posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:42 PM
Well, let's try something. Let's look at the rights in the US Constitution and see what they have in common:
Right to free speech does not include a right to threaten, of course, nor does it include the right to cause a riot or other danger to public
safety. It also does not include the right to post on an Internet site or speak on a radio or TV. It means you can freely speak your opinion. That's
Right to peaceable assembly does not mean you can assemble on private property not your own. It means you can assemble with others, in a
peaceable manner, on your own property or (supposedly) on public property.
Right to freedom of the press does not mean the right to have printing presses. It simply means if you have the ability to print, you may print
whatever you wish as long as it does not cause a danger to the public, slander or threaten others, or violate private intellectual property rights of
Right to keep/bear arms does not include the right to obtain arms. You must still create/purchase them.
Freedom of religion does not give any rights to have a specific building in a specific location, and it cannot violate the peace or the
sanctity of the laws. You have a right to freely worship, but you do not have the right to take from others to do so.
Freedom to petition the government allows one to complain without danger of prosecution when they believe the government has acted illegally.
This can be considered an extension of the freedom of speech, and subject to the same restrictions.
Freedom from unreasonable search/seizure means the government cannot take your property or search your property without just cause and due
process of law.
I see two things in common here. First, all of these rights require nothing from others in society to maintain. No one is required to do anything for
you or to furnish you with anything. Second, all of these rights are limited by the selfsame rights of others.
Now, if you consider the right to breathe, yes, that could be considered a right. The right to breathe clean air would not, since someone would then
be required to clean the air to your standards. The right to food cannot be a right, since someone must grow/produce the food. The same with water.
The same with a job. That would require someone to pay you.
Food, water, and clean air are needs, yes, but not rights. They cannot be rights unless the rights of others are taken away. And in any society where
the rights of even one citizen can be taken away for the benefit of another, the recipient can just as easily become the donor. You want the right to
food? Fine, but then you give up your right to not work. Don't like the pay? Tough, you wanted the 'right', therefore you will be required to
produce in exchange for it.
Johnmike is absolutely correct. Food and water are human needs, not rights. Even access to food and water would not work, because that would turn into
fights over a certain type of food when it became scarce.
Now, to the issue of letting the elderly starve, that is ludicrous. The United States is the single most charitable nation on earth, giving more than
any other, both in total and per capita from both the government and private citizens/organizations. We want no one to starve, because for most of us
at least, it behooves us to care for those less fortunate. That is not a right we are extending, but rather compassion. And, of course, our reward is
to hear all the allegations of what cruel people we are because we do not go along with some doomed social experiment.
We are all individuals, all with talents and abilities. The way we use these abilities determines our position in a capitalistic system. Oh, yes, and
remember that the USA is the single largest exporter of food in the world. We became that by being a capitalistic society. Now go ahead and complain
about how we are killing everyone while you enjoy your Campbell's Soup or Planters Nuts or Green Giant veggies. Go ahead, we can take it. We're used