents, she might agree to ply her trade on your aching foot. But she doesn’t have to. And you don’t have to teach her squat.

God’s law might require both of you to cooperate, but the philosophical foundation of the American republic does not. You are free to be selfish jerks, so long as your jerkishness does not encroach on the other’s rights.

So, what does this have to do with the truckers?

New York City Has No Right to the Labor of Truckers

For some reason, Americans are under the erroneous impression that they have a right to force others to apply talents on them. If there were a “right” to education, then there is no right not to be a teacher. If there were a “right” to healthcare, there would be no right to not a doctor, nurse, or technician. If there were a right to policing, no one would have the right not to be a policeman. And this list goes on forever. If you have a right to a car, someone else has the duty to make one.

Of course, all of this ridiculous. Humans existed in full possession of their rights long before formal education, medicine, and the automobile were invented. Did the primitives who ascended out of Africa shirk their duties to invent these things?

No.

Adam and Eve had all their rights (and then some) in the Garden, but nowhere in Genesis does God explain to them how to fill out an insurance claim or the rules for being admitted to the hospital. God told Adam he could “work the garden” and eat from any plant or tree except for one, he brought to Adam every beast of the land and air and sea and let Adam name them. Then, God gave Adam a wife formed from Adam’s own flesh and told them to be fruitful and multiply. No mention of transportation, health insurance, fair housing, compulsory education, or birth control. God left Adam and Eve with all their rights and all their constraints.

And the effed it up almost immediately.

Eve wanted rights God did not give her. She wanted the right to eat of the tree God forbade her to touch. So, she said, “to hell with that, I’m gonna try one.” Then, she gave it to her husband (who there the whole time and did nothing to stop her), and he ate it. Then God let them have it, kicked them out of Garden, and punished the devil for tempting them. (Among other things, this episode proves men need to say “no” to their wives and that marital bliss is not a right.) So, residency in the Garden of Eden was not a right, which might come as a shock to those seeking utopia and to fair-housing advocates.

God never ordered Adam or Eve to build schools, hospital, and automobile assembly plants, nor to mine ore, nor to provide the animals with tuition-free college education. He told them to work the land and have babies. And name things. Nor did he provide truckers to haul in supplies.

He did, however, add to their burdens because of their disobedience. Once ejected from His public housing project, Adam and Eve and all their descendants were forced to work the soil and suffer pain and humiliation, fighting nature instead of being at one with it. (A lesson Jorge Bergoglio seems to have forgotten.)

Thus, New York City’s dependence on truckers is of their own making, and the consequences of violating long-standing social contracts are appearing in stark relief. Neither New Yorkers nor Bill Hennessy have a right to the fruits of truckers’ labors. We have the right to try to grow food and to negotiate deals to buy food and medical supplies from others. But, those others have inalienable rights to refuse.

No one has the right to trucked-in goods. Everyone has the right to try to induce truckers to bring them stuff. And no one has the right to compel a trucker to drive where he does not want.

If this trucker protest happens, let it be a learning moment, not only about justice and fair play, but also about the true meaning of human rights. Those rights are both broader and narrower than most of us pretend.