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.
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.
Apparently the liberals cannot explain why doctors, hospitals etc. owe us their service for free.
That's pretty significant.
It doesn't mean the liberals don't know the reasons why they want that to be so.
It means the liberals are afraid to admit the reasons, to normal people.
The fact is, of course, that the liberals want to persuade eveyone that people's labor is not their own, people's earnings are not their own, people's resources are not their own.
If they can persuade people of this, that means the liberals are free to take aything they want, from anyone they want.
All of liberalism is based on the idea of theft - or, as they put it, "redistribution".
And that's what they don't want to admit.
Hence their conspicuous silence when asked for details of what they believe.
Apparently the liberals cannot explain why doctors, hospitals etc. owe us their service for free.
Asking liberals to forgive me (an independent) speaking in their name:
You say that! I don't think liberals say that. As far as I understand, they claim the government should fund the cost of medical treatment for those who cannot afford to pay. They never say Doctor X or nurse Y owes anyone anything.
Quote:
The fact is, of course, that the liberals want to persuade eveyone that people's labor is not their own, people's earnings are not their own, people's resources are not their own.
That's not accurate.
Quote:
If they can persuade people of this, that means the liberals are free to take aything they want, from anyone they want.
Never heard anyone say that except conservatives suffering of deep anxiety. Really. At best it's a personal conclusion.
Quote:
All of liberalism is based on the idea of theft - or, as they put it, "redistribution".
Maybe some liberals talk about that, but that's it, simple rhetoric. With Obama 5 years in office, I can't see any wealth distribution yet. Can you point at any social segment that changed places?
However, a real redistribution took place in the last 3 decades, with some folks gaining astronomical wealth (the highest in history), while middle class is constantly shirking. I call that redistribution, since its a change to the social order that existed for a very long time. In the 21st century we stepped back more then a century, to the (good ol') days of Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Cornelius Vanderbilt.
Again, I apologize if liberals consider my response a misrepresentation.
Maybe some liberals talk about that, but that's it, simple rhetoric. With Obama 5 years in office, I can't see any wealth distribution yet. Can you point at any social segment that changed places?
Obamacare is a massive wealth redistribution scheme.
So is welfare.
So is Social Security.
So is medicare.
So is every "gimmee" you want.
It takes from the producers and gives to the consumers of wealth.
Atlas Shrugged was about what happens when the producers finally give up.
You discover reality - and boy will it be an amazing surprise when you do.
Asking liberals to forgive me (an independent) speaking in their name:
You say that! I don't think liberals say that. As far as I understand, they claim the government should fund the cost of medical treatment for those who cannot afford to pay. They never say Doctor X or nurse Y owes anyone anything.
But someone does.
If you have a RIGHT to what a doctor and nurse and ( insert any provider here) does, then that obligates them to work. If it's a RIGHT, you don't have to pay for it. Just like you don't have to pay in order to believe in your religion (or not, if you so choose) or pay to say whatever opinions you have on any topic.
You have a right to free speech. Which means it can't be taxed, nor can anyone prohibit you from speaking your mind, except some place privately owned.
But you skip right over reality, and say "well, they don't say that they have to do it for free. Of course not. Who'd buy that nonsense? They just conveniently ignore that you work for money. That is, your pay is your work. But that's ok, instead of stealing the doctor's work, they'll steal EVERYONE's work and distribute it so as to benefit the politicians who do it, promising to give people someone else's work in exchange for votes.
Somehow, this confiscation of an individual's work... Is ok with you.
What's not ok with you, it seems, is explaining the truth of the matter.
Minimum wage was never meant to support most individuals, let alone a family. It's meant to be paid to those entering the job market, or those seeking a little extra. It's meant to be paid to teenagers who are performing unskilled labor as they learn what a job is.
That is what is used to be but with factory jobs gone that is what is left.
I agree that some working minimum wage jobs do so because they have to. They have not prepared themselves for life in the real world and thus their choices are limited. They have little if anything to offer an employer or with which to negotiate a higher wage. I also agree with the poster who said there should be no minimum as I think unless you have something to offer, be happy that you get anything. How do you know they have not prepared themselves many people get degrees still work low wage jobs.They should be happy with with what they have right like the poor in 3rd World Countries that what you want?These Right Wing Nut Jobs want us to go back where there was two classes really rich and really poor.
My first part time job was washing pots in a commercial kitchen. For $2.76 an hour. It was hard work, it was messy work. It sucked. But it taught me what it took to earn money and made me judicious in spending. I knew there had to be a better way, so I went to school, studied hard, looked at the world to determine what was valued. I developed expertise in what was in demand, and became one of the best at my craft. I have choices. Good for you but some people do not have the money, time or intelligence for school.
My company doesn't have to pay me over 50 times what I made washing pots. I don't have to work for them. It's by mutual agreement. If they don't want to pay me that, there are others who will, because few do what I do as well as I do, and I charge the going rate for it. I have something to offer. I bring value to the negotiating table. I produce far beyond 'unskilled labor' each and every day, and my company turns a profit in pimping my skills and service to its' clients.
Were it up to me, I'd do away with the concept of minimum wage. Let the market determine what value lies in a pair of hands seemingly unattached to a working brain. And let that be motivation to develop marketable skills rather than depend on government intervention or the charity of others. If you don't like it, there are three choices: 1) Starve, 2) Learn how to do something that others value, or 3) Shut up and clean that Slurpee machine.
Wonderful then we can have our poor living in huts like other counties. Motivation has nothing to do with why they are poor I am sure many poor would love to get a better job but can't for some reason. I am not sure how to respond to your last statement but to say what a selfish evil way of thinking. Do you care about anyone besides yourself?
How do you know they have not prepared themselves many people get degrees still work low wage jobs.They should be happy with with what they have right like the poor in 3rd World Countries that what you want?These Right Wing Nut Jobs want us to go back where there was two classes really rich and really poor.
That's not true. "Low wage" might be debatable, but an Anglo passport and native English skills allow you more job opportunities than anyone else in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
Wonderful then we can have our poor living in huts like other counties. Motivation has nothing to do with why they are poor I am sure many poor would love to get a better job but can't for some reason. I am not sure how to respond to your last statement but to say what a selfish evil way of thinking. Do you care about anyone besides yourself?
Our "poor" are still in the global top 10%. They should definitely not have kids, but I don't think politicians are willing to stop the poor from breeding. Republicans oppose educational investments and Democrats oppose changing the immigration requirement or welfare rules.
That's not true. "Low wage" might be debatable, but an Anglo passport and native English skills allow you more job opportunities than anyone else in the world.
You just showed me a chart from last year a lot can change in a year.
Our "poor" are still in the global top 10%. They should definitely not have kids, but I don't think politicians are willing to stop the poor from breeding. Republicans oppose educational investments and Democrats oppose changing the immigration requirement or welfare rules.
Comparing the poor to other countries that do not have as much wealth as the US is pointless.The US is one of the riches counties in the world we should hold how our poor live to a higher standard.
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.
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.
