Bogus Rights

[Highwayman]

I like Walter. Some of this will hit close to home for many of you.

By Walter E. Williams

Feb 8, 2006

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "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." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress."

The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...08/185444.html

[Detector]

I've often said I believe the biggest problem with society is the rights generation we have created.

Great people aren't the results of being handed life on a silver plater but people that face adversity and have the ability to rise above it.

We pat ourselves on the back for creating programs like the no child left behind thinking we're giving the under privileged a chance in life, when in fact we're just creating more lazy Americans that feel its their right to ride on the backs of others. We've created a freeloader society.

I work hard every year trying to make the best for my family. Last year I paid the government over $7,000 and when I do my taxes they'll tell me I owe another $1,000 because Susan, setting in her government bought and paid house, had another kid this year or Jesus needs to send it to his nephew in Mexico.

I still rent because I can't get qualified to buy my own home even with a $10,000 down payment. I served my country during war time but my government tells me I have no benefits due to a technicality, yet my hard earned money goes to give housing to people too lazy to work. I've never bought a home yet I'm told I can't get help as a first time home owner(FHA).

The pride our grandparents got from rising from a poor family, through hard work not handouts, paying their way through school is replace by the "you own me" mentality of today. The pride today is not from hard work but knowing how to work the system.

I'm exercising the only right my $8,000 a year gets me. The right to complain.

[lurker]

From today's HutchNews:

Wasting taxpayer money

I called SRS and asked how much three people could make to qualify for LEIP. It took 30 minutes for the SRS employee to figure out what I had asked. Then she asked if I needed a form.

I also wanted to know why the Housing Authority last April said that I owed $2 more a month and that it had covered the extra amount for the past two months. The law reads that I must be notified in writing before they can put it into effect. Yet I have received no letter as of Feb. 1. Therefore I will not pay extra until I have something in writing from the housing authority.

On another matter, I want SRS to deduct my medical client obligation, which I pay every month. After my caseworker said she could not do it, her supervisor said he could, but it still has not been done. Why does SRS hire people who don't know all the information?

For a person on a low income, it can mean a meal or two or the medication they need for the month. If more people in the social work area spent more time working with the consumers, they would get a feeling for the reality of the situation.

To me, it is a waste of taxpayers' money. These programs are supposed to help taxpayers when they are in need. It is a sad situation when consumers know more than caseworkers. What a waste of government money.

FRED MARKHAM

Hutchinson


02/09/2006; 02:34:04 AM

Er... I think the current name is client... consumer it much too accurate to be politically correct.

[Detector]

I think the biggest mistake our forefathers made was producing loosely written documents such as the constitution. They probably thought we would be smart enough to know what they meant and realized it granted us the right to destroy ourselves. Boy did they underestimate the stupidity of future generations.

[lurker]

From the first post:

Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American.

Payroll Tax deductions is where the problem started. Congress should be busy asking for our money instead of spending it.

[Lone Gunman]

Originally Posted by lurker

From today's HutchNews:


Er... I think the current name is client... consumer it much too accurate to be politically correct.

Consumers probably don't know more then the case workers, clients do that's how they became clients and that's how they remain clients.

[lurker]

Consumers consume.
Clients are under the protection of.... Lawyers, Accountants, Insurance Companies... etc.
Patients are patient while waiting for the Doctor's services/medicine to heal.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by lurker

Payroll Tax deductions is where the problem started. Congress should be busy asking for our money instead of spending it.

I think the handy payroll deduction system does cause some folks to not grasp how much goes out every payday. Someone once excitedly told me about their tax refund. I ask how much they had to pay in to get that refund and they replied that they didn’t pay anything, they got a refund. If they had to write four checks (Federal, State, FICA, Medicare) to pay the withholding every time they got a paycheck, it might have soaked in.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

..............

If they had to write four checks (Federal, State, FICA, Medicare) to pay the withholding every time they got a paycheck, it might have soaked in.

Shush your mouth High... It's better when the Refunders think they're winners.

[Lone Gunman]

I was watching a show not too long ago where the discussion was abuse of the welfare system . One women, who had 16 kids by 9 different fathers or 9 kids by 16 different fathers one or the other, stated that her mother's mother had been on welfare, her mother had been on welfare, she was on welfare and her kids would probably be on welfare. She then stated that it was her God given right to be on welfare. I amazes me the people who do nothing to earn rights seem to think they have more rights then the rest of us. For many of these people welfare and government handouts are a way of life just like working for a living is our way of life. One screwed up system.