11

Rights in a Nutshell: Walter Williams

Posted by $ blarman 8 years ago to Philosophy
40 comments | Share | Flag

Excellent primer.


All Comments

  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I would vote for Kennedy, sure way to know we will not get screwed. I copied and pasted as I got it to show the difference in health care and how we are getting screwed and they ARE ALL THE SAME COIN. When they all avoid the double standards question it proves corruption.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Most people know how tast to drive given conditions on any stretch of road. An old time officer pointed that out one day. If it's flowing smoothly and without danger let it flow. When the plic arameters change make your presence known and the public will adjust.

    Most peopple know the difference between private property and public property and that traveling in the wrong area is NOT a right granted.by the citizens themselves.

    For the rest we have jail cells where they start off learning the meaning of 6' x 8'.

    I especially like the way it's taught in the school yard whenm the school bulrly knocks over an intricately engineerd sand castle. and gets knocked on his as a result.. That shows some parent trained his kid right on how to throw and take a punch. Invariably that one will be vlass president in future years.

    But then we have the liberal parent who immediately calls a lawyer while his or her kid grow up the one of life's punching bags and the kid grows up to be a congressional.

    No leadership skills and still a punching bag.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years ago
    the right to travel does not include everyone's right
    to travel into my bedroom. . just as the right to free
    speech does not imply that it's good to yell "fire!" in
    a crowded theater, travel also has limits. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    People in hell are like people who vote socialist. They think they think they need ice water but expect someone to pour it while they areleaning on the office cooler. They never consider the reason they think they think they need ice water. Why? Same reason they are in hell.

    Proof positive a need is not a right and is and some needs are created by wrong mmmm false premised lack of thinking.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I have always wondered how discourse would be different if Jefferson had said "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES".........
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    A distinction without a difference, Mike. "Need" vs "want" is irrelevant. Health care is commodity composed, among other things, of the time, money, genius, effort, delay of gratification to achieve the ability to provide it. As such, it belongs to the person who achieved it. That "achievement" is not a right, it is a commodity to be traded value for value. The discussion of government's essential functions is a topic for another thread.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    All goods and services are not basic needs for survival of individuals that require individuals responsibility to acquire. You have moved to a collective level which has it's own needs to survive and it's own rights to purse that responsibility without undue interference from government. with one added element. The right to conduct a business has the inherent responsibility towards it component parts the individual be it customer or employee. Government still sucks hind tit. It has only a few responsibilities police, military, setting standards and what else? Perhaps operating some essential functions such as sewer, water, hospitals, roads, the judiciary and the enforcement there of on behalf of it's employer the citizens. Not much else I can think of i certainly would think twice and thrice before giving it responsibility for education.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Those are needs not rights. With all rights come responsibilities One is to the right to be able to honor the responsibility without interference .The basic needs are air, food, water, protection from elements and predators (clothes, shelter) access to medicines. The basic way for government to provide that is not take it in the first place.

    In sum Government has no right to take that which it takes to merely to survive.Which should be the first, foremost and rule in setting up any kind of government funding system.

    The Right To Survive costs therefore is a naural and not granted ban on what government may take not what the citizen must deduct.

    A government that takes and pretends to give back is a totalitarian fascist organization to be rejected at all costs. Let them find their fodder responsibly just like anyone else. They deserve no more

    A government that cannot take care of itself responsibly can certainly not take care of a country it's citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Your preference is noted. But the same applies to goods and services: they are owned by individuals and, as such, are not "rights." Whether selling gold or a wedding cake, it is the right of the owner to decide when, how, how much and to whom value it is traded for value. No one initiates force within the transaction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Health care, housing, food, jobs, drugs are all commodities"
    I agree, but I prefer to call them goods and services. Commodities are non-differentiated. Gold is a commodity. You can't charge more for one type of gold b/c it's especially shiny or something. It's just an element. Those types of property you listed are differentiatable. Someone trying to sell you one of these things will do whatever they can to make it somehow special so you'll pay more. If the gov't provided them, it would treat them more like commodities than private vendors would.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years ago
    Health care, housing, food, jobs, drugs are all commodities, not rights. As commodities, they are property. Calling them "rights" presumes they should be equal in distribution; they are not. It also presumes to achieve equal distribution, force (government) is a legitimate means to such an end. It is not. It is theft.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The government we have is the result of incentive traps, especially the two party system and the structuring of tax bills so that each benefits a small, concentrated group while harming a much larger group (making it not worth their while to oppose). It is a fallacy to assume that most people, or indeed anybody but a few lobbyists, supports the system as it is just because it's in place.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    90%. A right imposes on other individuals only the negative obligation to refrain from violating it.

    Governments, on the other hand, exist in order to protect our rights. If they won't bother, then there's no reason to have them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 8 years ago
    As a public servant, Kennedy received government sponsored health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. But for Kennedy, that privilege only highlighted the inequality of America’s health care system. In case Trump changes his mind or he is screwed out of the nomination. Vote veteran someone that puts America B4 any party, we come from all backgrounds. Divide and conquer is what they do. End double standard,DC politician on Obamacare,SS mrpresident2016.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    We should add one little thing. Rights each and every one carry a responsibility. R y R balances. Too much either way and someone falls off the teeter totter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    rank nazism or national right before communism or equal to that perversion. Now you are seeing a true depiction of the left I would also put progressivism the other side of socialism and RINO Neo Con's where secular progressivism was.

    they have two things in common. All are fascist all put government and it's elitist ruling class over citizens of the country hell of the world.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years ago
    We have a right to pursue a lot of things politicians are calling absolute rights to have them them. That does not mean we are entitled to any of them, merely that we have a right to go for it, which translates into work, responsible actions, fair trade. This idea everyone has a right to have exactly what anyone has,is a play for power by the politicians who never intend to participate in this equality. Since not everyone in the world can have property, those who do will be asked to give it up, and let government have it - thus the selling of UN Agenda 21/2030 to the masses.When the list of rights exceed what the young people can get on their own, they will turn to government to get all they they have rights to for them, until it all crashes, and they have nothing they were promised. Rights are not entitlements, and are not cast in stone. If we do not act responsibly, we lose even real rights, as we should. Walter Williams is always such a beacon of reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Does this make property ownership a tenuous right?"
    It would make all rights tenuous, if the argument were valid. It's not valid, though, for the reasons strugatsky and blarman said.

    If by 0.1% you mean a rare, fringe, or hypothetical case, I don't see it that way. It seems like the natural state for humankind is kings vs mobs, and we have to put energy into the system, in some form, to maintain liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years ago
    It all boils down to there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In reality it comes down to coercion. If people are forced by law to put up the money, then it is not free. If they refuse to contribute the money, the use of force comes into play. And what happens if ultimately the payer resists force with the use of force? You all know the answer. They die. Am I being extreme? A carful perusal of recent news will back me up entirely.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a big 0.1% problem, that is quite indirect. You are also obligated to protect (or allow people to protect themselves) industrious people's property from a mob trying to take it. Does this make property ownership a tenuous right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know what you mean by "[y]our last line." Do you mean the appointment of counsel? It is very much still in effect. As for probable cause, it is still the standard in a variety of contexts including search warrants, arrest warrants, and in pretrial criminal proceedings.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'ld like to see him get put in charge. Wonder what life would be like with some brains in the oval office or congress for a change.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo