When the US was formed, the Founders claimed that we had natural rights. And today, all you hear is people claiming that they have rights, or should have rights, but is it the same concept?
The Bill of Rights, for example, was designed to enforce our natural rights from the perspective of the Founding Fathers. Progressives today, refer to them as "negative" rights. The Bill of Rights were these negative rights which hand cuffed the government in a variety of ways telling it what it could not do to you., the private citizen. Conversely, FDR proposed a long list of natural rights that Progressives refer to as "positive" rights. These are a long list of rights that proclaim all the wonderful things government will do for you that you really deserve.
But notice the psychology of terms. One is "negative" and the other "positive". It is the Freudian slight of hand that suggests one is superior to the other, and perhaps the other should be done away with altogether.
Those who favor positive rights have the presumption that those in government who promote natural rights are good, and everyone else that disagrees or points to problems that arise from positive rights are all bad. In fact, those promoting positive rights want some of our negative rights removed from law. For example, Progressives have for a long time wanted the Second Amendment to be removed from the Bill of Rights, and increasingly more even want the First Amendment repealed as well since most no longer think freedom of speech is doable.
So who is right? Were the Founding Fathers right to focus on restricting the powers that be to help keep us free, or were the Progressives right? Should we not fear the corrupting power of the powers that be and instead focus on giving them more power over us?
That to me is really the dividing line.
The Bill of Rights, for example, was designed to enforce our natural rights from the perspective of the Founding Fathers. Progressives today, refer to them as "negative" rights. The Bill of Rights were these negative rights which hand cuffed the government in a variety of ways telling it what it could not do to you., the private citizen. Conversely, FDR proposed a long list of natural rights that Progressives refer to as "positive" rights. These are a long list of rights that proclaim all the wonderful things government will do for you that you really deserve.
But notice the psychology of terms. One is "negative" and the other "positive". It is the Freudian slight of hand that suggests one is superior to the other, and perhaps the other should be done away with altogether.
Those who favor positive rights have the presumption that those in government who promote natural rights are good, and everyone else that disagrees or points to problems that arise from positive rights are all bad. In fact, those promoting positive rights want some of our negative rights removed from law. For example, Progressives have for a long time wanted the Second Amendment to be removed from the Bill of Rights, and increasingly more even want the First Amendment repealed as well since most no longer think freedom of speech is doable.
So who is right? Were the Founding Fathers right to focus on restricting the powers that be to help keep us free, or were the Progressives right? Should we not fear the corrupting power of the powers that be and instead focus on giving them more power over us?
That to me is really the dividing line.
