I am seriously sick an tired of the Right’s going on and on about the “invention of rights”. The trouble is – and the Founders knew it – that Rights are nearly unlimited. That would be the aleph zero set. Rights that others do not have to directly pay for. As opposed to newly invented “rights” others have to directly pay for. Like the “right” health care. Or the right to a drug free America. The aleph one set. And yes. Although the aleph zero set is infinitely large the aleph one set is infinitely larger. I could see where this could confuse people in such a way that they are against all “invented” rights. The separating principle being you pay for your own fun or bad luck. Or insure against it if you can afford the insurance.
Right’s Rights
by
Tags:
Comments
4 responses to “Right’s Rights”
Where do rights fit on a number scale?
I suppose, based upon their how they appear. It’s kinda like asking how non-rational numbers appear. (Huh?)
When Cain slew Abel, Cain sinned. How does this fit into your pre-selected values of what is or isn’t a right? Did Abel have a “right” to life?
Do I have a “right” to covet?
Do I have the right to tell the truth? Do I have a responsibility to tell the truth? Is lying a right? Is anything I wish to do rightful? In the sense, that God would see my invocation of right as true to His Commandments?
Let’s move over to Rousseau. Which is where I first moved after reading your post. Rousseullian logic (sic) dictates that the imagined has the same value as the real. Unfortunately, the converse isn’t true. The real is not the same as the imagined.
The reduction of rights, as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were so important, that the scope of government was felt to be necessarily constrained in order to constitute the new nation. The unenumerated rights were recognized, but left to the states.
In Oregon, for example, pornography is a much more defined right, to possess and to view. Under Oregon’s statutes and constitution. A book like Nobokov’s “Lolita” would be protected, where it would be banned in Boston.
It wasn’t until the post-Bellum period that the idea of citizenship rights extended from the Federal to the States. There is no right to smoke tobacco, if the state within which you reside outlaws the consumption of tobacco. (Unless the Supremes decide that this would be a violation of the Commerce Clause. And under a Harlan Court, I don’t think the Supremes would oppose a state’s right to regulate tobacco. Or alcohol. We still have dry towns in Oregon.)
Do I have a right to buy alcohol? Not in Oregon, in some cities. Is this the rule of law? Yes. Do you have a right to drink? Do you have a right to smoke? Do you have a right to use heroin? If a city, like Monmouth, has the right to ban the sale of alcohol, how does any other government unit not have the right to ban any substance they should choose to ban?
Should any town, municipality, city or county have the right to ban anything?
Should Cain have the right to slay his brother? Must you live in Monmouth? Did Cain have options?
The trap that Libertarians find themselves in, is that there are no rules, except for the rules “I” agree to. As a man with a greater tendency toward anarchy, I feel your pain. But as an 18th century Liberal, I embrace the dichotomy between the real and the possible. Would I advocate for free meth and heroin? Yes. In a heartbeat. Let the meth user sow the seeds of his harvest. Does the meth user have a claim to universal healthcare? By what right?
.
Uh. But the rule is simple. Leave people alone unless they are directly harming others.
And Cain did not follow the precept.
And just because there are laws is no sign that the laws are principled.
Since every power you give government will eventually be used against you, just how much power do you want to give them?
My answer is as little as possible. Of course the NWO wants you to give government as much power as it needs to enforce your desires. It will eventually cost you.
Uh. No one has a claim to universal health care. Once you get that then the meth head is no longer your problem.
I thought I stated the general principle in the post. And covered health care specifically.
Sheesh.
A thorough reading, pondering and understanding of Locke’s Second Treatise on Government would illuminate any coherent and meaningful discussion of rights and the relationship of government as an expression of and protector of those (individual) rights.
Unfortunately, collectivists are either completely ignorant of Locke or willfully misrepresent what he says.