U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:28 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,255 posts, read 4,714,381 times
Reputation: 1527

Advertisements

All political persuasions in the United States - left, right, and center - have completely bought into the liberal idea that the primary purpose of the state is to secure individual rights. This culture of "rights", once adopted, then quickly proceeds to erode genuine liberty rooted in virtue.

The "right to privacy" = duty of children to die, and of everyone else not to interfere, and even to accommodate the injustice.

The "right to marry" = duty to condone immorality, to expose one's children to it, and even to participate in it.

The conservatives and Tea Partiers, with whom I sympathize, often make the same rhetorical mistakes and couch their arguments in the framework of "rights". But this only strengthens liberalism. For every right there is a corresponding duty, and a culture of rights only multiplies the duties of the unwilling. This is the mechanism by which the proliferation of legal "rights" actually undermines human freedom.

The era of "rights" is over. Lovers of authentic liberty now tremble every time another "right" is introduced. We need to reform our political language. We need a politics of civic virtue and the common good, rooted in the traditions of the Christian west and the truth about God and man.

"The world has heard enough of the so-called 'rights of man.' Let it hear something of the rights of God." -- Pope Leo XIII

Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 03-04-2012 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:31 PM
 
Location: You Ta Zhou
870 posts, read 1,353,912 times
Reputation: 399
Wait, so your solution is a theocracy??

And I agree with the popular sentiment, the purpose of the state IS to not infringe on our rights. I'm confused at what you disagree with. As long as a right doesn't cost you money or hurt you in any other way it shouldn't be a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:35 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 37,133,594 times
Reputation: 12760
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGKangrui View Post
Wait, so your solution is a theocracy??
Rights do not come from government; rather, they are granted by our Creator and affirmed/codified by our US Constituton. To acknowledge such does not make the USA a theocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 10,746,011 times
Reputation: 4108
So people shouldn't have rights anymore? Especially if they conflict with gods law?

Wow, that's a pretty extremist viewpoint even for some one pushing for a US theocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:39 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 37,133,594 times
Reputation: 12760
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
All political persuasions in the United States - left, right, and center - have completely bought into the liberal idea that the primary purpose of the state is to secure individual rights. This culture of "rights", once adopted, then quickly proceeds to erode genuine liberty rooted in virtue.

The "right to privacy" = duty of children to die, and of everyone else not to interfere, and even to accommodate the injustice.

The "right to marry" = duty to condone immorality, to expose one's children to it, and even to participate in it.

The conservatives and Tea Partiers, with whom I sympathize, often make the same rhetorical mistakes and couch their arguments in the framework of "rights". But this only strengthens liberalism. For every right there is a corresponding duty, and a culture of rights only multiplies the duties of the unwilling. This is the mechanism by which the proliferation of legal "rights" actually undermines human freedom.

The era of "rights" is over. Lovers of authentic liberty now tremble every time another "right" is introduced. We need to reform our political language. We need a politics of civic virtue and the common good, rooted in the traditions of the Christian west and the truth about God and man.

"The world has heard enough of the so-called 'rights of man.' Let it hear something of the rights of God." -- Pope Leo XIII
Addressing that part highlighted in red. Sounds like the OP is arguing for "social justice" and Socialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:39 PM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,121,611 times
Reputation: 9999
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
So people shouldn't have rights anymore? Especially if they conflict with gods law?

Wow, that's a pretty extremist viewpoint even for some one pushing for a US theocracy.
The OP is pretty whack. I rarely use the term "fascist" but this is a rare instance where that label probably applies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:40 PM
 
1,003 posts, read 618,993 times
Reputation: 448
Quote:
Lovers of authentic liberty now tremble every time another "right" is introduced.
Ain't that the truth.

What the liberal says: You have a right to X
What the liberal means: The government has the authority to regulate X

Remember, any right the government gives the government can take away. The liberal will give you all sorts of rights that sound great, but of course to administer and provide this wonderful new right, the government is going to need just a bit more power to tax and regulate and you're going to have to surrender a bit more of your property and freedom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:41 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,583 posts, read 8,265,108 times
Reputation: 4158
Something I wrote many years ago. It's as timely today as it was then.

-------------------------------------------------------

What Are Our "Rights"?

by Little-Acorn

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:46 PM
 
Location: You Ta Zhou
870 posts, read 1,353,912 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Rights do not come from government; rather, they are granted by our Creator and affirmed/codified by our US Constituton. To acknowledge such does not make the USA a theocracy.
I agree with what you say and also believe that our rights are given to us by our creator, but the OP seems to want to "reform" the United States to make us more closely follow "Christian West" traditions. That seems like an endorsement for theocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2012, 10:46 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,255 posts, read 4,714,381 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Addressing that part highlighted in red. Sounds like the OP is arguing for "social justice" and Socialism.
Social justice, absolutely.

Socialism, absolutely not.

However, some of what I believe to be justice - and what the Church teaches to be justice - might be considered "socialistic" by the TP crowd.

It's true that government is too big, taxes are too high, too many people require public assistance, etc. However, that doesn't translate into "taxation is theft" and "government should never help people".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top