Do you know what your 'rights' are? Kyle Williams debunks Democrat drivel

Saturday, July 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by ravingnutter

Thank you very much!

That's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me.

It isn't every day

good fortune comes me way!

I never thought the future would be fun for me!

And if I had a bugle

I would blow it to add a sort

o' how's your father's touch.

But since I left me bugle at home

I simply have to say

Thank you very, very, very much!

Thank you for your donation!

INTREP

When conservatives, libertarians, classic liberals talk about "rights", they are talking about freedom from coercion. When the left talk about "rights", they are talking about power over others. The "right" to a job, or whatever else is on their wish list, is the power to oblige some other human to provide it for you. Power.

Lastly, America is already an example of what happens when we look at education as a human right – our government educational system is in shambles.

No argument there, Kyle. Thanks for your intelligent observations.

Correct me if I am wrong but the theme of this article seems to be that, if the Articles of Government i.e. the Constituiton and the Bill of Rights, don't specifically state that you have a "right" to this, that or the other thing, then your right to said thing simply doesn't exist.

Hogwash

The ninth amendment to the Constitution clearly states that;

the enumeration of certin rights in the constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage certain other rights held by the states or the people

Being as the Government is charged with "securing" our rights not "granting" them, I would say that our rights are what we collectively, as a society and a Representative Republic, decide our rights are.

People, that WE place in power, that refuse to fight for OUR rights, as WE see them, will soon be removed from power and replaced by someone that will. That is how our Government has worked from day one.

Now along comes a new group of people that wish to have their rights, as they see them, secured by our Government. The question isn't whether they currently have a right to their desires but do we, as a people agree that they have a right, and agree to grant them their desires as "rights". If enough of us say No, by electing Representatives that say No, then the question of "rights" becomes moot.

I know I am on my favorite hobby horse i.e. the Ninth Amendment, but a poinient example of something "becoming" a right is the womans "right" to vote. For years, enough of us decided that women did NOT have the right to vote and accordingly we elected Representatives that agreed with our views. However, after many years our attitude as a society slowly changed and the vast majority decided the "grant" women the "right" to vote. We then set about removing from office, via the electoral proccess, any government official that refused to "secure" this new "right".

So, now that I have ranted to my hearts content let me simply remind those out there that say "You don't have a right to (insert alleged right here).!!" To those people I say;

If enough people say I do then you bet you sweet a$$ I have the right. :)

I know I am on my favorite hobby horse i.e. the Ninth Amendment, but a poinient example of something "becoming" a right is the womans "right" to vote. For years, enough of us decided that women did NOT have the right to vote and accordingly we elected Representatives that agreed with our views. However, after many years our attitude as a society slowly changed and the vast majority decided the "grant" women the "right" to vote. We then set about removing from office, via the electoral proccess, any government official that refused to "secure" this new "right".

A-ha! That's how Clinton got elected!

It is the meaning of the word rights itself you seem to misunderstand. Rights aren't determined by a vote. It is not, "If enough of us say No, by electing Representatives that say No, then the question of "rights" becomes moot," because, what if enough of you say yes. Does that make it a right?

Rights pertain to only one class of things, choice. Rights are only rights to choose and do, not to have. You have a right to life, but not a right to force someone esle to keep you alive by feeding and clothing you. You even have a right to health care too, that is, you have a right to purchase it with the money you have earned. You do not have a right to have anything you have not earned or secured by your own efforts. A so-called "right to have," is a right to enslave others.

This country is not a democracy, was never meant to be a democracy, but a republic.

So, now that I have ranted to my hearts content let me simply remind those out there that say "You don't have a right to (insert alleged right here).!!" To those people I say; If enough people say I do then you bet you sweet a$$ I have the right.

Essentially what you have said is, If I have the bigger gang, it makes what I want right. Gangsters, Unions, and Socialist all believe this. The founders of this country didn't.

Hank

If enough people say I do then you bet you sweet a$$ I have the right. :)

I think you've become confused about the true meaning of the ninth amendment. In fact, by the way you've stated your point of view, I would have to say that you seem confused about the purpose of the Constitution in general. Allow me to attempt to allay that confusion:

The Constitution was originally intended not as a strict definition of the workings of the federal government so much as a document enumerating the restrictions placed on that government, meaning that the founders were more worried about the federal government overstepping its intended authority than its failure to address "needs" of its citizens. The Bill of Rights, of which the ninth and tenth amendments are an important part, was created as a reinforcement of the idea of limited government, to make it clear even to those who would ignore the spirit of the Constitution that the rights of the people were paramount.

The position that claims that people have a right to health care, education, big screen TVs, etc. is one that also believes that the government has the authority to seize wealth and resources from a selected few and redistribute it to others as it sees fit, because that is what all of these entitlement programs truly are when reduced to their basic elements. After all, people of reasonable means don't need government-run health care - they can pay for their own. It is only those who have either failed or have never tried who would depend on the government to grant them what they should have gained for themselves. So, the government, in the form of taxes and fees, collects the wealth from the industrious and successful, and gives it out to the lazy, inept, or, sometimes, the unfortunate, in the form of welfare, medicare, or subsidization of any kind.

Now, given that the Constitution specifically limits the powers of government, tell me where in that document the permission for such an act is given? It is not, and the belief that a majority should be able to vote it so is the reason that the founding fathers and the Greeks considered democracy a bad form of government. What we have instead is a constitutional republic, if we can keep it.

Essentially what you have said is, If I have the bigger gang, it makes what I want right. Gangsters, Unions, and Socialist all believe this. The founders of this country didn't.

I disagree, the founders of this country, while putting up legislative and judicial roadblocks to "mob rule" did in fact envision a society whereby the majority of voters would set policy through their chosen Representatives. To state otherwise shows a gross misunderstanding of our system of government.

However I will concede that the founding fathers did not envision a society so grossly enamoured with "individual rights" even at the expense of the society as a whole, as the "masses", for the most part, were not included in the founding fathers vision. The idea that landless men, all women, black slaves and indigenous natives would somehow have a say in the "ruling" of this country was something they simply couldn't concieve of at the time.

So please don't lecture me on what the "founding fathers" had in mind for this country as it took almost 200 years for this society to finally claw its way from up from the "good old days" and realize that "all" people are indeed created equal and should have an equal say in how this country is run.

So yes, "rights" are what WE demand of our government, not what our government choses to allow us, and history shows this to be true. That is niether Gang-like nor Socialist but is the very essence of a truly Representative Government. That is to say that the Government "Represents" the will of the people and if the people choose to name a few "rights" for themselves the Government has only two choices; 1)"secure and defend such rights" or 2) pray that not enough PO'ed people show up to the next election and vote their butts out of office.

This is what happened to the Clinton crowed, my name calling friend, the bigger gang showed up at the polling places and and exercised their "right" to have their interests truly represented. So that worked out OK didn't it? The whole "we have the bigger gang and so that means what we say goes" right? Worked for us in 2000 and again in 2002 and dare I say I am gonna be one big ass "Gang-Leader" when it comes time to get those "gang members" out and vote to keep the real Socialists out of the Oval Office and maybe even try and "recuit" some new "gang" members for Congress.

The point here goes astray when he tries to use Canadian healthcare as an example of why government-run everything is bad.

The POINT that supports the title is that RIGHTS are inherent. They exist at birth and are merely recognized by government.

Anything that government provides cannot, by definition, be a "right."

"What we have instead is a constitutional republic, if we can keep it."

Actually what we had was a constitutional republic but we have lost it, the fact is you are in a small minority simply by the fact that you know the difference. A republic cannot survive when only a few even know what the word means. It certainly cannot survive when voters cannot name the century when the "American civil war" was fought or the President who was in office when it started or name the country from which we gained independence in a bloody revolution. If any of us are ever to live in a true constitutional republic again we shall be forced to establish a new country somewhere, the USA will never again be one.

Pickle, with all due respect and in deference to your legal background, I suggest that you are confusing the right to obtain and buy the healthcare of your choice with the right to have healthcare provided to you by the federal government (or the states, for that matter).

The constitution implicitly grants the former (as a side benefit of a free society), but does not explicitly prohibit the latter. However, there is no way to square the intent of the framers in restricting the power of govt. with the necessity of an all invasive, pervasive govt. that will be required to grant the latter.

The ninth should be viewed in the context and the spirit of the rest of the Constitution, not as a loophole to grant ourselves arbitrary rights which would require an uncontrolled expansion of the govt. for the purpose of confiscating wealth from the few in order to provide these arbitrary rights for the many.

the enumeration of certin rights in the constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage certain other rights held by the states or the people

Held by the states or the people. Not provided or enforced by the Federal Government.

Becki

Couldn't let this go by without reprinting this absolute jewel of a column from Fulton Huxtable (It used to be in my bookmarks):

This should be required reading for all FReepers.
=======================================================

WHAT IS A RIGHT?

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever you coerce others to give you money or services through the point of a gun (which Gubbermint is), that does not devolve to an inalienable right, no matter what your addled brain may say to the contrary!

"For years, enough of us decided that women did NOT have the right to vote and accordingly we elected Representatives that agreed with our views. However, after many years our attitude as a society slowly changed and the vast majority decided the "grant" women the "right" to vote."

And the country has gone down the toilet ever since ;-)

Good article. This is the only area where I'd take exception:

You do not have a right to spam-free e-mail. You do not have a right to a salesmen-free phone line.

We do have the right to quiet enjoyment (recognized in common law and elsewhere) of our homes and to be left alone if we choose. He doesn't have the "right" to disrupt my communications and force me to expend resources in order to deal with him because of his right to sell his stuff.

If I say get lost or do not disturb I mean it. If one would have walked into another's cave without being invited, they might have had their teeth knocked out or worse.

Since we don't handle thing that way anymore, it seems there needs to be some type of remedy in the law.

The problem is not that women were given the right to vote it is that they are not held to the same accoutability that men are.

Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights

You claim that we ,as a people, haven't the ability to define "rights" that you disagree with, yet post an article that claims that "rights" belong only to those with the ability to define what "rights" are then create a government to "protect and secure" said "rights". Huh?

The ability of the people of the United States to define what their "rights" are is a founding principle of this country. "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our properity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sounds like a bunch of people got together and decided that they didn't care for the "rights" they were being given under the rule of King George and decided to form a Government to "protect and defend" the "rights" that THEY thought they were entitled to. They did so with great respect for the rights of individuals by placing great constraints on the Government but what many here are failing to understand is the the Government IS the people and those people are "Free" to establish what they have a "right" to under our current form of Government. This is reality not some ideal principle. People can and have and will continue, to shape Government to meet their needs and desires as long as politicians pander to the lowest common denominator and buy the votes of the poeple with offers of "bread and circuses".

What several folks here are also failing to "get" is that while I argue that WE have the ability to frame our own rights I have, not once, said that I agree with many of the "rights" that people have been claiming over the years. I have not tried to make the arguement that they don't have a "right" to make such demands, but rather have chosen to demand my own set of "rights", the main one being the "right" to be free from blood sucking leeches that would live off the sweat of my brow.

The "right" to a free education, health care and housing at the expense of others? Bogus yes, but if enough people continue to vote for representatives that squander our tax dollars on programs designed only to appease the masses and keep them quiet and content, thus keeping said politicians in power, they will become a reality and no amount of wishing and idealogical rhetoric will change that.

Stop whining about what others don't have a "right" to and concentrate on the "rights" to which you are entitled. Be proactive, instead of reactive, in securing YOUR rights and then, by demending said "rights" in concert with other like minded individuals at the ballot box, you will ensure that your "right" will not be trampled and offered up as a sacrifice to the God of Political correctness.

Uh, pal. Our rights are derived and given to us from God.

And I reject your idea that "promoting the general welfare" includes such rights as "a right to an education", etc.

We live in a republic not a democracy (or hadn't you noticed?). So anytime a majority gets together and decides there is a "right" to gay marriage or a "right" to murder your baby based on "penumbras" and "emanations" from the "right" to privacy, that's okey dokey w/ you, right? Because "the people" got together and decided on establishing a new right because of the latest trend on MTV or The View or Oprah is certainly a sound basis for a system of government. /sarc

People like you scare me.