Rights

A basic difference between the sides: Rights come from government, not God

She then goes on try and pass off government restrictions on activity as “rights.”

There is a fundamental disconnect here. For all the labels, I think the basic difference between the “sides” is that one sees the government as a power for good in American society and the other sees it as a necessary evil.

Via Instapundit.

Comments

  1. So much to pick apart. For now I will just focus on this little passage that suggests government is necessary to keep our roads safe. She writes:

    What about our right to drive highways and interstates knowing others zooming along beside us have been checked out for basic skills, and should someone bash into us, they have coverage to help us with damages they caused? Rely on “human nature” to see to such requirements?

    Tell that to this poor woman in New Mexico. I am sure she will be happy to know that our government is keeping our roads safe.

    1. Hell, try the roads here in Southern California — not only do you have to contend with more than a few less-than-stellar drivers on the road, but also the deterioration of the roads themselves (voted the overall worst in the nation).

  2. The progressive replacement of natural rights with their preferred positive rights has been a cornerstone of their philosophy for decades. Natural rights exist without anyone having to give them to you, you simply exercise them by living as a free man (or woman of course). Positive rights can only be granted to you by a powerful state, and usually have something to do with protecting the citizen from the chaos and inherent bad things in life. Guess which set of rights is more popular with the big government crowd?

    I can be persuaded to grant government authority to do some things like require licensing and insurance to drive, a basic social safety net, etc. I’m not a hard core libertarian/conservative. But calling any of those things rights is an Orwellian redefinition of the word “right.” Those are at best goods and services provided through the government. Anything that can only be brought about by the confiscation of money through taxation can hardly be called a right. Otherwise, it is at its most basic, insisting that some have a right to other people’s money.

    If all those things are rights, then I have a “right” for the government to provide me with a firearm. I mean, its right in the Constitution that I have the right to one, so they have to give me one, right?

  3. If I had more energy at the moment I would go into this much more but without reading the linked article, here goes:

    Agreements between persons and peoples become Rights when they become important enough to contract a governing body to enforce those key agreements.

    God reserves the right to throw our souls into the Lake of Fire™ or welcome us into the Crystal Palace™ for whatever reason He wants, or none at all. Or whatever. Currently, accepting His son as our personal savior should be good enough, but otherwise we have the ‘right’ to obey the natural laws, which He enforces. All else is our choice amongst ourselves, just try not to tick Him off.

    More or less the way I see it.

  4. It’s funny how they assert a bold-faced lie like that, when the Declaration of Independence — a legal document with almost equal legal authority to the Constitution — states (in it’s most famous sentence, at that);

    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…

    Thus, that the rights of American citizens come from God is a Legal Fact — and as said document is unchallengeable, this is a *permanent* Legal Fact.

    To reiterate, claiming that American rights come from the government is a lie, and easily-disproven (hell, I just did it!).

    1. Is there any case law showing the Declaration of Independence as being a ‘Legal’ document? I am not aware of any. ‘Historical’, ‘Philosophical’, yes.

        1. Well googling around suggests many allegedly smart people can’t agree on the subject; but I an going with ‘yes’. At least in terms of Meta-Law.

    2. Personally, I believe that every human being is entitled to some rights regardless of what any gods, goverments or body of laws have to say about it.

      Right to liberty (Slavery is the most disgusting and inmoral institution in existence)

      The right to worship or not worship any gods and not be penalized for it

      A right of not being subject to seizures or searches with out a warrant (no stop and frisk)

      Right to own property

      Right to defend his life and property by any means necesary and to own weapons for that porpouse.

      Right to a fair trail (Must be considered innocent until proven guilty on a court of law)

      If we allow the argument that a being like a god gave us those rights then they can be revoked by one of his “messangers”.

Comments are closed