What is the true source of rights?

The left is now claiming that healthcare--free healthcare--is a fundamental "right." (Unsurprisingly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren--an ultra-liberal--just proclaimed this.)

But whether or not one believes that UHC is a good idea, to say that free healthcare is a "right" begs the question: Just what entity, exactly, decides upon (and dispenses) rights?

The left claims that government does. And it will gleefully point to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as cases in point.

But these are entitlements (which are of dubious constitutionality, in my view)--certainly not "rights."

The Declaration of Independence speaks of the "Creator" and "Nature's God." I can imagine no other source of genuine rights.

Note: The U.S. Constitution guarantees only what some have described as "negative" rights--i.e. the right to be free of some things. It never speaks of any positive "rights."

 

Natural or God-given right are limited to individual rights that do not require any other person or action in order to realize those rights, and of course do not inflict harm on another person. Liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness and opportunity, the ownership of one's fruit of his own labors are examples of rights that require no other action by anybody. Right to food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare, etc require other people so are not natural -- but they sound good if one is a demagogue trying to get something done.

 

There is no god, and the government is illegitimate. Rights come from fighting for them.

 

We can arrive at negative rights without ever appealing to any God. And it is extremely difficult to find any brand of theism that is compatible with inalienable rights, except maybe deism. The God of the Bible certainly doesn't qualify.

 

Don't succumb to leftist interpretations of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a LIMIT on the power of government. It restricts the government from certain actions. In that vein it is a list of "negative" rights only from the viewpoint of the government.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of the positive rights of the individual citizens of the USA. And, in fact, the Bill of Rights even says that the listing of some of the positive rights of individual citizens doesn't disparage the fact that other positive rights exist. See Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

If you have no rights then what are you fighting for?

 

You think the Bible doesn't celebrate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights? Then why did God help Moses and the Jews escape Egypt?

 

If you had a natural right to food everyone would be born with a fully stocked pantry coming out of their mother's womb. If everyone had a natural right to shelter they would be born with a land deed attached to their butt. If everyone had a natural right to transportation they would be born with wheels instead of feet. If everyone had a natural right to education they would be born fully educated. If everyone had a natural right to healthcare they would be born with a doctor attached to their butt.

I like to think of my great-several times removed-grandparents who moved to the plains of Kansas to find their fortune. Miles away from the nearest neighbor. An arduous trek to the nearest store for supplies. No doctor within traveling distance. No neighborhood school.

What natural right did *they* have to food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare, etc? Who was at fault for not "providing" them with these rights?

They had the food they fought to grow. They had the shelter they worked to build. They had the transportation they worked to raise (horses or cattle) and cared for and had to travel over roads they worked to create themselves. They worked to educate themselves. And they worked to provide their own healthcare.

No one "gave" them their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness except their Creator. And they had to work for each!

Today I am somewhat reminded of H.G. Wells' novel "Time Machine". Far too many Americans today remind me of the Eloi. Naive, uneducated, spineless wimps whose needs are provided for by the Morlocks. Of course the Morlocks feed upon the Eloi in return, a lot like the Marxist Democrats feed on the American Eloi today. It's not a picture that bodes well for America.

 

No, I do not. I've read it several times and I can definitely say that the God of the Bible is incompatible with those concepts. According to the Bible, God invented hereditary slavery to punish one of Canaan's sons for his father's sin of looking at his grandfather naked. The Bible gives permission for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery. God orders the Israelites to commit mass murder in order to take land, including the express command to commit infanticide. And why were Moses and the Jews enslaved in Egypt to begin with? It was a punishment from God. And when they escaped, did he allow them the same freedoms we today consider "inalienable rights"? No. Freedom of religion and speech were outlawed and punishable by death. Even in the NT, Paul tells Christians that God has personally appointed every single government authority and that it is a terrible sin to rebel against them or disobey them. Both testaments repeatedly state that God punishes people for the crimes of their ancestors. No, I do not see such a scripture as a champion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To quote my favorite Founding Father on the matter . . .

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

"It is far better that we admitted a thousand devils to roam at large than that we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God and have credit among us."

"The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice."

 

1. The slavery of the Bible was *NOT* the slavery of blacks in the American south. Leviticus 25: "39 d“If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: vThen he shall go out from you, ehe and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return fto the possession of his fathers."

2. Children were often sold among the Jews as payment for debt or for survival of the family. Again, this slavery was *not* the slavery of the American south.

3. Punishment within ones religion is a *voluntary* practice. So what?

4. Adam and Eve decided to defy God. All of mankind born of Adam and Eve suffer from the the same original sin. Again, so what? That's part of a religious belief! A *voluntary* belief.

 

The story pf the Exodus is didactic literature NOT history.

Rights come from the law.. whether that's the laws handed down by a monarch, the Roman Empire or a Constitution.

 

Moses is mentioned in Greek writings. His historical existence is a subject of contention, not settled fact. So how are we to know that the Exodus is didactical?

If rights come from law then why do slaves rebel when the law says slavery is lawful?

Is it because slaves understand they have an intrinsic right to be free? Where does that intrinsic right to be free come from if it isn't a natural right?

The "law" can only suppress natural rights. The "law" can't remove natural rights. If the "law" could remove natural rights then slaves would never rebel!

 

Use your head... There have always been lawbreakers.

 

You didn't answer my question!

Why do slaves rebel if they don't feel they have an intrinsic right to be free? If the right to be free has *truly* been removed by law then where does the urge to rebel come from?

If you are honest with yourself you will have to admit the right to be free has only been suppressed by the law and not removed from the slave. So where did that suppressed right to be free come from?

 

Plato, Socrates and others determined that an evolutionary society came from a civil society and that some instincts people acted on were far more civilized than others. They then made a structure of society that recognized that those instincts leading to those behaviors need to be encouraged and respected.

Here is a short list of the two most prime rights fundamental to the function of civil society we can know today.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable the unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

 

He didn't.
Its a fable. Nothing to be basing ones rights on.

 

How were they able to claim that plot of land?
Why could not another claim it?

 

An individual's will to get them or government granting or protecting what society wants.

 

Moses is mentioned in Greek writings. So he was apparently a historical figure. So *he* isn't a fable. How do we know the rest is a fable?

 

Others could try. But my great----grandparents also had the natural right to self-defense.

As John Locke points out in his 2nd Treatise, man has the natural right to what proceeds from his labor.

 

I didn't think you agreed with might makes right?

 

Maybe he is or isn't. I was referring to god setting slaves free. Trekking across a desert. The whole exodus fable.

 

Self-defense is *NOT* might makes right.

 

You didn't answer the question. How do we know the rest is a fable?

 

Not so. Suffrage, due process and access to federal courts in civil cases are all positive rights.