Some Musings about Rights

[dapster]

I posted the following in a 1911 forum where it seemed to have generated some interest and discussion. While I admit it's probably a stretch to think of it as a 2nd amendment post, nevertheless as an owner of 2 S&W firearms, here it is:

I’ve heard it said that the need for health care constitutes a right. Not knowing if the following is true, I’ve also heard that former President Clinton campaigned with the slogan, "Health care should be a right, not a privilege.”

The Heller decision rendered by the highest court in the land, gives the individual the “right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” CURIOUSLY, THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NO RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH A FIREARM. He/she has to furnish it himself/herself.

In a similar vein, I believe there already is something akin to a right to health care in that our government won’t interfere if you can otherwise provide it for yourself.

Something to consider is that where there is a right there must be a correlative duty. I have a right to be free from the consequences of your negligent driving. You have a duty of care to drive responsibly. If you breach a duty of care to which I have a right and it causes me to sustain damages I may seek legal redress.

If health care were indeed a right what would that imply? If there were truly a right to health care, who would have a duty to provide it. By whom is that duty fulfilled in the future when there may no longer be young people aspiring to be doctors or nurses because our government will have destroyed a once lofty profession?

Would I be able to make someone go to medical school so as to enforce my “right” to health care? I’m inclined to doubt it.

 

[oldRoger]

The Obama objection to our constitution as expressed in interviews is that the constitution establishes only negative rights. He views this as a serious defect which he promises to change. He wishes to establish “positive rights”.
Negative rights imply that we are guaranteed freedom from government interference in certain aspects of our life. A prime example as you have pointed out is the 2nd amendment. The Government may not infringe upon our freedom to own and carry arms. We are not required to carry arms nor are we provided arms to carry.

A positive right would require that the government furnish the means to enjoy any right it guaranteed.
Obviously in the case of health care a positive right would require the government to furnish health care. A basic right to health at the root of this guarantee would be very difficult to define much less deliver.

We think that the constitution is a document from the people defining limitations under which it will operate.

Obviously Obama has a far different view. He views the Federal Government as a system which can provide things to people. Since the government has no health to provide, it must first take health from some, it can then redistribute this health to others. In other words he would take your health and give it to me.
This in the case of health care would mean that each of us must provide all of us health care.

You point out some of the problems this would entail. We could fill books with the problems, or we could look around at Canada and GB.

The Federal Government is not in the position of multiplying the loaves and fishes; indeed it usually subtracts rather than multiplies.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

A small point, but one that I think is important:

Neither the Heller decision, nor the Constitution itself, "gives" or grants rights to individuals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affirm the known and pre-existing rights of all people, addressing those rights in such a way as to circumscribe the lawful actions of the government.

I find it interesting that our elected and appointed officials must all swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution before taking office. Then, after swearing that oath, many choose to attack the content of the Constitution! When I observe this, I have frequently pointed out to those officials that they have publicly violated their oaths of office, and I request their resignation (hasn't worked yet, but I enjoy the exercise!).

 

[5Wire]

A small point, but one that I think is important:

Neither the Heller decision, nor the Constitution itself, "gives" or grants rights to individuals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affirm the known and pre-existing rights of all people, addressing those rights in such a way as to circumscribe the lawful actions of the government...

Plus one, or as we say in New Hampsha and Maine, "ayuh, bubba."

 

[Crazy K38]

well my mother was a great nurse for 23+years so unless it is a vital organ I do it at home anyway.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Until the DCM morphed into the CMP, the government actually did provide subsidised (below market rate) firearms. Shrug.

 

[7.62foryou]

I just read all the amendments didn't find a thing in there on health care. As lobogunleather pointed out rights don't come from men as men can take them away, as will happen someday with a certain man endowed phony right the name of which is unmentionable here.
Healthcare is a responiblity that providers have to their families as is food, shealter and security. We are supposed to be free to either have it or pay our health care needs out of pocket. We have no right to expect others to pay.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I'm not sure that this is something that I care to go into at any length, but it seems to me that if health care is a right, then doctors and nurses are slaves, or else we are, in order to pay them. Or both.

Everyone needs to keep eyes and minds on those Nazi (short for national socialist) -------s that some people have been electing recently.

 

[Climber]

A small point, but one that I think is important:

Neither the Heller decision, nor the Constitution itself, "gives" or grants rights to individuals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affirm the known and pre-existing rights of all people, addressing those rights in such a way as to circumscribe the lawful actions of the government.

I find it interesting that our elected and appointed officials must all swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution before taking office. Then, after swearing that oath, many choose to attack the content of the Constitution! When I observe this, I have frequently pointed out to those officials that they have publicly violated their oaths of office, and I request their resignation (hasn't worked yet, but I enjoy the exercise!).

Lobo, I will respectfully disagree with you on your opening statement. This is in no way a "small point". This is a big point and one that is needed to be pressed home as often as possible. I am certain that Jefferson would agree as it was he that asserted in the first place that our un-a-lien-able Rights existed long before any government. It is just up to us to exercize them. However, your major point is correct. Our forefathers, be they literal or political shed a lot of their own blood and a lot of Redcoat's blood to prove the point.

 

[therevjay]

If a national healthcare plan is passed, it will not be long before we are informed food and shelter are also "rights."

 

[TXbug]

Mickey Edwards is a Republican from Oklahoma. He was one of three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and national chairman of the American Conservative Union.

In an interview with Bill Moyers, Edwards relates the following

==============

MICKEY EDWARDS: .... Judge Robert Bork, when he was appointed to or nominated for the Supreme Court opposed the Roe-

ROSS DOUTHAT: -late in the Reagan years.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, late in the Reagan years, right.

MICKEY EDWARDS: He opposed Roe v. Wade, which a person can do, on the grounds that the Supreme Court had created a right of privacy which does not exist in the Constitution. And so I had breakfast with him with a small group. And I said, "Did you really say that?" And he said, "Yes." I said, "So tell me, Judge Bork, you believe that the only rights the American people have are those that are spelled out in the Constitution?" And he said, "Yes."

"Well, you know, it's the exact opposite. We're born with our rights. And, you know, the reason you have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and the reason so many patriots like Patrick Henry opposed, you know, the Bill of Rights was they said, Some idiot's going to come along in the 20th century or 21st century and say, 'You know, unless it's spelled out in here, it's a right the American people don't have.'"

Well, Judge Bork was that idiot. And so that's when I when I say that is where we forget what our values are and we start thinking that, you know, we, only the government has all the rights and we only have those that you know, the government permits us to have, which is turns American government on its head.

============

This is an example of a conservative, legal person, Judge Robert Bork, who happens to have been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan who believes that if it ain't in the Constitution then it is not a right we the people possess. Sadly, he is not alone.

 

[red14]

You can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular

Interesting, how about this?

You can make it legal, but you can't make it right.

 

[7.62foryou]

Mickey Edwards is a Republican from Oklahoma. He was one of three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation and national chairman of the American Conservative Union.

In an interview with Bill Moyers, Edwards relates the following

==============

MICKEY EDWARDS: .... Judge Robert Bork, when he was appointed to or nominated for the Supreme Court opposed the Roe-

ROSS DOUTHAT: -late in the Reagan years.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, late in the Reagan years, right.

MICKEY EDWARDS: He opposed Roe v. Wade, which a person can do, on the grounds that the Supreme Court had created a right of privacy which does not exist in the Constitution. And so I had breakfast with him with a small group. And I said, "Did you really say that?" And he said, "Yes." I said, "So tell me, Judge Bork, you believe that the only rights the American people have are those that are spelled out in the Constitution?" And he said, "Yes."

"Well, you know, it's the exact opposite. We're born with our rights. And, you know, the reason you have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and the reason so many patriots like Patrick Henry opposed, you know, the Bill of Rights was they said, Some idiot's going to come along in the 20th century or 21st century and say, 'You know, unless it's spelled out in here, it's a right the American people don't have.'"

Well, Judge Bork was that idiot. And so that's when I when I say that is where we forget what our values are and we start thinking that, you know, we, only the government has all the rights and we only have those that you know, the government permits us to have, which is turns American government on its head.

============

This is an example of a conservative, legal person, Judge Robert Bork, who happens to have been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan who believes that if it ain't in the Constitution then it is not a right we the people possess. Sadly, he is not alone.

What right would you like that's not in the Bill of Rights? Apparently with enough imagination it covers everything. It's served us well for a couple of hundred years now. Can any other country claim that? No other country has the same form of government now that they had in 1789 not a bad track record! The patriots that didn't want the bill of rights were those that found "truths to be self-evident" those people are all dead now, today we have people who can find a right to kill unborn people, but no right to bears arms in the Constitution.
We'd be in worst shape than we are now without the bill of rights. Mickey Edwards by the way is a RINO and what he says should be suspect.

 

[5Wire]

What right would you like that's not in the Bill of Rights? Apparently with enough imagination it covers everything. It's served us well for a couple of hundred years now. Can any other country claim that? No other country has the same form of government now that they had in 1789 not a bad track record! The patriots that didn't want the bill of rights were those that found "truths to be self-evident" those people are all dead now, today we have people who can find a right to kill unborn people, but no right to bears arms in the Constitution.
We'd be in worst shape than we are now without the bill of rights. Mickey Edwards by the way is a RINO and what he says should be suspect.

Not to step on any response by TXbug, but the point is it's not up to the Federal Government to define what the rights of the States and individual citizens are. While the Bill of Rights is a strong affirmation, it grants nothing We The People don't already have and We The People can add to or revise our Consent as we collectively choose to do.

 

[7.62foryou]

Not to step on any response by TXbug, but the point is it's not up to the Federal Government to define what the rights of the States and individual citizens are. While the Bill of Rights is a strong affirmation, it grants nothing We The People don't already have and We The People can add to or revise our Consent as we collectively choose to do.

Your absolutley right 5wire but the founders were smart enough to know unless it's written down those rights everyone is born with would be usurped by the government. The Brits have had their rights usurped because they don't have the documents that we have. We'd be in the same shape as them. Even with our founding documents our government has managed to take over some private enterprises. We'd be shooting rubber bands off our fingers by now if not for the second. After witnessing current events we may be doing just that soon anyway.

 

[5Wire]

...We'd be shooting rubber bands off our fingers by now if not for the second. After witnessing current events we may be doing just that soon anyway.

Yup. Big Pus 1!

 

[The Rabbi]

The poster who wrote about Obama's criticism of the Constitution as containing only negative rights hit it exactly. He (and the "progressives") want a world of guaranteed positive rights, like housing, food, healthcare, college education and the like. It is a mess.

Neither the Heller decision, nor the Constitution itself, "gives" or grants rights to individuals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affirm the known and pre-existing rights of all people, addressing those rights in such a way as to circumscribe the lawful actions of the government.

This is true only rhetorically. In the real world neither the constitution, nor the supreme court nor any other body individually gives rights. Rights are a construct of society and change over time. We have had a right to privacy only since Griswold in the 1970s, a right to an abortion since Roe. Even what constitutes free speech is quite different today from what it was even 100 years ago.
Until someone can explain the practical difference between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist I will continue with this view.

 

[Dennis The B]

...
This is true only rhetorically. In the real world neither the constitution, nor the supreme court nor any other body individually gives rights. Rights are a construct of society and change over time. We have had a right to privacy only since Griswold in the 1970s, a right to an abortion since Roe. Even what constitutes free speech is quite different today from what it was even 100 years ago.
Until someone can explain the practical difference between a right which is denied and one which doesn't exist I will continue with this view.

Rabbi, I must take exception to your definition of rights. They aren't a construct of society. Neither do they change over time.

Rights are defined as those freedoms one exercises, which places no burden on others in society.

One has a right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to practice religion, to be safe against unreasonable search and siezure, etc. One can practice these rights, and most do, without imposing any cost on others in society. The penalty for violating these rights of others has been determined to be loss of rights, up to and including one's life.

There is no right to medical care, food, shelter, or other needs paid for by others, without the express approval by others.

If anyone desires to pay for another's food, shelter, medical care, etc., then do it through voluntary charitable contributions, not the coercion of government at any level.

Recognition of individual rights is the basis for a civil society. The compact has to be mutual and moral (moral, not religious, as the two do not necessarily walk the same path).

That's why non-human animals have no rights. They are incapable of recognizing the rights of others, and it's why we have a moral obligation not to abuse and mistreat them.

 

[The Rabbi]

In Saudi Arabia one has no right to practice any religion other than Islam. In many countries you not only do not have a right to keep and bear arms, you have no right of self defense either. In the U.S. your right to self defense ceases when an immediate threat ceases. And on and on.
All of these are culturally and historically defined. They are not "natural rights" in any sense we understand that.
The corollary to all that is to insist on what rights we have and make them normative in society so they can't be taken away.

 

[Dennis The B]

In Saudi Arabia one has no right to practice any religion other than Islam. In many countries you not only do not have a right to keep and bear arms, you have no right of self defense either. In the U.S. your right to self defense ceases when an immediate threat ceases. And on and on.
All of these are culturally and historically defined. They are not "natural rights" in any sense we understand that.
The corollary to all that is to insist on what rights we have and make them normative in society so they can't be taken away.

To the contrary, rights are innately defined. These innate rights historically define society, and not conversely.

That Saudi's may not practice any religion but Islam, is a state-forced mandate, not any decision come to by individual members of the Saudi Arabian society.

In England, the lack of a constitution limiting government power, has allowed their courts to mandate that no right to self-defense exists, or that one may protect home, hearth, and family.

Societally, we cede certain rights in order to live communally. We agree not to be too noisy to our neighbors, etc.