rights and entitlement

Chris,

Yes the words are harsh, but accurate. Interestingly, although you quote my post, you don’t quote the part which details the lie, which is that the heart of liberalism is based on the idea that everyone has a right to expect the gov’t to meet their basic needs. Or as I put it in my post “At the heart of every liberal program lies the idea that we are entitled to something just because we have a heartbeat. Liberals tell us that we are entitled to these things not because we’ve earned them, worked for them, or sacrificed for them; we are entitled to them because we have a pulse.”

I would certainly be interested in any rebuttal you would care to make to that point.

Nor does your invocation of the 9th Amendment, incidentally one of my favorites, invalidate my point. There is a qualitative difference between the rights laid out in the Constitution, as presaged by the Declaration of Independence, and those liberals would have us claim today. Classic rights tell us that all men should have the opportunity to succeed or fail based on their own merits, not upon pre-ordained societal roles or limitations. This compares to the liberal definition of rights, which attempt to ensure an equal outcome, regardless of individual merit.

The philosophical constructs are totally different.

For what it’s worth, I also disagree with your contention that all rights are mere social constructs. While the new liberally defined rights do fall into that catagory, as suggested by another commentor, who indicated that rights are only rights when we can afford the cost, classically defined rights, are the birthright of every man. We can be denied those rights through force, but they cannot be taken away.

Thanks for reading!

*Or as I put it in my post “At the heart of every liberal program lies the idea that we are entitled to something just because we have a heartbeat. Liberals tell us that we are entitled to these things not because we’ve earned them, worked for them, or sacrificed for them; we are entitled to them because we have a pulse.”

I would certainly be interested in any rebuttal you would care to make to that point.*

I have no rebuttal for this, because I don’t disagree. Or, rather, I should say, my personal beliefs coincide with this statement, liberals aside.

My contention with your post is not your opinion on what rights we should have and should not have (although I disagree with those, also, but that’s a much loftier, more difficult debate), but rather your claim that rights are absolute and pre-ordained. i.e.:

*And that applies to everything we’ve talked about. I agree, all of these things are good to have. A good education, medical care, a welfare safety net, prescription drugs. I’m not against any of them.

BUT THEY AREN’T RIGHTS!*

Rights are what we make them. The liberal/conservative split is often based on a difference of priorities and opinions on what rights we define, but it by no means qualifies liberals as believing a “lie”.

We certainly have a different definition of ‘rights.’ By your definition, the treatment of women under the Taliban was justifiable, since those were the rights that their culture assigned them. Any moral outrage over their treatment was a sham, and an attempt to impress our strictly cultural values on them.

I reject your definition for that reason. True rights are inherent, not granted through a social compact. The Constitution does not grant us rights; the Constitution limits the gov’t’s ability to infringe on our innate rights. The “unalienable” nature of human rights is a central tenet of American democracy, and is the basis for our global human rights activities.

By generating all these spurious rights, liberals are weakening the respect for our innate human rights, to the point where some folks, like yourself, no longer regard them as innate, but as part of a contract.

We certainly have a different definition of ‘rights.’ By your definition, the treatment of women under the Taliban was justifiable, since those were the rights that their culture assigned them. Any moral outrage over their treatment was a sham, and an attempt to impress our strictly cultural values on them.

I reject your definition for that reason. True rights are inherent, not granted through a social compact. The Constitution does not grant us rights; the Constitution limits the gov’t’s ability to infringe on our innate rights. The “unalienable” nature of human rights is a central tenet of American democracy, and is the basis for our global human rights activities.

By generating all these spurious rights, liberals are weakening the respect for our innate human rights, to the point where some folks, like yourself, no longer regard them as innate, but as part of a contract.

no longer regard them as innate, but as part of a contract

And worse, as rights granted by the government.

We certainly have a different definition of ‘rights.’ By your definition, the treatment of women under the Taliban was justifiable, since those were the rights that their culture assigned them. Any moral outrage over their treatment was a sham, and an attempt to impress our strictly cultural values on them.

By my definition, the treatment of women under the Taliban was justifiable by them, under their moral code. Not ours. Moral outrage, here, over their treatment of women, did contribute to us impressing our strictly cultural values on them. Yes. You are correct. I’m not saying this is a particularly good or bad thing, but it’s a dangerous game to play. Where do you draw the line? Furthermore, there was a plethora of reasons we ousted (or tried to oust) the Taliban in Afghanistan that were greater influences than any “moral outrage” – political opportunism and revenge, to name a few. You don’t see us fighting many wars in the name of our human rights alone. (Why aren’t we in Congo? in North Korea? Rwanda? etc.) In any event, last time I checked, war was not exactly an ideal harbinger of human rights elevation.

*I reject your definition for that reason. True rights are inherent, not granted through a social compact. The Constitution does not grant us rights; the Constitution limits the gov’t’s ability to infringe on our innate rights. The “unalienable” nature of human rights is a central tenet of American democracy, and is the basis for our global human rights activities.

By generating all these spurious rights, liberals are weakening the respect for our innate human rights, to the point where some folks, like yourself, no longer regard them as innate, but as part of a contract.*

Inability (or unwillingness) to acknowledge a government or a society as a social contract is precisely what allows for regimes like the Taliban to exist and impede progress.

The Taliban’s system of rights and values are “God-given”, and, therefore, immutable. But when god dictated these rights and values, he certainly didn’t mean women.

Jefferson wrote 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”. But, of course, their Creator certainly didn’t mean to include slaves. But, in 1865, that changed. But, nonetheless, their Creator still certainly didn’t mean women, right? In 1920, that changed too. Turns out that our “God-given” rights seem to keep pace pretty well with our values as a society. Sure sounds like a social construction, doesn’t it? Nonetheless, the “god-given”, and therefore immutable, nature of rights is used throughout history as justification for resisting the addition of rights to our social contract.

Your definition imposes a ceiling that caps the growth of our value system. It’s anti-progress, and it’s counter-productive.

And worse, as rights granted by the government.

You confuse “granting, exclusively” with “protecting, inclusively”. The government does not grant a finite set of rights. It protects a finite set of rights. See the 9th amendment.

The government grants No rights. Our founding father considered them to be God-given (or natural for any athiests out there).

And lately, the government hasn’t been protecting any rights either. Each bill passed seems to be an encroachment. THe constitution exists to prevent this, not the government.

The government grants No rights. Our founding father considered them to be God-given (or natural for any athiests out there).

And lately, the government hasn’t been protecting any rights either. Each bill passed seems to be an encroachment. THe constitution exists to prevent this, not the government.

*The government grants No rights. Our founding father considered them to be God-given (or natural for any athiests out there).

And lately, the government hasn’t been protecting any rights either. Each bill passed seems to be an encroachment. THe constitution exists to prevent this, not the government.*

No real argument here. I do agree that the constitution exists as a barrier between the power of the government and the people. Like I said, it creates a “floor” – rights that can’t be taken away by the government. I don’t see how that mandates that the government may not add to this list.

I wouldn’t argue, however, that our government these days is doing a very good job.

Like I said, it creates a “floor” – rights that can’t be taken away by the government. I don’t see how that mandates that the government may not add to this list.

Because rights do not come from the government. Rights given to us by the government are only secure insofar as the government does not take them away.

The idea of set, immutable, inalienable rights (which do not originate from the government, but by virtue of our humanity) is not, as you claim, “anti-progress” and “counter-productive”. We don’t need the government to help us in order to attain life, liberty, and happiness. With basic, unfettered freedom, we can make productive and progressive lives and futures for ourselves, if we so choose.

Looking at the government, I wonder why liberals are so eager to place our ability to function, grow, and suceed as human beings in the hands of the state. Chris, who do you trust better to make decisions about your life – politicians (including the Bush administration) or yourself?

Because rights do not come from the government. Rights given to us by the government are only secure insofar as the government does not take them away.

Rights don’t come from government, no – they are decided by a society. Government is an instrument of a society.

The idea of set, immutable, inalienable rights (which do not originate from the government, but by virtue of our humanity) is not, as you claim, “anti-progress” and “counter-productive”.

This isn’t what I said. It’s not the set of immutable, inalienable rights that are anti-progress and counter-productive. It’s the perceived exclusivity of this set that is – the belief that because a right is not explicitly included in a finite set of rights, that therefore it can not and should not ever be the territory of the government to protect that right.

We don’t need the government to help us in order to attain life, liberty, and happiness. With basic, unfettered freedom, we can make productive and progressive lives and futures for ourselves, if we so choose.

We’ve tossed around the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” phrase quite a bit. Funny, though, there’s a great bit in the very next sentence. Ponder what Courtney just said while you read it:

… 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,

Congratulations, Courtney, you’ve just argued yourself out of the social contract our government is founded on.

Looking at the government, I wonder why liberals are so eager to place our ability to function, grow, and suceed as human beings in the hands of the state. Chris, who do you trust better to make decisions about your life – politicians (including the Bush administration) or yourself?

Who said anything about making decisions about my life? Because I am aware of the sacrifices of the social contract I am party to doesn’t mean that I have sacrificed every decision of my life to the government. Governments, like societies, involve compromise: freedom, equality, and order.