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.
We do have a right to healthcare. You don't have your health, you don't have the pursuit of happiness, a need higher on the pyramid than health with obviously a right to safety set in by the mere fact there's 911 responders, firefighters, parametics, ambulance, and police. Higher but still below pursuit of happiness is heaith
And in the Preamble to the US Constitution this is expressed in "promote the general welfare"
Do we have a right to be fed as well? Nobody should go without food, so that must mean we have a right to it. If the government doesn't have a program where they take people's money to grow and distribute food to all its citizens, everyone will starve to death! How anyone can be against food for all just blows my mind....you're all so selfish. /sarcasm
People need to understand that those of us against "free" healthcare for all aren't against it because we don't want everyone to have access to it. That would be amazing and I hope it happens. The problem is HOW we provide it. Forcing people to provide a service is evil, just as much as letting someone die in the street when you could help them. If you truly own yourself, nobody has the right to your LIFE. Those that say we need to force anyone to provide healthcare are saying that an individual's rights can be disregarded in the name of "society" or the "greater good", which is an unbelievably dangerous principle to live by.
Do we have a right to be fed as well? Nobody should go without food, so that must mean we have a right to it. If the government doesn't have a program where they take people's money to grow and distribute food to all its citizens, everyone will starve to death! How anyone can be against food for all just blows my mind....you're all so selfish. /sarcasm
We could call it "food stamps" and "farm subsidies" - but clearly, that could never happen.
I'm amazed at some people here, I think they would let their own mother or child die in the street.
Actually, that's likely when all the political principles are going out the window and they start looking for help any way they can. You can rest assured they will no longer think of healthcare the same way they think of a cable TV subscription.
We could call it "food stamps" and "farm subsidies" - but clearly, that could never happen.
Well I'm against both of those...but I was thinking along the lines of how the government doesn't control how everyone gets their food. We have people voluntarily choosing to farm or to cook food at restaurants or run a grocery store. They don't do it because they're forced to. Maybe I could have chosen a better example, but the more important part of my post was the second paragraph, anyway.
Do we have a right to be fed as well? Nobody should go without food, so that must mean we have a right to it. If the government doesn't have a program where they take people's money to grow and distribute food to all its citizens, everyone will starve to death! How anyone can be against food for all just blows my mind....you're all so selfish. /sarcasm
People need to understand that those of us against "free" healthcare for all aren't against it because we don't want everyone to have access to it. That would be amazing and I hope it happens. The problem is HOW we provide it. Forcing people to provide a service is evil, just as much as letting someone die in the street when you could help them. If you truly own yourself, nobody has the right to your LIFE. Those that say we need to force anyone to provide healthcare are saying that an individual's rights can be disregarded in the name of "society" or the "greater good", which is an unbelievably dangerous principle to live by.
Forcing people to provide a service is evil, just as much as letting someone die in the street when you could help them?
So when your parents made you take out the trash, clean your room, or cut the grass that was evil?
Would forcing a doctor to treat someone free of charge be as evil as killing someone?
We are Americans wheres the respect for your fellow citizens lives, where is the sacrifice for your country, where is the emotion to not want your fellow Americans to die?
Answer: The corporate backed Fox news, Rush radio, and republican CEO politicians stole it. And they replaced it with phony soundbites of "rights and liberty", "we want government out of our lives", and "we want small government." But those things are part of a bigger picture, and what they really mean is "we want the EPA, FDA, and IRS to no longer fine regulate large corporations."
Then you said "society" or the "greater good" is an unbelievably dangerous principle to live by.
The "greater good" would be like you giving your life to save your wife and kids from dying. And your right it is dangerous, but its the behavior of a man, an honorable American, and a civilized and caring human being.
With you republicans its to hell with everyone just give (them) this,
Forcing people to provide a service is evil, just as much as letting someone die in the street when you could help them?
So when your parents made you take out the trash, clean your room, or cut the grass that was evil?
Would forcing a doctor to treat someone free of charge be as evil as killing someone?
We are Americans wheres the respect for your fellow citizens lives, where is the sacrifice for your country, where is the emotion to not want your fellow Americans to die?
Answer: The corporate backed Fox news, Rush radio, and republican CEO politicians stole it. And they replaced it with phony soundbites of "rights and liberty", "we want government out of our lives", and "we want small government." But those things are part of a bigger picture, and what they really mean is "we want the EPA, FDA, and IRS to no longer fine regulate large corporations."
Then you said "society" or the "greater good" is an unbelievably dangerous principle to live by.
The "greater good" would be like you giving your life to save your wife and kids from dying. And your right it is dangerous, but its the behavior of a man, an honorable American, and a civilized and caring human being.
With you republicans its to hell with everyone just give (them) this,
I'm far from a republican. I'm an anarchist/voluntaryist. Just to address a couple things...
1. If my parents initiated force against me to get me to do those things instead of dealing with the problem rationally, yes it would be immoral. If you would have asked me a couple years ago I wouldn't have believed that, but I've been looking a lot into peaceful parenting. There's a site called peacefulparenting.info, as well as others.
2. The forcing a doctor vs. killing scenario....both are immoral. I don't know whether one is better or worse. Let's say killing is worse. That doesn't make it any better to force the doctor to provide healthcare.
3. You asked where the respect for my fellow citizens' lives was...I respect their lives enough to not threaten violence against them if they have a different political view. You also asked where the emotion is to not let them die....that's the whole point of the second paragraph I wrote. It's not that I don't want to help them. It's that I won't break the non-aggression principle (NAP) under any circumstance, so government isn't an option because it is, by definition, force. I want to find alternate ways to help people that don't go against what I believe is moral behavior.
4. Giving up my life to protect my family, friends, strangers, or whoever would be my own choice. What is dangerous is when people think that it is acceptable to sacrifice another person's rights if it benefits society as a whole. That's the same mentality used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to justify mass killings of their citizens.
I just want to say, I honestly respect you a lot for caring so much. Everyone here that wants to help those in need are good people and I appreciate that very much. I hope you see that my views are honest and that I also want what is best for humanity.
I'm far from a republican. I'm an anarchist/voluntaryist. Just to address a couple things...
1. If my parents initiated force against me to get me to do those things instead of dealing with the problem rationally, yes it would be immoral. If you would have asked me a couple years ago I wouldn't have believed that, but I've been looking a lot into peaceful parenting. There's a site called peacefulparenting.info, as well as others.
2. The forcing a doctor vs. killing scenario....both are immoral. I don't know whether one is better or worse. Let's say killing is worse. That doesn't make it any better to force the doctor to provide healthcare.
3. You asked where the respect for my fellow citizens' lives was...I respect their lives enough to not threaten violence against them if they have a different political view. You also asked where the emotion is to not let them die....that's the whole point of the second paragraph I wrote. It's not that I don't want to help them. It's that I won't break the non-aggression principle (NAP) under any circumstance, so government isn't an option because it is, by definition, force. I want to find alternate ways to help people that don't go against what I believe is moral behavior.
4. Giving up my life to protect my family, friends, strangers, or whoever would be my own choice. What is dangerous is when people think that it is acceptable to sacrifice another person's rights if it benefits society as a whole. That's the same mentality used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to justify mass killings of their citizens.
I just want to say, I honestly respect you a lot for caring so much. Everyone here that wants to help those in need are good people and I appreciate that very much. I hope you see that my views are honest and that I also want what is best for humanity.
1/ And just how did your parents go about forcing your compliance with the rules of the house. My goodness; did they suggest you would lose a privilege? How would they have enforced that?
2/ That doctor who took an oath and laws prohibiting discrimination are what will force him to treat ANYONE requiring it, if indeed he calls himself a doctor. Oh wait, you think the moral imperative should be whether he's paid or not...I get it.
3/ Your moral imperatives might be somewhat skewed compared with the majority, what then?
4/ Oh, then that's also the same mentality as used to institute the DRAFT? Gotta say; your moral imperatives are highly selective in their targeting.
Basically you're suggesting that "Freedom of Choice" be the watchword for everyday living. Good luck with that. Everyman's freedom of choice being given full reign will really ruin your day.
1/ And just how did your parents go about forcing your compliance with the rules of the house. My goodness; did they suggest you would lose a privilege? How would they have enforced that?
2/ That doctor who took an oath and laws prohibiting discrimination are what will force him to treat ANYONE requiring it, if indeed he calls himself a doctor. Oh wait, you think the moral imperative should be whether he's paid or not...I get it.
3/ Your moral imperatives might be somewhat skewed compared with the majority, what then?
4/ Oh, then that's also the same mentality as used to institute the DRAFT? Gotta say; your moral imperatives are highly selective in their targeting.
Basically you're suggesting that "Freedom of Choice" be the watchword for everyday living. Good luck with that. Everyman's freedom of choice being given full reign will really ruin your day.
Freedom of Choice is bull****, which is why libertarianism is a defunct ideology.
Should society allow people's Freedom of Choice to include imprudence?
That is why single-payer health care ends up being the better option than private health care. In a public society, we feel a moral obligation to help anyone in life or death situations. Should society feel that need if that person was inflicting harm on oneself? In theory, we can't stop someone from self-destructive behavior (smoking), but we cannot let someone die in the streets (heart attack).
We do have a right to healthcare. You don't have your health, you don't have the pursuit of happiness, a need higher on the pyramid than health with obviously a right to safety set in by the mere fact there's 911 responders, firefighters, parametics, ambulance, and police. Higher but still below pursuit of happiness is heaith
And in the Preamble to the US Constitution this is expressed in "promote the general welfare"
Promote the general welfare doesn't mean "free" stuff.
you pay taxes for police, fire, etc.
The police do not protect you as an individual but society as a whole. Thus there is no "right" to safety.
Ambulances are separate from hospitals and ER's.
Health care is not a right
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.
