Can we try this again?

[detlef]

This time, without scheduling a RL fistfight?

 

So WV wondered if a woman had the right not to be raped, according to me and then implied that what I was advocating was mob rule. Then added this.

You do realize you're saying that might makes right? At least in the paragraph where you're talking about oppressive governments. And using your definition, if a right can only be something that someone else can't take away, then we truly have no rights. None at all. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence - especially the part about governance being created by a people to protect those rights. Whether you believe those rights to come from God, Midichlorians or the great pumpkin is not any issue at all. If you are a sentient being then you have those rights. shrug.gif

Well, for starters, a woman has the right to defend herself from being raped. Additionally, any society worth a crap owes it to her to protect her from this unspeakably horrible act. However, regardless of what higher power one invokes to imply that she, or anyone was born with the right not to be harmed in such a manner, when you do so, you're implying that we're all hard wired to realize this. I'll even give you a few exceptions to make room for those born with mental defects. However, protecting women from rape is something that wasn't always considered important on a society-wide level and is, frankly, not even something that certain societies now make a priority. And on far too large a scale to write off as a handful of people who aren't wired correctly. That doesn't make the act of rape any less despicable, nor does it make it any less important for any honorable society to make among it's highest priorities to stop. However, it does much to undermine the notion that it's a protection that we are born to.

 

At the end of the day, it's the evil specter of a majority rule that defines these "rights", which was precisely my point. After all, the Constitution is not a doctrine that defines how the human species should get along, but rather, how a specific set of humans who align themselves will act, both to themselves, and actually even to those outside that group. To imply that it reaches beyond that, and the implication that these rights are handed down from anywhere sort of does that, it beyond arrogant. Now, just as we assembled the leaders of our fledgling country to hash out the constitution, the world sort of does the same with the UN to create a similar code. Obviously, there are many common thoughts in this regard, but they're not unanimous, now are they? No, majority rules. If there is any consensus at all, it is that all those who choose to (or are allowed to) align themselves with that group agree with the set of "rights" established. However, you can't discount the millions who don't as not being of this species. Thus, anyone born in those countries is born without the privilege of enjoying those "rights". That is, of course, until someone like us decides to step in and deliver these "rights" to those people through might.

 

That is ultimately my issue with the use of the word "rights", it implies a divine authority because they're given to us by something higher than each other. See, when I say I'm a non-believer, I don't mean that I'm anti-Christian, I mean I'm anti-anyone invoking an implied audience with a higher power that told them to tell me that this or that is how it is. And that is precisely what this comes down to. Using something higher than us, and frankly, impossible to confirm, to justify law. Switching "Christ our Lord" for "The Order of Things", does little to ease my concern. So, while you're freaked out by the tyranny of the majority, I am by the tyranny of false prophets. Sure, in this case they're using this status to a very noble end, but it sets a very bad precedent.

 

After all, regardless, of where they came from, the final list came from a bunch of guys standing in a room, debating about which ones were going to make the final cut. Which, to me, sounds a hell of a lot like they were sort of given to us by ourselves.

 

My ultimate issue, besides simply philosophical is that it gives food to pointless argument. Like the bit about Health Care. There's plenty to debate about the issue without needlessly invoking "rights" vs "privileges". Because that's just pandering. Whether it's done to discount the importance of it, "It's just a privilege" or done to make it more urgent, "It's a fundamental right!" Both arguments are freaking lame, because neither address the actual issue. And yet, because of, what I see as a fundamental lack of understanding about what either of those two words mean, it becomes one of the focal battles. Simply realizing that the list of privileges we've carved out for ourselves as US citizens are what make this country great, and then arguing where it sits on the scale of privileges, is far less divisive because it makes room for a whole lot of gray area and may ultimately lead to actual and healthy compromise. Instead, we've created two very distinct camps.

 

By the way, I agree that Azz also nailed it and don't think Chavez was derailing the topic at all.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Your mom threw away your best porno mag.

[Caveman_Nick]

I think that people have about as much right to healthcare as they do to food and shelter. Maybe less, definitely not more.

 

How many people want the government controlling the distribution of food and shelter? Why are these things different?

[SEC=UGA]

 

I don't like the word rape, it offends me.

[cre8tiff]

Who was going to fight who? And was Cherni's travel agent involved?

[i_am_the_swammi]

I think that people have about as much right to healthcare as they do to food and shelter. Maybe less, definitely not more.

 

 

So those that have little ability to obtain food and shelter have no right to it? As a society, its the strongest survive, and we should advocate letting those with little-to-no means starve?

 

Similarly, we should let those with no healthcare die if they become ill?

 

As an advanced society, we provide government-sponsored rehab to drug adidcts and criminals...we provide education to poor neighborhoods. Why wouldn't we offer healthcare services to those that need it?

[cliaz]

Who was going to fight who? And was Cherni's travel agent involved?

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait.....I think I love you, but what am I so afraid of?'s a dude?

 

Whew, that felt good. Like old times. He/her/it were the original iRash

 

 

ETA: dmn word filters and their shifty ways [Cherni']

Edited March 30, 2010 by cliaz

[Big John]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait.....I think I love you, but what am I so afraid of?'s a dude?

(1:08)

[The Mucca]

I was just wondering, if I was running a little short on cash this week for lunch, do I have the right to go into my neighbors

house and take a little bit of his cash from his wallet so I could go to Burger King?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I was just wondering, if I was running a little short on cash this week for lunch, do I have the right to go into my neighbors

house and take a little bit of his cash from his wallet so I could go to Burger King?

 

Sure, though your neighbor has a right to fill you full of lead if they catch you.

[SEC=UGA]

 

So those that have little ability to obtain food and shelter have no right to it? As a society, its the strongest survive, and we should advocate letting those with little-to-no means starve?

 

Similarly, we should let those with no healthcare die if they become ill?

 

As an advanced society, we provide government-sponsored rehab to drug adidcts and criminals...we provide education to poor neighborhoods. Why wouldn't we offer healthcare services to those that need it?

 

In the US, prior to the new jhealthcare bill, a person could not be denied treatment if they did not have the means to pay a hospital.

 

It is not the duty of the government to provide these things, that is what charity and churches/cynagogues/mosques are for.

 

We should not provide government sponsored rehab for drug addicts... Criminals go toprison and should have to work on road crews, whatever, like they did back in the old days.

[Dutch Oven]

Sure, though your neighbor has a right to fill you full of lead if they catch you.

 

Well, I don't know about that, but you would almost certainly be drawn down on.

[westvirginia]

This time, without scheduling a RL fistfight?

 

So WV wondered if a woman had the right not to be raped, according to me and then implied that what I was advocating was mob rule. Then added this.

 

Well, for starters, a woman has the right to defend herself from being raped. Additionally, any society worth a crap owes it to her to protect her from this unspeakably horrible act. However, regardless of what higher power one invokes to imply that she, or anyone was born with the right not to be harmed in such a manner, when you do so, you're implying that we're all hard wired to realize this. I'll even give you a few exceptions to make room for those born with mental defects. However, protecting women from rape is something that wasn't always considered important on a society-wide level and is, frankly, not even something that certain societies now make a priority. And on far too large a scale to write off as a handful of people who aren't wired correctly. That doesn't make the act of rape any less despicable, nor does it make it any less important for any honorable society to make among it's highest priorities to stop. However, it does much to undermine the notion that it's a protection that we are born to.

 

At the end of the day, it's the evil specter of a majority rule that defines these "rights", which was precisely my point. After all, the Constitution is not a doctrine that defines how the human species should get along, but rather, how a specific set of humans who align themselves will act, both to themselves, and actually even to those outside that group. To imply that it reaches beyond that, and the implication that these rights are handed down from anywhere sort of does that, it beyond arrogant. Now, just as we assembled the leaders of our fledgling country to hash out the constitution, the world sort of does the same with the UN to create a similar code. Obviously, there are many common thoughts in this regard, but they're not unanimous, now are they? No, majority rules. If there is any consensus at all, it is that all those who choose to (or are allowed to) align themselves with that group agree with the set of "rights" established. However, you can't discount the millions who don't as not being of this species. Thus, anyone born in those countries is born without the privilege of enjoying those "rights". That is, of course, until someone like us decides to step in and deliver these "rights" to those people through might.

 

That is ultimately my issue with the use of the word "rights", it implies a divine authority because they're given to us by something higher than each other. See, when I say I'm a non-believer, I don't mean that I'm anti-Christian, I mean I'm anti-anyone invoking an implied audience with a higher power that told them to tell me that this or that is how it is. And that is precisely what this comes down to. Using something higher than us, and frankly, impossible to confirm, to justify law. Switching "Christ our Lord" for "The Order of Things", does little to ease my concern. So, while you're freaked out by the tyranny of the majority, I am by the tyranny of false prophets. Sure, in this case they're using this status to a very noble end, but it sets a very bad precedent.

 

After all, regardless, of where they came from, the final list came from a bunch of guys standing in a room, debating about which ones were going to make the final cut. Which, to me, sounds a hell of a lot like they were sort of given to us by ourselves.

 

My ultimate issue, besides simply philosophical is that it gives food to pointless argument. Like the bit about Health Care. There's plenty to debate about the issue without needlessly invoking "rights" vs "privileges". Because that's just pandering. Whether it's done to discount the importance of it, "It's just a privilege" or done to make it more urgent, "It's a fundamental right!" Both arguments are freaking lame, because neither address the actual issue. And yet, because of, what I see as a fundamental lack of understanding about what either of those two words mean, it becomes one of the focal battles. Simply realizing that the list of privileges we've carved out for ourselves as US citizens are what make this country great, and then arguing where it sits on the scale of privileges, is far less divisive because it makes room for a whole lot of gray area and may ultimately lead to actual and healthy compromise. Instead, we've created two very distinct camps.

 

By the way, I agree that Azz also nailed it and don't think Chavez was derailing the topic at all.

 

Detlef, why does a right have to be bequeathed to us from some higher power or a legislature? Are you not an independent, sentient being? Do you not own you - your body, your mind, your actions? What more justification do you need than that? I am, therefore I have rights. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, there was actually great dissent among the need for a bill of rights. The following is taken from Wiki:

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

 

 

 

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of

prerogative

in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "

Magna Charta

", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from

King John

.

^[8]

 

 

 

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

 

 

 

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

^[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-8' rel="external nofollow">

 

 

^{Additionally, I think you're arguing in circles. A right is NOT subject to majority rule. Period. If the aldermen/councilmen/whatever of the city of Durham decided they were going to eat free at 2-dogs, it wouldn't matter that they voted to give the damn thing a patina of legitimacy - it's still a violation of your rights, whether the law says so or not. Again, gov't might pass a law that the sky is red. That doesn't mean the sky is red, just that your majority says it is. There are some things that 99% of the people can agree on, and it still doesn't make it right. IIRC, if we were guided solely by majority rule, the civil rights act would never have been passed, and blacks would probably STILL be second-class citizens in much of the country.}

 

 

 

 

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Detlef, why does a right have to be bequeathed to us from some higher power or a legislature? Are you not an independent, sentient being? Do you not own you - your body, your mind, your actions? What more justification do you need than that? I am, therefore I have rights. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, there was actually great dissent among the need for a bill of rights. The following is taken from Wiki: [/sup]

 

[/indent]^{Additionally, I think you're arguing in circles. A right is NOT subject to majority rule. Period. If the aldermen/councilmen/whatever of the city of Durham decided they were going to eat free at 2-dogs, it wouldn't matter that they voted to give the damn thing a patina of legitimacy - it's still a violation of your rights, whether the law says so or not. Again, gov't might pass a law that the sky is red. That doesn't mean the sky is red, just that your majority says it is. There are some things that 99% of the people can agree on, and it still doesn't make it right. IIRC, if we were guided solely by majority rule, the civil rights act would never have been passed, and blacks would probably STILL be second-class citizens in much of the country.}

 

 

 

 

 

Do I have a right to gubment subsidized bifocals?

 

Good stuff from Hamilton though.

[detlef]

Detlef, why does a right have to be bequeathed to us from some higher power or a legislature? Are you not an independent, sentient being? Do you not own you - your body, your mind, your actions? What more justification do you need than that? I am, therefore I have rights. If you read the writings of the founding fathers, there was actually great dissent among the need for a bill of rights. The following is taken from Wiki: [/sup]

 

[/indent]^{Additionally, I think you're arguing in circles. A right is NOT subject to majority rule. Period. If the aldermen/councilmen/whatever of the city of Durham decided they were going to eat free at 2-dogs, it wouldn't matter that they voted to give the damn thing a patina of legitimacy - it's still a violation of your rights, whether the law says so or not. Again, gov't might pass a law that the sky is red. That doesn't mean the sky is red, just that your majority says it is. There are some things that 99% of the people can agree on, and it still doesn't make it right. IIRC, if we were guided solely by majority rule, the civil rights act would never have been passed, and blacks would probably STILL be second-class citizens in much of the country.}

 

 

 

 

So, we are all born with rights but they don't come from anywhere, they're just there. Does it matter what they are? I mean, that's sort of important. If, as a sentient being, I am born into rights that nobody gives me, do I just get to decide for myself what they are? Because that could get pretty crazy pretty quickly. Because you and I have to end up deciding upon a set of things that we can and can't do if we're going to live in the same place.

 

You said it yourself, "I am, therefor I have rights." Great, what are those rights? Because once you start listing them and expecting anyone to take them seriously, that's where it stops being all about you and all the things that you are born into and absolutely begins to be about what you and a lot of other people agree are things that we should all be protected by. Otherwise, they're sort of useless. That is, unless you plan on fighting a lot.

 

As for your other examples. The only rights I have that protect me from the City of Durham deciding I should have to give my food away for free are the rights that the government that Durham itself has to answer to protects me with. Those being what the good ol' US governs by. I mean, that's what happens when someone feels they've gotten screwed by the local gov't. They take it to the state, and then to the Fed. But, if neither the state or fed agrees that I'm being hosed by the city of Durham, then it doesn't really matter what sort of pie in the sky ideas I have about what rights I'm born to. If I want to do what I want to do in Durham, I'm sort of S.O.L. The good news for me is that stupid examples like the one you gave tend to happen more in arguments where someone lacks a credible defense for his stance than they do in real life.

 

I mean, it's great to puff up our chests and say, you can't eff with me, I've got rights that nobody gave me or can take away. However, unless you're ready to totally go it alone and not rely on anyone else for anything, you'd be be prepared to settle on a batch that we all think are fair. Which, basically, means agreeing to go along with what the majority says is cool. Of course, it helps if you live in a country set up well enough that it takes more than 51% to enact something as binding and major as a constitutional amendment, but that's still not the same thing as saying, I'm a man, I have rights.

[cre8tiff]

Golden Rule. 'Nuff said.

[westvirginia]

OK, since I'm giving "stupid examples" because I "don't have a defense for what I'm saying" then how about you tell me why no one has rights? I'm sure you have a smarter argument than "well, the gov't gives them to me, so they must be privileges", oh master of the filet of rottweiler?

[Caveman_Nick]

So, we are all born with rights but they don't come from anywhere, they're just there. Does it matter what they are? I mean, that's sort of important. If, as a sentient being, I am born into rights that nobody gives me, do I just get to decide for myself what they are? Because that could get pretty crazy pretty quickly. Because you and I have to end up deciding upon a set of things that we can and can't do if we're going to live in the same place.

 

Det, I think you are overlooking something very important in your rants here. I will try and boil it down.

 

When we talk of rights and such and our ownership of them not only as people but as citizens of this country, we must remember the genesis off this entire discussion.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

Whether or not you believe in a Creator or choose to refer to the these rights as "natural rights", I think you and anyone who would engage in the discussion of what rights matter (including myself) should at least try to recognize the scope of what The Founders were trying to accomplish.

 

In the drafting of the Bill of Rights it was established what these men thought were the rights that our government should secure and be bound to. That the government is created to secure them and not to grant them is a very important concept to the discussion. Exactly what is being said in that portion of the Declaration is that we are born to these rights. Nobody gives them to us. We have created a government in order to protect these rights against tyrants, not to grant them.

 

That these amendments are all listed as negative statements defining what the government shall not do is also something that is very telling. The first amendment does not say "The American People Have The Right To Free Speach". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

That is the general theme of their wording, and are worded so for the very purpose of recognizing that we have these rights and that the government exists to secure them and not to interfere with them.

 

If you (or anyone) can't operate from this basis in an argument that you want to make about what rights exist, why, how they are granted, what's done to protect them, etc., then in that same argument you are undermining the very foundation and reason for the establishment of our government in the first place.

[BeeR]

 

So those that have little ability to obtain food and shelter have no right to it?

 

As a society, its the strongest survive, and we should advocate letting those with little-to-no means starve?

 

Similarly, we should let those with no healthcare die if they become ill?

 

As an advanced society, we provide government-sponsored rehab to drug adidcts and criminals...we provide education to poor neighborhoods. Why wouldn't we offer healthcare services to those that need it?

I'm all for taking any gov't money used for "rehab" and instead putting it towards healthcare.

 

Also some of you seem to be equating "have a right to it" with "gov't should give it to you," which is a logical fallacy. Sure, people have a right to healthcare. They don't have a "right" to ride on everyone else's dime to get it though. For crying out loud: the welfare thing has mostly just promoted that welfare mentality and we have decade after decade of evidence that it didn't exactly work, to put it mildly. So....let's do it some more? O yay.

 

As for rights in general, where the line is drawn as to what they are is obviously highly subjective, regardless of your religious beliefs. Even people within a given denomination could easily disagree as to what they are, ie beyond the "basics."

[detlef]

Det, I think you are overlooking something very important in your rants here. I will try and boil it down.

 

When we talk of rights and such and our ownership of them not only as people but as citizens of this country, we must remember the genesis off this entire discussion.

 

 

 

Whether or not you believe in a Creator or choose to refer to the these rights as "natural rights", I think you and anyone who would engage in the discussion of what rights matter (including myself) should at least try to recognize the scope of what The Founders were trying to accomplish.

 

In the drafting of the Bill of Rights it was established what these men thought were the rights that our government should secure and be bound to. That the government is created to secure them and not to grant them is a very important concept to the discussion. Exactly what is being said in that portion of the Declaration is that we are born to these rights. Nobody gives them to us. We have created a government in order to protect these rights against tyrants, not to grant them.

 

That these amendments are all listed as negative statements defining what the government shall not do is also something that is very telling. The first amendment does not say "The American People Have The Right To Free Speach". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

That is the general theme of their wording, and are worded so for the very purpose of recognizing that we have these rights and that the government exists to secure them and not to interfere with them.

 

If you (or anyone) can't operate from this basis in an argument that you want to make about what rights exist, why, how they are granted, what's done to protect them, etc., then in that same argument you are undermining the very foundation and reason for the establishment of our government in the first place.

Nicely put and an important distinction regarding the phrasing of the bill of rights. Frankly, it's the best I've heard from that side of the argument both here and with those I've had this discussion away from this forum. And if that sound condescending, it is not intended to be.

 

I guess the issue I still have is who the government is and, really who it was. After all, the guys who wrote the constitution were at once those who were the leaders of the nation and citizens who were going to be lead. It wasn't as if it was a negotiation between landlord and tenant. It was more like a discussion among soon-to-be members of an LLC regarding the by-laws. What would define the manner in which we were allowed to interact. Certainly, the difference here is that there's a ton of people without much if any say who would be going along for the ride. However, ultimately the document was born from guys agreeing upon a set of rules. Frankly, unless they all walked in with the same list, it actually seems rather disingenuous to say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I mean, it's a powerful way to kick the thing off (and yes, I realize that we're sort of blending documents). However, and again, the premise that we are all born to an unquestionable list of things that are simply not on the bargaining table when it comes to our freedom is rather suspect if that list, in fact, can't be established without debate and discussion.

 

Yet, the very fact that some "rights", but not others, are included sort of means that those included were granted. Sure, the wording implies that these thing have been yours all along and this government can't take them away from you. However, the very fact that all the "rights" later recognized as things that you've had all along but the government can't take from you were not initially included and the very fact that there are certainly people who feel that this list is still not long enough, implies that this is sort of an issue of semantics. That, until the government grants to you the promise that it will not take away a right of yours, it doesn't much matter whether you were born with it or not. At least on a practical level. What good did it do all the women born before the early 20th century that they were born with the right to vote but simply lived in a country that had yet to agree not to take that right away?

Edited March 31, 2010 by detlef

[westvirginia]

Nicely put and an important distinction regarding the phrasing of the bill of rights. Frankly, it's the best I've heard from that side of the argument both here and with those I've had this discussion away from this forum. And if that sound condescending, it is not intended to be.

 

I guess the issue I still have is who the government is and, really who it was. After all, the guys who wrote the constitution were at once those who were the leaders of the nation and citizens who were going to be lead. It wasn't as if it was a negotiation between landlord and tenant. It was more like a discussion among soon-to-be members of an LLC regarding the by-laws. What would define the manner in which we were allowed to interact. Certainly, the difference here is that there's a ton of people without much if any say who would be going along for the ride. However, ultimately the document was born from guys agreeing upon a set of rules. Frankly, unless they all walked in with the same list, it actually seems rather disingenuous to say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I mean, it's a powerful way to kick the thing off (and yes, I realize that we're sort of blending documents). However, and again, the premise that we are all born to an unquestionable list of things that are simply not on the bargaining table when it comes to our freedom is rather suspect if that list, in fact, can't be established without debate and discussion.

 

Yet, the very fact that some "rights", but not others, are included sort of means that those included were granted. Sure, the wording implies that these thing have been yours all along and this government can't take them away from you. However, the very fact that all the "rights" later recognized as things that you've had all along but the government can't take from you were not initially included and the very fact that there are certainly people who feel that this list is still not long enough, implies that this is sort of an issue of semantics. That, until the government grants to you the promise that it will not take away a right of yours, it doesn't much matter whether you were born with it or not. At least on a practical level. What good did it do all the women born before the early 20th century that they were born with the right to vote but simply lived in a country that had yet to agree not to take that right away?

 

You're confusing the issue here, det. That's the point of those of us saying there is no right to HC, or food and shelter, etc. Because for those things, someone else has to give up something. For me to have a right to my life doesn't cost anyone else. The right to think and say what I wish, also doesn't cost anyone else. Surely you can see the difference between that and the right to eat when you haven't worked for it or the right to treatment for illness when you can't or won't pay the doc? Your argument about "some rights included but not others" assumes that by calling something a right, it is. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[detlef]

You're confusing the issue here, det. That's the point of those of us saying there is no right to HC, or food and shelter, etc. Because for those things, someone else has to give up something. For me to have a right to my life doesn't cost anyone else. The right to think and say what I wish, also doesn't cost anyone else. Surely you can see the difference between that and the right to eat when you haven't worked for it or the right to treatment for illness when you can't or won't pay the doc? Your argument about "some rights included but not others" assumes that by calling something a right, it is. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Actually, having run out of arguments that defend your stance, you're just now pretending that this discussion is about something it is not. I do not intend to argue whether or not health care is a right. It baffles me that you would think I have because the only time I've even mentioned health care in this debate is where I've said that it is completely pointless to bother bringing up whether or not health care is a right or a privilege.

 

So I guess I'll just take this up with Nick, since he seems to actually understand what we're actually talking about. Thanks though.

[Caveman_Nick]

Yet, the very fact that some "rights", but not others, are included sort of means that those included were granted.

 

Absolutely not (IMO, of course). This sentence completely disregards my previous post. You can not take this stance without completely undermining the major forming factor of our federal government.

 

Sure, the wording implies that these thing have been yours all along and this government can't take them away from you. However, the very fact that all the "rights" later recognized as things that you've had all along but the government can't take from you were not initially included and the very fact that there are certainly people who feel that this list is still not long enough, implies that this is sort of an issue of semantics.

 

I am not suggesting that the bill of rights is a complete and perfect list. As you note below, women's suffrage is a fantastic example of why it was not. I have often pointed out to many of my "strictly constitutionalist" friends that these words of freedom and rights granted by the creator were written by men rife with hypocricy. They certainly did mean what they wrote, but they meant it for themselves. It took time and growth as a country to recognize that these rights belong to everyone equally. Anyone that tried to deny that would be turning a blind eye to the facts in a similar fashion that your presumptions are doing.

 

That, until the government grants to you the promise that it will not take away a right of yours, it doesn't much matter whether you were born with it or not. At least on a practical level. What good did it do all the women born before the early 20th century that they were born with the right to vote but simply lived in a country that had yet to agree not to take that right away?

 

You are grossly mistaking the perpetration of tyranny on the rights of free people for a lack of those same rights as a natural event. In fact, as someone else mentioned, you are essentially espousing "might makes rights". This is exactly the thinking that the Founders (in their own flawed way) were working to abolish.

 

Lastly, as WV mentioned most recently and others haven mentioned in the past, there is a difference between right to action and right to material. A right to be unfettered in speech by oppressive government, a right to not be subject to unwarranted and unnecessary searches and siezures, a right to equal protection under the law, etc., is very different than trying to establish a "right" to material that may be owned by another or to a service that must be performed by another. Those that claim that healthcare, food, shelter, etc., is a right hide behind the process of government confiscation of materials and abuse of power to force service to others.

 

We of the other side are marking a clear distinction between rights that leave one unfettered to act (legally) in pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty and the new "rights" being espoused here that would necessitate the forced provision of substance or service by other free people. Is the distinction not obvious?

[Perchoutofwater]

We of the other side are marking a clear distinction between rights that leave one unfettered to act (legally) in pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty and the new "rights" being espoused here that would necessitate the forced provision of substance or service by other free people. Is the distinction not obvious?

 

Makes perfect sense to me.

[detlef]

Absolutely not (IMO, of course). This sentence completely disregards my previous post. You can not take this stance without completely undermining the major forming factor of our federal government.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting that the bill of rights is a complete and perfect list. As you note below, women's suffrage is a fantastic example of why it was not. I have often pointed out to many of my "strictly constitutionalist" friends that these words of freedom and rights granted by the creator were written by men rife with hypocricy. They certainly did mean what they wrote, but they meant it for themselves. It took time and growth as a country to recognize that these rights belong to everyone equally. Anyone that tried to deny that would be turning a blind eye to the facts in a similar fashion that your presumptions are doing.

 

 

 

You are grossly mistaking the perpetration of tyranny on the rights of free people for a lack of those same rights as a natural event. In fact, as someone else mentioned, you are essentially espousing "might makes rights". This is exactly the thinking that the Founders (in their own flawed way) were working to abolish.

 

Lastly, as WV mentioned most recently and others haven mentioned in the past, there is a difference between right to action and right to material. A right to be unfettered in speech by oppressive government, a right to not be subject to unwarranted and unnecessary searches and siezures, a right to equal protection under the law, etc., is very different than trying to establish a "right" to material that may be owned by another or to a service that must be performed by another. Those that claim that healthcare, food, shelter, etc., is a right hide behind the process of government confiscation of materials and abuse of power to force service to others

 

We of the other side are marking a clear distinction between rights that leave one unfettered to act (legally) in pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty and the new "rights" being espoused here that would necessitate the forced provision of substance or service by other free people. Is the distinction not obvious?

First off, a minor mea culpea in regard to my rather snarky response to wv. Though I still believe that he hasn't adequately defended his stance on the main topic I've brought up, reading Nick's latest makes me understand his last post a bit more and why he, and others, insist upon bring up the rights argument and how it relates to HC.

 

Now, back to the less tangible argument at hand...

 

It might come down to an "agree to disagree" juncture, but, Nick, the reason why my caveats to your points disregard your points is because I think those points are tenuous. I still, for all practical purposes, don't see why there's much difference in a list of things that I, as your government, agree is a list of things that you are born to and I should never take away and a list of things that I think you should have. In both cases, provided of course that you want to be a citizen of that country, the only reason why you don't need to fight for those things is because I've made a point of saying it's all good. What, besides some warm and cozy feeling, is truly the difference? In both cases, the government has spelled out the rules.

 

What nobody has managed to address is the fundamental issue with how the definition of rights is fundamentally tainted by the fact that men define them. We can attach "god-given" and "self-evident", but they're not. They're born from compromise and deal making. Like everything else that governs our lives. There's every reason to believe that there were guys in the room who had a whole bunch of other things that we were born with the right to do but everyone else shot them down because they were stupid or too far out there. Maybe they were pretty damned "self-evident" to that guy. Maybe he spoke to his god and his god said, "hell yeah." But Jefferson and a bunch of others thought is was lame, so now all of a sudden it's just one man's opinion. As long as we're dealing in the realm of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", everything is cool. I mean, who can't get down with that? However, once you start itemizing them, that's where it all goes to hell.

Edited March 31, 2010 by detlef