What are our rights?

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.Little-Acorn.com/html/rights0.htm

What Are Our "Rights"?

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.

[SpidermanTUba]

1. PARTY
2. PARTY
3. See #1 - #2

:dance:

[82Marine89]

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.... Not in the eyes of many Democrats or Republicans. One side wants to control you, the other doesn't want to give you equal Rights. Not special rights, simply equal Rights. Before long someone will post some crap about political correctness, another about the Bible and how some people should not have Rights. Plain and simple.... your Rights end where mine begin and if you deny some the Right to exercise their freedoms because you feel the yours have more validity, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[revelarts]

http://www.Little-Acorn.com/html/rights0.htm

What Are Our "Rights"?

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.

nicely put.

Seems to me there are rights, and then there are moral obligations, then there are purchases, trades and finally gifts. At the point where others are compelled to provide something for another we've steps passed rights to possible moral obligation on the another's part but not a right. as you've stated.

If a man is drowning and another man has the ability to rescue that person. The drowning man doesn't have a "right" to pull the rescuer in to do it. But the potential rescuer does have a moral obligation to try to help. If the potential rescuer doesn't do it, is it a crime? yes it could be but in some cases maybe not. Is it morally wrong? absolutely. A poor person can ask for money but to take it becomes stealing even if the other person has more than enough. Stealing it for them is still a crime even if the gov't does it.
What is a Dr's moral obligation to a sick person. Well in the Hippocratic oath they vowed to help according to there ability. But is not compelled to work on all comers. But Here's my questions what's the sick persons obligation to the dr? If someone saves your life by there skills seems that the former sick person has some debt to pay as well. The Hippocratic oath implies that the Dr's training was FREE, gone are those days. Does a dr have the right to expect just compensation?

[Little-Acorn]

I described how real "rights" are yours without anyone having to do anything to provide them for you. One famous exception, is the right to trial by jury. It's a very valuable one, and I'd hate to live in a country that didn't recognize it.

But for you to exercise that right, others DO have to stop what they are doing, come to you, and do extra things to provide it to you. And they frequently have to be compelled by government, to do those things.

The reason for that right, is not so much to give you something (no right does that), but to prevent government from doing something bad TO you. The Constitution is basically forbidding government to have any say in the finding of guilt or innocence during a criminal trial - that becomes the job of a group of ordinary people NOT in government instead.

[cat slave]

We are being oppressed by the tyranny of the minority and they care nothing
for rights or anything beyond their own noses.

[82Marine89]

I described how real "rights" are yours without anyone having to do anything to provide them for you. One famous exception, is the right to trial by jury. It's a very valuable one, and I'd hate to live in a country that didn't recognize it.

But for you to exercise that right, others DO have to stop what they are doing, come to you, and do extra things to provide it to you. And they frequently have to be compelled by government, to do those things.

The reason for that right, is not so much to give you something (no right does that), but to prevent government from doing something bad TO you. The Constitution is basically forbidding government to have any say in the finding of guilt or innocence during a criminal trial - that becomes the job of a group of ordinary people NOT in government instead.

Yes, but as Americans we have an obligation to step up and serve on juries. Our Founders saw this as one way we give back and it also keeps the government from being in total control of the court system. It is one of the checks and balances that they were smart enough to know was needed.

[avatar4321]

Id rather know our duties.

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like liberal fanatic Mark Cuban is mouthing about making a Constitutional amendment to make health care a "right".

Sigh.

Time to resurrect this thread.

See the OP.

[Black Diamond]

Looks like liberal fanatic Mark Cuban is mouthing about making a Constitutional amendment to make health care a "right".

Sigh.

Time to resurrect this thread.

See the OP.
Was actually in FDR's "Second Bill of Rights".

[gabosaurus]

Why does anyone take Mark Cuban seriously? He makes a lot of money and owns a lousy NBA team.

[Gunny]

Why does anyone take Mark Cuban seriously? He makes a lot of money and owns a lousy NBA team.Commenting on him is not taking him seriously. But he can afford leftwingnut media; therefore, applicable to criticism.

Why does anyone take a leftwingnut seriously? Especially the rich ones that don't put their money where there mouth is.

[Little-Acorn]

And now it looks like once again various leftist fanatics (in both parties) are claiming that health care should be a "right".

Sigh....

How quickly they forget.

.

.

.

.

.

[pete311]

And now it looks like once again various leftist fanatics (in both parties) are claiming that health care should be a "right".


Correct

[Gunny]

Correct

Healthcare should not be a "Right". It's part of personal responsibility. Take care of yourself and quit waiting on someone else to do it for you. Bunch of handout babies .....:lame2:

[pete311]

Healthcare should not be a "Right". It's part of personal responsibility. Take care of yourself and quit waiting on someone else to do it for you. Bunch of handout babies .....:lame2:

Then why do you pay for other peoples fire, police, roads, k-12 education etc etc etc? These should also be personal responsibilities? btw, don't even think about living longer than what you put into SS. The second you take a $ more than you put in, you're a handout baby.

[Gunny]

Then why do you pay for other peoples fire, police, roads, k-12 education etc etc etc? These should also be personal responsibilities? btw, don't even think about living longer than what you put into SS. The second you take a $ more than you put in, you're a handout baby.

Why? Because the weak people in this country have created laws that protect them and carry the weak. I don't care about helping people that need help. I DO care about my money being used to support pure laziness. It's the bureaucracy that ruins it. You want to spend my money irresponsibility and I'm NOT okay with that.

I pay for all those social services. They all come out of my taxes too.

You've got no argument.

[pete311]

Why? Because the weak people in this country have created laws that protect them and carry the weak. I don't care about helping people that need help. I DO care about my money being used to support pure laziness. It's the bureaucracy that ruins it. You want to spend my money irresponsibility and I'm NOT okay with that.

I pay for all those social services. They all come out of my taxes too.

You've got no argument.

So a 911 call for a fire that started because space heater got overturned is ok, but helping a person get treatment for cancer is lazy?

[Gunny]

So a 911 call for a fire that started because space heater got overturned is ok, but helping a person get treatment for cancer is lazy?

Why is it you lefties (a) can't read; and (b), always have to use extremes as examples? I never said denying those that actually need a service.

There are perfectly capable, able bodies people out there doing nothing but live off the system. And you and your ilk let them. There are illegal aliens sucking off our social services while not contributing to them. And while the rich lefties cry, the exact same thing to hide behind tax shelters the rich on the right do.

This is NOT a socialist nation regardless the left's attempts to foist its fascism on us. There are plenty of socialist nations out there. Feel free to pick one and move there instead of trying to force your backwards-assed ideas on the rest of us that prefer freedom to enslavement to a government.

And you ARE a slave, Pete. The more you can't do for yourself, the more enslaved you are.

[pete311]

Why is it you lefties (a) can't read; and (b), always have to use extremes as examples? I never said denying those that actually need a service.

There are perfectly capable, able bodies people out there doing nothing but live off the system. And you and your ilk let them. There are illegal aliens sucking off our social services while not contributing to them. And while the rich lefties cry, the exact same thing to hide behind tax shelters the rich on the right do.

This is NOT a socialist nation regardless the left's attempts to foist its fascism on us. There are plenty of socialist nations out there. Feel free to pick one and move there instead of trying to force your backwards-assed ideas on the rest of us that prefer freedom to enslavement to a government.

And you ARE a slave, Pete. The more you can't do for yourself, the more enslaved you are.


There is no good reason why you feel fine providing plenty of services to others, but not healthcare.

[Black Diamond]

There is no good reason why you feel fine providing plenty of services to others, but not healthcare.
Service to others? Others are not served when their deductibles and premiums skyrocket.

[pete311]

Service to others? Others are not served when their deductibles and premiums skyrocket.

Hyperbole. In any case, yes you'll have to pay for healthcare. What, you want a free ride?

[Black Diamond]

Hyperbole. In any case, yes you'll have to pay for healthcare. What, you want a free ride?
No such thing as a free ride.

[BoogyMan]

There is no good reason why you feel fine providing plenty of services to others, but not healthcare.

How about you get your hand out of my pocket? You have no right to MY money, you have no reason to expect being able to take MY money, and I will handle helping people how I see fit with MY money.

[pete311]

No such thing as a free ride.
Agreed. We pay for social services via taxes. Health care should be in there too.

[pete311]

How about you get your hand out of my pocket? You have no right to MY money, you have no reason to expect being able to take MY money, and I will handle helping people how I see fit with MY money.

So where is your outrage when your taxes goes to dozens of social services and communal civil projects? Why is health care the fire starter?

[Black Diamond]

Agreed. We pay for social services via taxes. Health care should be in there too.
No I don't want single payer. I would tell you to move to Canada but they protect their southern border.

[aboutime]

Agreed. We pay for social services via taxes. Health care should be in there too.



petey. I thought you said you were smart? We all pay for health care now. It's called MEDICARE, and MEDICAID. Guess you missed that day in PRE-SCHOOL?

[BoogyMan]

So where is your outrage when your taxes goes to dozens of social services and communal civil projects? Why is health care the fire starter?

Health care has not been defined as or agreed upon by the citizenry as a right. Liberals demanding that we pony up for EVERYTHING they want because they decided outside of the main stream of America that it was a right is little more than taxation without representation and that doesn't end well in terms of a unified republic.

[Black Diamond]

Health care has not been defined as or agreed upon by the citizenry as a right. Liberals demanding that we pony up for EVERYTHING they want because they decided outside of the main stream of America that it was a right is little more than taxation without representation and that doesn't end well in terms of a unified republic.
It was actually in FDRs second bill of rights. :)

[Gunny]

There is no good reason why you feel fine providing plenty of services to others, but not healthcare.

I don't "provide". It's taken from me. Was it up to me, you'd be missing quite a few of those services and even more slug social services employees.

[BoogyMan]

It was actually in FDRs second bill of rights. :) President doesn't have the power to assign a right. :) Just sayin'

[pete311]

I don't "provide". It's taken from me. Was it up to me, you'd be missing quite a few of those services and even more slug social services employees.

Thank you. Good to hear at least you are consistent by being outraged paying for other's police, fire, education, road etc.

[Black Diamond]

President doesn't have the power to assign a right. :) Just sayin'
I agree. I think it was his dream for America

[Little-Acorn]

It was actually in FDRs second bill of rights. :)

The one that was rejected by the American people and never became law, wasn't it?

[Little-Acorn]

Health care should be in there too.
Didn't even read the OP, did we?

Or are you simply ignoring it, and trying desperately to pretend it hadn't been said?

[Gunny]

Thank you. Good to hear at least you are consistent by being outraged paying for other's police, fire, education, road etc.

Not what I said, is it? Are you capable of reading English without your socialist filter on? Everything is NOT a fire, cancer, emergency etc. The sky's not falling every second on every issue YOU deem important every second of the day.

What do I need police for? So they can come around after the fact and maybe figure out who killed me? Some consolation.


You buy insurance for fire (with money YOU earned). What the fire doesn't destroy, the firemen will.


We pay road taxes and we have sh*tty roads.


And my kids today was I to do it again? They would be sitting in the private school my granddaughters go to. That I would pay for.


Whwn YOU fix the system and get rid of the bureaucratic slugs, get back to me, otherwise the guilt trip doesn't work with me. You need a new plan there. Stealing my money to pay for crap that is mediocre at bes damned sure don't work with me.


Take a trip to SE Asia or Africa. THEN tell me how bad we have it here.

[aboutime]

Thank you. Good to hear at least you are consistent by being outraged paying for other's police, fire, education, road etc.



petey. Some day. You may wake up and understand the reality of your rants are false.

Your kind of thinking is what, and why.....HILLARY GOT ELECTED in November.

Whoop's.....No she didn't. Because she thought the same way you do.