Posted on 04/14/2013 6:09:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
“This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property. This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
There is no collective will in American culture.
The individual has free will to excercise their perogatives and priorities, without interference from skanks like you.
Shiite! I live there now.
Gotta move from my favorite busy body.
She is an out of the closet Communist.
All while collecting a fat check and embracing all that Capitalism provides. She then grades her students on regurgitating the Communist answer being correct and any correct and factual thought will garner low grades.
See how Marxist brainwashing works?
You miss the issue.
The issue is where does this "right" that she speaks of come from? Where in the Constitution does it say that our elected Representatives have the power to vote our bill of rights away?
That's what she's calling for. Arguing that government already limits individual rights is accepting the frame of the debate, which is a liberal frame.
-PJ
“It takes a village to raise a child.”
Gee, I wonder where we heard this before?
There is no common good when there has been 55 MILLION DEAD BABIES!! I want NOTHING to do with those KILLERS.....NOTHING!
He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer ... – William Blake
She did not say, in so many words, “rights,” much less any rights defined in the Bill of Rights. She said “freedoms,” which is a much broader term.
The entire purpose of government, any government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the rights of all by limiting the freedom of people to infringe on other’s rights.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of her Fifth Amendment rights.
Yes she did. She used exactly that word. I took it straight from the line that you quoted.,
-PJ
Sorry, guy. She used the word right, but not in the sense of human rights or Bill of Rights.
She was talking about human freedoms, as I said, not human rights.
No. Duh.
Next question?
Maybe we should vote to take away the rights and property of blacks, and then build a wall around Harlem.
Substitute Jews and Warsaw, and it's saying the same thing.
What is your difference between "hunan freedoms" and the right to Liberty?
-PJ
Freedom is simply the potential to do things.
Some of those freedoms are inalienable rights: speech, worship, protection by being armed, etc.
Other individual freedoms are not rights, precisely because they infringe on the actual rights of others. Therefore since the Founding I have had no right to rape, kill or steal. The law infringes (as it darn well should) on my (or your) freedom to do these things, because doing so infringes on other’s actual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Since December, 1865 my previous human freedom to own other humans if I so choose was demoted from a protected property right to a prohibited infringement on another’s human rights. As well it should have been.
Or to put it another way: Your right to swing your fist ends when it impacts my nose. Your freedom to strike me is not a right, it is a crime when implemented.
I do believe this is all a truism. Not all freedoms are rights, and much of the discussion in our society over two centuries has been about which freedoms are and are not rights.
-PJ
I merely think when we criticize someone for something they say, it should be for what they actually said, not for what we assume (or project) they meant.
That rather low tactic should be left to liberals with their talk of codewords and dog whistles. They can't argue successfully with what we say, so they claim the words really mean something else entirely.
I think it’s really pretty simple.
There is a huge range of “freedoms.”
Some of those freedoms are protected against infringement by the State or other people. We call them human rights. They are inalienable.
Other freedoms are prohibited, because they infringe on other’s rights when exercised. We call them crimes.
A vastly larger range is in the middle, neither prohibited nor protected. Sometimes we argue if one of these should be moved into one of the other categories.
Sometimes a “right” even gets moved into the “crime” category. That’s what happened in 1865 with slavery, and what the gun-grabbers are trying to do now with 2A.
Sometimes a “crime” even gets moved into the “rights” category. That’s what happened with abortion due to Roe.
Sounds like a good plan. Let’s start with blocking the abomination known as “same sex marriage”. It’s for the benefit of children everywhere.
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.