Your Rights vs Your Wants

[Mate27]

This is the difference between your rights and your wants.


Housing = Your Rights

A $350,000 house with 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, two garages, a den and a pool = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace


Transportation = Your Rights

A New Lexus = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Basic Telecommunications = Your rights

A Smartphone = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Clothing, Food and Utilities = Your Rights

Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger and Nautica clothing, Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, and Shulu's steaks = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Healthcare = Your Rights

The Mayo Clinic = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

An Education through public school from the board of education and the Job Corps through the department of labor= Your Rights

Stanford University = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

 

[Old Rocks]

I can go along with that. Rights, what you need to get a foundation that will allow you to succeed in our society. But you have to put out the effort. Just skate through school, you have not earned the right to take up valuable time at a university or even a tech school. The basics of food and shelter. When you are a child, yes, by all means. If your parents cannot or will not provide these, they should be provided. However, if you choose the same path as your parents, and fail to provide for your children, you should not recieve but the barest of neccessities.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is the difference between your rights and your wants.


Housing = Your Rights

A $350,000 house with 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, two garages, a den and a pool = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace


Transportation = Your Rights

A New Lexus = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Basic Telecommunications = Your rights

A Smartphone = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Clothing, Food and Utilities = Your Rights

Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger and Nautica clothing, Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, and Shulu's steaks = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Healthcare = Your Rights

The Mayo Clinic = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

An Education through public school from the board of education and the Job Corps through the department of labor= Your Rights

Stanford University = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Of all those items listed, none are rights outright! One singular right covers the entire list; the FREEDOM to obtain those items. That Right is inalienable!

 

[Mad Scientist]

You don't have a "Right to Transportation", you have a "Right to Travel".

One is Commercial, the other is not.

There are Supreme Curt Rulings that back that up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can go along with that. Rights, what you need to get a foundation that will allow you to succeed in our society

Bzzzt. Wrong. Retake US Government 101 and get back to us.

Rights are liberties and freedoms you can exercise when you have the means to do so; it is up to you to acquire those means.

Unlerss, of course, you believe there should be a public subsidy for people that want to exercise their right to arms but have no means to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

I can go along with that. Rights, what you need to get a foundation that will allow you to succeed in our society. But you have to put out the effort. Just skate through school, you have not earned the right to take up valuable time at a university or even a tech school. The basics of food and shelter. When you are a child, yes, by all means. If your parents cannot or will not provide these, they should be provided. However, if you choose the same path as your parents, and fail to provide for your children, you should not recieve but the barest of neccessities.

Horseshit. You have no right to housing, healthcare, transportation or anything else he listed.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can go along with that. Rights, what you need to get a foundation that will allow you to succeed in our society

Bzzzt. Wrong. Retake US Government 101 and get back to us.

Rights are liberties and freedoms you can exercise when you have the means to do so; it is up to you to acquire those means.

Unlerss, of course, you believe there should be a public subsidy for people that want to exercise their right to arms but have no means to do so.

Exactly. To claim that you have a right to X which involves having to enslave me to provide you with X is nonsensical.

 

[bripat9643]

I can go along with that. Rights, what you need to get a foundation that will allow you to succeed in our society

Bzzzt. Wrong. Retake US Government 101 and get back to us.

Rights are liberties and freedoms you can exercise when you have the means to do so; it is up to you to acquire those means.

Unlerss, of course, you believe there should be a public subsidy for people that want to exercise their right to arms but have no means to do so.

Exactly. To claim that you have a right to X which involves having to enslave me to provide you with X is nonsensical.

Liberals simply don't understand what a right is. They believe rights are created by legislation. However, then they can't explain why anyone should get upset about slavery or so-called "gay rights." It's there view that if the legislature hasn't created gay rights, then they don't exist. So what are they they getting so upset about?

 

[percysunshine]

This is the difference between your rights and your wants.


Housing = Your Rights

A $350,000 house with 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, two garages, a den and a pool = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace


Transportation = Your Rights

A New Lexus = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Basic Telecommunications = Your rights

A Smartphone = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Clothing, Food and Utilities = Your Rights

Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger and Nautica clothing, Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, and Shulu's steaks = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

Healthcare = Your Rights

The Mayo Clinic = A Privilege that you earn in the marketplace

An Education through public school from the board of education and the Job Corps through the department of labor= Your Rights

Stanford University = A privilege that you earn in the marketplace

A 'need' is not the same thing as a 'right'. That is why there are two words in the dictionary.


.

 

[Bush92]

Liberals think everything is free. Because other people pay for it.Life is about hard work and sacrifice. If you are either too immature or lazy to deal with it...I should not have to support you, or your kids.

 

[percysunshine]

I may 'need' a colonoscopy, but if the government determines I have a 'right' to one, are they going to force me to 'get' one, even if I do not 'want' one?

Will Kathleen Sebelius do it personally?

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rights are what society decides that you have. Let Mr. Putin take over, and see where your rights go. We decided that the rights in the Constitution were inalienable because we saw that a just society could not be formed without them. In that day, that was the most radical of ideas.

Today, the extension of those rights, education, basic human needs, health care, once again has the conservatives pitted against the idea of rights. Had you people lived in Colonial times, you would have been Tories, and railing against the heresy of rebeling against kings.

 

[norwegen]

Rights are what society decides that you have. Let Mr. Putin take over, and see where your rights go. We decided that the rights in the Constitution were inalienable because we saw that a just society could not be formed without them. In that day, that was the most radical of ideas.

Today, the extension of those rights, education, basic human needs, health care, once again has the conservatives pitted against the idea of rights. Had you people lived in Colonial times, you would have been Tories, and railing against the heresy of rebeling against kings.

Not so, Tory. Unalienable rights do not include rights to goods and services. They include a right to acquire goods and services.

 

[bripat9643]

Rights are what society decides that you have.

No, that isn't what rights are. That would mean black slaves didn't have any rights. You obviously don't have a clue what rights are

Let Mr. Putin take over, and see where your rights go. We decided that the rights in the Constitution were inalienable because we saw that a just society could not be formed without them. In that day, that was the most radical of ideas.

We didn't decide they were inalienable. They are inalienable. Any rule required for a just society is a right. That pretty much defines what rights are: the rules of justice.

Today, the extension of those rights, education, basic human needs, health care, once again has the conservatives pitted against the idea of rights. Had you people lived in Colonial times, you would have been Tories, and railing against the heresy of rebeling against kings.

Inalienable rights can't be extended. So-called "rights" to education, health care and basic human needs are obviously alienable. Therefore, they aren't rights.

The idea that supporters of the king in colonial times are the equivalent of modern conservatives has been shot down in this forum 100 times already. Liberals are the modern day defenders of the status quo, not conservatives.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Rights are what society decides that you have. Let Mr. Putin take over, and see where your rights go. We decided that the rights in the Constitution were inalienable because we saw that a just society could not be formed without them. In that day, that was the most radical of ideas.

Today, the extension of those rights, education, basic human needs, health care, once again has the conservatives pitted against the idea of rights. Had you people lived in Colonial times, you would have been Tories, and railing against the heresy of rebeling against kings.

Wow, how dumb can you get?

 

[midcan5]

There is no such thing as a 'natural' right, *rights only exist if we, aka society and it accouterments, say we have a right and if some ordained authority can support or validate that right. No where in nature are there natural rights, a dog may mark his space with urine, but another bigger dog or species may think (?) otherwise. I asked this question not long ago when that naive, mostly foolish, Paul Ryan said that rights came from God, meanwhile he is involved in making rights or is that taking away rights? I'm sure he ain't god. I asked for someone to name a natural right - Same question but before you puzzle yourself check the stuff below.

"Rights are just (tastes) emotions without rational thought." Jeremy Bentham paraphrase

"Natural Law, and the related Natural Rights, play an important part in Libertarian Capitalist ideology. They are not alone in claiming that their particular ideology meets the law of nature, Hitler (for one) also did so. So do numerous other demagogues, religious fanatics and political philosophers. However, they like to claim that only *their* "natural law" is the "real" one, all the others are subjective impositions. But, then again, so do all the others. We will ignore these assertions (they are not arguments) and concentrate on explaining why natural law (in all its many forms) is a myth. In addition, we will indicate its authoritarian implications." http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp001283.txt

"This Universal Declaration Of Human Rights' The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Good piece: Laci the Dog: Don't let cute and fluffy fool you!: Rights?

Treanor is always a challenging thinker, he'll definitely screw up your conceptions or is that misconceptions. 'Why human rights are wrong'

Why human rights are wrong

"A Serbian or Iraqi child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as much pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British governments do not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights. That fate is reserved for Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Africans, and Asians. The western human rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They claim opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that their own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would not bomb their own cities like they bombed Belgrade or Falluja or remote Afghan villages. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' of the human rights lobby is itself relative: it is turned on and off to conform to geopolitical interests. It was never much more than a propaganda slogan anyway." PT

And sometimes rights ain't rights or ain't the right rights.

"It was the Bill of Rights itself, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which made slavery legal in the Dred Scott case of 1857. That same Bill of Rights negated the results of the Civil War by making de facto slavery legal in the form of Segregation thanks to the Court's decision on Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896. Indeed, that same Bill of Rights ended de facto slavery with the Brown v. School Board decision in 1954, only after great internal debate among the judges. In 1905 the Court approved the exploitation of workers, women, children and immigrants, thanks to Lochner v. New York. It continues to find women unequal to men, in such cases as Bradwell v. Illinois or Hoyt v. Florida. In Korematsu. v. U.S.A. it also approved the removal by the Executive of the constitutional rights of the American Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

This is not to say that legislatures are incapable of acting badly: Over the question of Japanese rights in 1941, the parliaments of both Britain and Canada were guilty in the same way as the American Supreme Court of racism combined with financial opportunism - that is to say, the removal of rights, internment and forced disposition of property. The point is, however that the Bill of Rights gave no extra protection, nor did the wisdom of the judges.

Still more important, these policy questions central to morality and humanism, central to the very nature of the citizen, were decided by an appointed body, The elected representatives thus escaped all responsibility for decisions which were essential to the moral and physical well-being of their electors. Worse still, so did the citizen." p326 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'

"Rights are founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy." What is natural about Natural Rights? | Issue 21 | Philosophy Now


Ryan and rights: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html and lots more, http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207


More links for the interested.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Human-Rights-Lynn-Hunt/dp/0393331997/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]Inventing Human Rights: A History: Lynn Hunt: 9780393331998: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/are-there-natural-human-rights/
Rights are natural, inalienable and self-evident.

 

[House]

Carlin put it best: There's no such thing as rights.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I want all of my rights and yours too!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The only "right" that we should have is the right to freely obtain the things mentioned in the OP.
Course, today, that right is being taken away from us via corporatism and plutocratic governance.

 

[dblack]

There is no such thing as a 'natural' right, *rights only exist if we, aka society and it accouterments, say we have a right and if some ordained authority can support or validate that right.

You should read up on the concept again. You're not doing it right.