I don't know if I should blame this on the lousy education that most kids get in government schools or on politicians who depend upon more and more people to be hooked to the government IV or simply on the natural disintegration of "civilized" societies. Regardless of the cause, though, most Americans have no clue when it comes to the subject of rights.
For example, when a hurricane hits a city, the victims act like they have a "right" to have the government; local, state and Federal, provide them with food, shelter, income, and use taxpayer funds to build back the damaged city. I suspect that a substantial number of those reading this would agree. If so, then you don't know what a "right" even is.
You hear politicians proclaiming that Americans have a "right" to affordable healthcare, a living wage, or suitable housing. Childlike Americans believe the politicians and begin expecting the government (in reality, the productive, taxpaying members of society) to provide those things.
In truth, you don't have a "right" to any of those things. For that matter, you don't even have a "right" to have safe streets. You see, the entire concept of rights comes from the idea of self ownership. The philosopher, John Locke, described it as "property in one's person". In essence, pure liberty simply means, as Johnny and Donnie Van Zant sing, "...ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do..."
That, my friends, is the extent of rights. You have the right to control your own body and your own property as long as you do not actively harm someone else. Now, man being a social animal, we consent to give up certain rights in order to coexist with others in our group.
For example, I would have the right to drive as fast as I want on the highway, but that puts other motorists at risk, so, we, as a society, through our representatives, have chosen to give up that right. THAT is the key. We must always remember that when we give government more authority to control behavior or intervene in a situation, we are giving up our rights. That is true regardless of what the intervention is.
Government is incapable of granting the people new rights. Government can take rights away and it can recognize the rights that are our birthright. Take healthcare as an example. Treatment by a physician is a service. This service is provided by someone who chose to engage in the training necessary to become competent to do that service. By the same token, repairing your television is a service. That service is provided by someone who chose to engage in the training necessary to become competent to perform that service.
Now no one in their right mind would suggest that I had a right to have the government force my television repairman to perform that service without compensation. Nor would anyone suggest that government should pay for that service to make my life easier.
The television repairman has a RIGHT to charge whatever he wants to perform his service. We, as consumers, have the right to refuse to pay his price. We might not get our TV repaired, but, hey, we don't have the right to have a repaired TV.
Guess what? You don't have a right to have the government force your doctor to work for free. You don't have the right to have the government pay your doctor's bill for you.
The bottom line is that if something depends upon an affirmative action by someone else on your behalf, then it isn't a right. So the next time you hear someone screaming, "It's my right!", don't be so sure about that.
6 comments:
I don't know who this lone lawyer is, but he/she is completely right on the ball. The indigent people in New Orleans did not respect the help given them, did not respect the nice new Astrodome they had been given to stay in. These were people who were used to the government providing for them. I have always said, If one wants and needs things, such as clothing, food and housing, they should, in some way, work for it. But no, the government just hands the money to them. And what do we have - a mass of ungrateful, unworthy people not willing to work for anything and could care less about what their living quarters look like. It is not their right to accept what I have worked very hard for and have paid my dues in taxes. Unless these people have done some kind of work to earn these privileges they do not deserve them...
As usual Steve, you are right on the money here.
I guess we have a new term when people confuse an "entitlement" with a "right." Henceforth, I suggest we use the term "enrightlement."
You refer to more and more people being "hooked to the government IV," I call it "sucking on the government tit." Either way, there are those who WANT that IV/tit 24/7/365. Notice I emphasized the term WANT and did not use the term "need." There is a big difference. I do realize there are those who NEED gov't assistance and I do not have a problem with that. However, there are TOO MANY who are simply lazy and refuse to get off their lazy asses to be productive.
Politicians (mainly liberal democrats) keep pressing for more and more "social programs" PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. Ah, wait - make that PAID FOR BY YOU AND ME - MR. & MRS. TAXPAYER. These politicians have not met a social program - or tax - they did not like. We law-abiding, tax paying citizens NEED to inform our elected representatives that more and more government IVs/tits are NOT needed and creating them only increases the TAX BURDEN on us.
You really nailed it with this one, Steve. I am a Hurricane Katrina survivor; my house (which is still standing) is located 15 miles east of where the eye of the storm hit land, on the Mississippi Coast. It was 12 hellacious hours, and afterward, we had two families living with us for four months. While we are thankful that our home withstood the storm mostly intact and we had the best insurance coverage available, we still have thousands of dollars in losses that the insurance won't cover. When I hear people whining and complaining about having to leave the luxury hotels where FEMA has paid for them to stay for the past seven months, I want to strangle them. My husband and I have worked hard all our lives, both of us with two jobs, to acquire our lovely home and to save for retirement, educate our children and be responsible for ourselves. Yet the government grants huge sums of money (up to $150,000) to those who didn't have insurance on their homes. I have to ask myself why I've worked so hard and been so responsible all these years, because not only do I have to pay for my own losses, but as a taxpayer, I'm paying for the losses of the irresponsible, too. Now, New Orleans is whining that all the federal monies should go to that city and the Coast can meet its needs some other way. The Coast is utterly devastated; New Orleans had flood damage because for years, the politicians have spent federal funds on Mardi Gras and tourism instead of bolstering the levees. And now, one of the candidates for mayor of New Orleans is campaigning on the promise that he will sue the Corps of Engineers and distribute the money to people who lost their homes when the levees failed. When the government gets into the charity business and entitlements become "rights," we're doomed, in my opinion. When the non-producers in society learn that they can vote goodies for themselves, democracy will fail.
HEAR HEAR, Steve. EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT!! Will definitely pass this along as food for thought to my pals.
The subject of Rights is interesting, isn't it? We have a Bill of Rights which probably very few people have actually read and we have a Liberal Party that skews everything so that those who are needy believe they have rights that aren't really rights at all. They are needs or wants. Our schools are infiltrated with liberal teachers and professors. They aren't teaching the Bill of Rights. They aren't advocating ownership of one's life but rather on entitlements which eventually become rights in the minds of people not willing to do diligence to examine what exactly is their right in a particular situation. For instance, the gas companies have the right to charge what they want, and we have the right to complain and to not purchase their gasoline products. Why is that so hard to understand for some people? It's because the liberal socialists in this country don't believe in capitalism so therefore, it's our "right" to get gas for $1.50/gal and the gas companies do not have the right to make the huge profits even though many Americans hold stock in these companies and are sharing in those profits.
It would be nice if the schools would teach the Bill of Rights, in depth, but that will happen the day we are able to send all the liberals to France.
wait a doggone minute here, Steve. are you saying that I don't have a constitutional right to a taxpayer funded edyucashun? that I don't have a constitutional right to live off the earnings of someone who actually works for a living? that I can't be housed, fed, clothed, and with medical care all paid for by Bill Gates, Susan Sarandon, and Ted Kennedy? they've got the money. why should I have to spend 50-plus hours a week in a sweltering warehouse providing the cables and wires that ultimately give them their cable, phone, and alarm systems? why should I work in a smothering kitchen so they can dine out? they already have money and it's my constitutional right to live lazily off their money. isn't it? and isn't it my right to have you pay for rebuilding my house despite the fact that I chose to live in a fishbowl 10 feet below sea-level and surrounded by water on a coast targeted by mother nature? are you saying it ain't? What would Karl Marx say?
Post a Comment