All rights are just made up by us. Always have been, always wil be.
All rights are just made up by us. Always have been, always wil be.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
I believe in the meaning of community, and so we should all be striving to provide all of those things for one another. Every person's efforts matter. In a system of selfishness and apathy where people believe that they can be self-sufficient, and what's theirs is theirs, there will be more corruption, distrust, theft, and abuse.
I still prefer the rules of private property, but within the context of community where people aren't so guarded with their trivial material things and give them away more easily.
You and I view liberty differently. To me, individual liberty means squat if there are no checks on someone gobbling up too many resources and making a new feudal age, which was happening all throughout the 1800s. I know you will call it a straw man, but it happens over and over wherever there is a power vacuum, such as in the middle east or africa. I don't see how basic constitutionality is not enough to protect the population from that. You feel differently and I don't think we are ever going to change the minds of the other person. So be it.
Last edited by tacomancer; 03-01-10 at 06:26 AM.
I agree mostly with Riv here.
I’m going to come at this from an American perspective. First, I believe people have the right to pursue and attempt to acquire the following three things, and that laws should not be made to prevent people from attempting to acquire them, based on the innate Right to Life:
All three are essential to continuing ones existence in this world. I do not believe that any government should be able to remove your ability to try and attain these things through legal means.
Additionally, based on the Right to Pursue Happiness, I believe that the right to attain a job and the right to a living wage are also correct. The Pursuit of Happiness, as it is believed to have meant there, was essentially the pursuit of one’s individual wealth and well being in regards to tangible, physical comforts (be it items, land, etc). The ability to get a job, and to get a job at a reasonable wage, is essential to that.
All of these however are things you have a right to attempt to acquire, NOT the right to be given.
We have a right to bear arms. We do not have the right to be given arms. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to own guns.
We have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to be given an editorial page. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to speak about the government.
We have the right to assemble. We do not have the right to have a convention center reserved. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to rent the convention center ourselves.
This is how I see many of those above things. Having a RIGHT to Health Care, Food, or Water means the government can’t/shouldn’t pass a law saying “People with [x] disease are no longer allowed to be given treatment because its too costly to care for them” or “This town isn’t fighting the federal government on its federal drug laws so until they relent all sale of water is illegal and we’re arresting anyone that uses a private well”.
That does NOT mean that the government should have to provide health care to everyone, nor hand out water to everyone. The first type, the right to pursue those things, affects no one but you through any kind of force. You SEEKING health care does not mandate someone provide it. You SEEKING water does not mandate anyone provide it. Simply that it the government should not bar you from that attempt, and should you get it not bar you from having it. By having the government GIVE people those things you ARE infringing upon other people, because the only way the government has that money is through taking it from other people.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean nationalized health care is necessarily wrong or evil or unconstitutional simply because its not a “right”. We have other things in this country that are not “rights” but the government provides because the majority of citizens feels its in theirs and the nations best interest. For example, we don’t have a “right” to roads, and yet the government taxes people and provides them because they are viewed by society as a necessary duty of government. However to argue that we have a “Right to the government providing roads” would be as ludicrous as an argument as having a “right to government providing health care”.
The above is similar with a job as well. The government should not have the ability to pass a law stating “Black People are not allowed to be paid anything more than $2 an hour” without people revolting up against it and being morally correct, however that does not mean that if you’re a black person you have the right to have any job you get pay you $12 an hour. The government should not be required to provide you a job, but neither should it tell you that you should not be allowed to try and pursue it.
I generally think the notion of the right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a good one to go by for a civilized society. We have the right to attempt to acquire that which will keep us alive. We have a right to fight to keep our sovereignty and to act, think, and speak as we choose as long as it does not infringe upon another’s rights. We have a right to attempt to attain wealth, land, and comfort as long as we remain within the confines of the standards that society places upon us. IE, if stealing is wrong in that society (thus illegal), then pursuing happiness through theft is bad as it infringes upon another in a way that is wrong for society. However being more successful in business is not illegal, so while my success my affect your success directly or indirectly, the effect is not done in such a way that its “infringing” upon your own right.
The problems come when people erroneously believe that because they have the right to ATTAIN something that it somehow means that:
1) They MUST be able to attain it
2) If they can’t attain it then it should be given to them
That is not a right.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
As far as I know, I only have the "right" to remain silent.....
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
You wouldnt have the same right to remain silent in say Venezuala...or Iran...or Cuba...or North Korea.
I have a right to food and water. That is all. I was raised working on the land and supplying for my self. People that think they deserve a silver spoon their whole life need a reality check. I want nor need anyone elses money. I am not rich, I am pretty close to broke, but I don't need someone coming in to give me money, just so they can take away my right to live freely. That includes what little money I have and my weapons. This is the way my two children will be raised!