[Market Economy Guide] The Difference Between Rights and Entitlements

A right is an unlimited right that does not require others’ sacrifice; an entitlement presupposes others’ sacrifice and concession

After a hard day, have you ever found your eyes drawn to an empty priority seat on a crowded subway? Most people would probably answer yes. But whatever they may think inwardly, it is uncommon for a healthy young person to sit in a priority seat. That is because there is a social consensus that priority seats on public transportation are, literally, seats reserved out of consideration for the elderly and other vulnerable passengers.

The difference between rights, as seen on the subway

What we should consider here is the nature of the “right” to a priority seat. The concept of rights can be divided into “rights” and “entitlements.” A right refers to the freedom from interference by others. An entitlement, by contrast, refers to a right that entails the sacrifice of others. In other words, for someone to exercise such a right, someone else must bear an economic sacrifice.

Typical examples of rights include freedom of the press, thought, and assembly. Because exercising a right does not require sacrifice by others, it carries no economic cost. Since there is no cost, allowing rights without limit does not create a social problem. Entitlements, however, are different. Because they involve someone else’s sacrifice and have an economic cost, they cannot be expanded without limit. If they are allowed without limit, someone will have to bear an enormous burden.

Among these two categories, priority seating falls under entitlement. That is because it represents a socially agreed level of permissible rights. Priority seats can exist because healthy people accept a certain degree of sacrifice on their part. If a young and healthy person sits in a priority seat, that person will likely face criticism from many others. That is because he or she has infringed upon an entitlement established through social consensus.

Conversely, there are people who insist that those seated in regular seats must always give up their seats. These people, too, tend to be viewed unfavorably. This happens because they mistake an entitlement for a right. The problem is that they unilaterally demand sacrifices that were never socially agreed upon. A concession made not voluntarily according to one’s moral standards, but reluctantly under pressure, can feel like an infringement on one’s own rights.

If people mistake entitlements—which require others’ concession and sacrifice—for rights, the share of priority seating will gradually increase, and regular seating will decrease accordingly. At some point, priority seats could even come to occupy most of the seats on public transportation. If that happens, many of those expected to make sacrifices will push back. Conflict and confrontation will arise between those seeking to enjoy rights and those seeking to protect their own rights.

Welfare is not an unlimited right

Then is welfare a right or an entitlement? Welfare is not an unlimited right. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world can enjoy the quality of life they desire. People also differ in the quality of life they want, and some even infringe upon others’ lives in pursuit of improving their own. Welfare is no different. We often encounter people who claim that welfare is a “right” that must naturally be enjoyed. But if welfare is described as a right in the sense of a right, that is clearly incorrect. Welfare policy set by the state is plainly a structure in which the rights of some are guaranteed through the sacrifice of others. Therefore, social consensus is an essential precondition for welfare policy. Welfare policies pushed forward recklessly without social consensus are not only ineffective, but can also become a source of division and conflict.

Welfare policy is certainly necessary. The issue, however, lies in determining its recipients and its level. If society is to support the welfare needs of the poor through economic assistance based on social consensus, it must first gather public opinion on how far poverty should be defined and what level of welfare should be provided to those in poverty. At the center of this is the government. The government must determine the recipients, scope, and level of welfare based on a socially agreed welfare philosophy. Only when there are standards and principles that the majority of society can accept can welfare policy achieve social integration and fulfill its purpose.

■ Let us think about it

If people mistake entitlements—which require others’ concession and sacrifice—for rights, the share of priority seating will gradually increase, and regular seating will decrease accordingly. At some point, priority seats could even come to occupy most of the seats on public transportation. If that happens, many of those expected to make sacrifices will push back.

Sung-no Choi, President of the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [시장경제 길라잡이] right와 entitlement의 차이

Author: Sung-no Choi

Date: 2018-11-19

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=15&idx=11246