Posted on 05/13/2011 4:37:13 PM PDT by Bodhi1
The Dems were and I guess always will be the party of slavery.
You were right.
Well of course slaves were dependent upon their owners. Anything they would get from health care to their energy usage was controlled. distributed and administrated by their owners.
This has been the history of the democrat party. They have continually sought what they view as a right. The right of their political party to own the rights of others and determine how much heathcare, energy usage, property, wages, etc.... that they get.
From the days of the Confederate democrats to the current Progressive democrats that real underlying ideology of power still exists.
Let's start with a definition:
“RIGHT, n.
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”
That's a cut and paste from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. Notice that there are different kinds of rights. (Natural rights would be the unalienable rights noted in the Declaration of Independence.)
As to the article:
The author writes “The Bill of Rights gives you a right to a free press, yet you still pay for a newspaper and Fox News.” The Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” That's not about being the customer of a newspaper or Fox news. That's about publishing and broadcasting, whether or not you have any customers.
The author writes “According to the Constitution and the Framers, the government doesnt create rights.” I've read the Constitution several times and I don't recall where it says that. I haven't read everything the Framers wrote, so I can't say for sure they didn't say that, but if they did I don't know where. What the government doesn't create is natural or unalienable rights. That doesn't mean the government can't create a legal or civil right (in accordance with the will of the people of course). Think of “the right to a speedy and public trial” in the Sixth Amendment. There is no such unalienable right in nature.
I'm not going to address anything else in the article, not because there's nothing else to address, but because I think it's a mess, in spite of the author's good intentions.
Actually carried one around for a good long time too ~ provided by the government.
I'd like it back ~ and some ammo too. That stuff is ex pen sif!
No, you dont have a “right” to health care.
You have a right to seek health care.
Its up to you what type you desire. Just dont expect it from me. I got my own to take care of.
Rand Paul is the cow-chip that didn’t fall far from the cow.
What it really seems to be saying, however, is that one has an inherent right to seek free health care, and not be prevented from utilizing it, if found; not an inherent right to free treatment.
A good article except for this sentence: “Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men were born with certain inalienable rights.”
He was wrong about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.