- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"There are rights to decent housing, good food and a decent job, and for senior citizens, there’s a right to prescription drugs."
I don't think it's nitpicking to say the word "rights" should be kept sacrosanct and not expanded to include things that the person talking thinks it's important for the government to spend money on.
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.
I don't think this counter-argument is right, but I don't know how to refute it.
If we guarantee the right to free speech, it obligates us to protect speakers from a mob that would try to silence them.
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.
That's a good point. In the counter-argument scenario there is a bad actor who must be stopped. If you carry this to its conclusion, you could say all rights are at risk of bad actors taking them away. If that risk and the need to do work to protect them makes them not really rights, then there are no rights. So the counter-argument falls apart.
The "right" to food is different, though, because it would require other people to work even if there were no bad actors.
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.
Mot of the rights they think the government have granted didn't exist in the Constitution and were not powers graned to the government. many of the others weren't granted by anyone in either direction. Government can grant no rights without permission of the people under the old system.
Now it's what ever Comrade Obama decides when he wakes up in the morning or goes tango dancing in the afternoon.
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
.
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.
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.
Proof positive a need is not a right and is and some needs are created by wrong mmmm false premised lack of thinking.
If they are found in he Federalist or Anti Federalist papers and not int he Constitution they are not a legal right.
If they are found in the Declaration of Independence including that really stupid charge of it's being forged by adding a comma and not in the Consitutiton they are not a legal right.
If they are in any number of other writings but not in the Constitution they are not a legal right.
They may be a natural right and thee is some in fact a lot of weight to using the powers not specifically granted (9th and 10th amendment) and which explicity denies the government sticking it's nose in the anything that is not specifically granted - but the preponderance is on the the other side.
The American public en masse has shown countgless times they are in favor of these depradations simply by continuing to vote the law breaker back into office.
but historically speaking and since one of those depredations, most recently re-inforced- was the new operating rules of the patriot act - which doesn't deserve capitals - that did away with all the civil rights features without any protest whatsoever.
That; was; when we had a Constituion not a dictatorship acting under the might makes right rules favored by all totalitarian fascists.
Walter Williams is quite correct but it only serves to make a ;nice foot note on a piece written to astound and amaze future workers of the State when they ask Dad and Mom why did you vote us into slavery.
Their wishes are in fact our marching orders.
In progressivism, socialism, marxism and communism...government assumes it's your God and decides your rights.
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.