People use the word 'rights' in a sloppy manner. They talk about one kind of right such as the right to free speech, or right to remain silent but then they confuse themselves by talking about another, very different type of right, such as the right to health care or the right to a living wage. When you use the same word you place these quite different concepts in apparent equality. They are not equal.
The first type of right is known as negative rights. Negative rights are the rights that allow you to be left alone, to make your own decisions, to be free from interference in living your life. The key is-No other person has to give up any of their rights for you to have yours. They just have to mind their own business. Examples: freedom of speech , press, religion, property, due process, bear arms, etc.
Positive rights are quite a different animal. When someone asserts a right to medical care, he asserts a right to make a doctor into a slave (or to make a taxpayer into a slave to pay the doctor). When you talk about the right to a living wage, you assert the right to force an employer, at the point of a government gun, to pay some particular wage rate that you arbitrarily determined. These are not rights, they are assertions of arbitrary power similar to the assertion of power made by an armed robber. "Your money or your life". They are moral obscenities. They do not deserve any consideration in a nation that claims its primary principle is freedom.
The concept stems from the old socialist saying-From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The evil content of this saying has been written on for generations. I recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a detailed exposition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Mike,
This is a good start. What is needed is a basis in the writings of our founding fathers to help support the concepts you have declared.
I agree with them, as does Thomas Sowell.
However, I have to ask if it is necessary that you call something an obsenity. People have a point of view and they are allowed to have that without being critisized. I understand your fevor....but please stick to the facts.
Sowell, talks of the danger of "group" rights. As soon as I can find a quote, I will look it up for you.
Now, where are positive rights in Federal Programs (start with Social Security....something I detest). And where are they in Kansas legislation (by connection, what should we be bugging our legislators to get rid of).
SLW
When I think of the minimum wage I always think of France and how their workers rights are. I find it offensive that someone who sweeps or does some other job that takes no thought should make as much as I do. Yes they have should have the opportunity to make a living wage. Not the right.
Mike,
Good start !
Now we need to start talking about where our rights are being trampled by things such as entitlements and how "newspeak" (1984) of the day seems to have migrated to a point where we hear things like:
"A right to health care"
"A right to a good education"
"A right to a secure retirement"
These are all hot-button issues that get debated at an emotional level. Often the terms right and wrong are used in the debate that have some kind of moral basis. What should be argued is right and wrong in a constitutional framework.
The 10th amendment does not allow for the Federal Government to meddle in retirement or education...period.
And so people need to be educated and reminded constantly about what a right really is and how dangerous it is to start grabbing them out of thin air as our leaders seem prone to do.
Repeal the 17th !!!!!
SLW
Post a Comment