Posted on 04/05/2010 12:01:19 PM PDT by RonnieFan
You cannot appreciate what makes America, America without understanding the difference. Yet fewer and few do or even care. This is how Obama can transform America. In simple terms, Rights are freedom from government and entitlements are benefits given by the government. America was founded on the principle that all power starts with the people and government’s power is only that which the people give it. In many ways entitlements usurp power from the people. The fact that entitlements are more and more given equal (and arguably greater) standing as Rights, to the point entitlements such as heath care are called “Rights,” turns the most basic principle of America on its head.
I continue to be surprised on how few people (even moderates and some conservatives) can even give a simple answer to the question… What’s the difference between a Right and an entitlement? Some say things like: “Rights are God-given” or “entitlements lead to a nanny-state.” Both are true but don’t go to the core of the philosophical difference or how reliance on entitlements changes everything about how we operate as a country.
If a democrat calls it a right then it’s an entitlement. If a democrat calls for something to be regulated then it is probably a right.
Even the use of the word “Entitlement” is wrong. It indicates that someone is “entitled” to something, and that someone else must give it to them. There should be no such thing in the land of the free.
Easy -
if you think something is a “right”,
and by exercising that “right”,
you impose an involuntary burden on another’s life,
it’s not a right.
We seriously need a constitutional amendment banning entitlements. It would forbid the federal government from giving money to an individual based on condition or need.
It would have to account for federal employment, work done for contract.
I personally would like to see a national charity database. A needy person would apply. Some honest broker would vet the claim. A charitable giver could choose to give to Family #4724 and Individual #6198.
I have a right to live in this country and not purchase a good or service as a condition of my citizenship.
I have been shown nothing that says otherwise.
Anybody claiming a good or service is a right, is tacitly admitting:
1) they favor theft from one man to give to another man, by proxy
2) they favor involuntary servitude of one man to another man
or as they said after the election:
"your turn, whitey"
The best treatment of this that I have read comes from Walter Williams, so I will quote him: “Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That’s a perverse usage of the term ‘right.’ A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different. It does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I’d like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.” -—Walter Williams
“I have a right to live in this country and not purchase a good or service as a condition of my citizenship. I have been shown nothing that says otherwise.” The bill Obama signed says otherwise. To me the argument is not what Right it may or may not violate but the government exercising a power not specifically given it. That’s the baseline question and the point too many people overlook.
-PJ
In older venacular, rights are “negative rights,” things the government can’t do to you. Entitlements are “positive rights,” things the government must do for you, usually by taking from somene else and thereby violating their “negative rights.”
Our nation was founded on “negative rights.” Conflating entitlements with “positive rights” is one of the biggest defeats of our Constitution. While some of this happened pre-FDR, he’s the one who really put it into overdrive.
We have gone from being Parents of the Government, to being Children of the government.
Children have no rights.
Rights for one person don’t require the confiscation of the labor of another person.
You have a right to remain silent — doesn’t cost me a thing.
“You have a right to remain silent — doesn’t cost me a thing.” Unless you can’t afford an attorney. But even there, the right to an attorney even if you can’t afford one is protection FROM government. Rights limit government, entitlements empower it!
If it involves taking money out of a taxpayer’s pocket, it is NOT a right. It is a LUXURY that can no longer be afforded.
http://www.ammo-finder.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44 Excerpt:
Libertarians often divide rights into "negative rights" and "positive rights." As explained at AllExpert.com, "[a]ccording to this view a positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities." Some Libertarians then go on to argue that only negative rights should be protected.
On its surface, this seems to be a pretty convincing argument: In order to implement a positive right, the government must necessarily take something from someone to provide the benefit of the positive right to someone else. Because "Government Equals Force" at least much of the time, a positive right necessarily empowers the government to threaten or to use force to take something from one person and give it to another. When people do this it is called theft and is generally considered bad. When the government does this it is just as bad if not worse, or so the argument goes.
The issue is not this simple, though. What about a right to protection from hostile nations? This is generally considered to be a preeminent right of citizens of any nation. Effective national defense in the modern world cannot exist without the government taking something from the citizens, namely a lot of tax dollars. (Thomas Jefferson might have disagreed, but he lived in a time without the awesome destructiveness of modern military hardware.) That makes national self-defense a positive right. For this reason among others, even some Libertarians argue that some positive rights should be protected.
And http://www.ammo-finder.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46 Excerpt:
Some people view rights as divided into two categories: Negative rights that oblige others and the state to refrain from certain activities, and positive rights that impose an obligation on others and the state to do certain things. As discussed last week, the line between these types of rights can be blurry. The reason is simple: The correct question is not who is obligated by the right. The correct questions are "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?"
I don’t like the positive/negative right thing because calling them both rights gives entitlements (positive rights) equal footing as rights and presumes such power is inherent in government rather than at the will of the people.
A right is a thought or activity that a person can exercise without the willing cooperation of any other citizen. You may have the right to free speech, but I am not obliged to listen. You have the right to assembly but I am not obliged to assemble with you. Your right to own a firearm requires me to do nothing.
Healthcare is an entirely different story. If you have no money, you may not exercise your right to healthcare without the coercion of others to pay for the service, and the medical provider to acquiesce to your right under the penalty of some government sanction. Your right to healthcare can only be achieved by the unwilling confiscation of property and rights from others. Healthcare by definition is not a “right.”
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.