Part 1

Before getting started, I need to define two terms which are often used inappropriately:

Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, determined by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy his ultimate value which is his own life.

Rights are a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. In other words, what must a man be left free to do to survive as a man in society with the understanding that such rights are universal, meaning for example that you cannot have the right to your property while at the same time robbing your neighbor.

More damning than the economics is the immorality of such “economic rights.” The primary way that true rights can be violated is by the initiation of physical force, which is therefor an attack on the fundamentals of morality. Laws of “economic rights” essentially use government force to compel some individuals to act contrary to their own choice so as to “benefit” other individuals. Just as it is immoral for a criminal to use force to compel you to act, to turn over your money or to perform some other action, it is equally immoral for the government to do so. The government can have no rights that an individual does not have. It makes no difference neither how many people vote to violate the rights of others,  nor what the ends are to be achieved by the forced action. Just as it would not matter if the criminal takes your money to feed his family, it does not make any difference what supposed “public good” will be achieved by the government violating the rights of an individual. In both government and criminal action, the initiation of physical force is a violation of rights and thus immoral.

It is not only the businesses whose actual rights are violated by laws of “economic rights.” To live as a human being  the individual must be left free to judge his best course of action and be free to act on that judgment in pursuing his long range, life sustaining goals. He may rightfully come to the conclusion that it is of value to work for $10 per hour, or less, in order to get the experience needed to one day make $15, $20, or even more. Under the law proposed, many potential employees would be prevented from doing this and by preventing them from taking the first steps up the employment ladder it would condemn him to a lifetime of poverty.

Even those employees who seem to benefit from such laws by keeping or finding a job at the new higher wage are not immune from the immoral effects of the law. A major aspect of human happiness is a sense of pride in their accomplishments. Not the pride that looks down on others as inferior, but the pride of looking at your accomplishments and being able to say, “I did good.” While in many cases your own recognition of this is sufficient, in the context of your job the opinion of your employer as expressed in higher wages is hugely important. I know when I have gotten a raise, not a 3% cost of living increase but a significant raise because of my contributions to the business, I felt a huge sense of pride and accomplishment that made me want to try even harder. Contrast this with the feeling one must necessarily have when your employer says, “Well, it’s the  law that we have to pay you this much.”  Worse is the employee who has worked hard, learned new skills, and generally made himself more valuable to his employer, thereby earning higher and higher wages who now sees a slacker who does the bare minimum to not get fired earning, due not to effort but the application of government force, the same amount. What happens to the incentive of the hard working employee? Where is the justice in a law that compels an employer to pay the diligent and the slacker the same amount?

In the end, such laws as the proposed “economic rights” show that supposed good ends can never justify immoral means. Indeed, the immoral means will certainly undercut and ultimately destroy the supposed good ends.