Where Do Rights Come From? - Letter To Professor

One of my favorite pastimes is scouring the internet for socialist educrats; then writing them demanding they answer fundamental questions regarding their statist philosophy.

Lo, I have found the greatest website on the planet:

Government Is Good.com

HAHAHAHHA *gasp* hahahahahlskflaksdjflaskdjflaskdjf *falls off chair convulsing on the floor*

Now, I have taken a moment of my precious time to write the good professor responsible for this outstanding exercise in Orwellian logic.

The following is the letter I sent him:

Dear Professor Amy,

I noticed you talk extensively about “rights” and the protection of rights on your website.

I think it would be great if you laid out a clear definition of just what a “right” entails.

Personally, I subscribe to the definition given by Jefferson, in which he states, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

To me, that makes perfect sense.

Where “rights” are a sphere of influence and action boiled down to two things, my ability to do whatever I want to do as long as whatever it is I am doing isn’t harming anyone else, along with ownership of myself and my property.

Someone is “infringing” on my rights when they take an action that causes harm to my “person or property.”

Clearly you must disagree with this definition of where rights come from. By the definition I just proposed, rights derive from the world I live in and my ability to act freely within that world. I’m having a hard time understanding what you feel a right entails and where those rights ultimately are derived from.

I feel such a definition is fundamental before any argument over governments role in protecting our rights can take place.

Thanks,

Michael Suede

My pants are off as I await his reply.

In the meantime, listen to a lecture by a real professor on where rights come from here:

Tom Woods: Where Do Rights Come From?

In response to this lecture, Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein released this statement:

“My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”

Sunstein went on to argue that rights don’t actually arise from the natural world but from groups of people banding together in acts of looting. Sunstein claimed that only government can give us our rights; thus, without government no rights would exist; therefore, we must have unlimited government in order to give us unlimited rights.

Praise Mao.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

Praise Mao.

Pseudo Intellectuals like Sunstein-should get their crap spread as much as possible to show their idiocy.

Posted to keep track, want to know how the pseudo will respond.

Originally posted by endisnighe

Praise Mao.

Pseudo Intellectuals like Sunstein-should get their crap spread as much as possible to show their idiocy.

Posted to keep track, want to know how the pseudo will respond.

Sir, I am breathless with anticipation.

I suspect it will be a cut'n paste from Orwell's 1984.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."

Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

www.theadvocates.org...

Answer just a few questions and it will display the political party that best represents your views.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I didnt know Snake Pliskin was a Libertarian!

Consider the war won.

Sunstein went on to argue that rights don’t actually arise from the natural world but from groups of people banding together in acts of looting. Sunstein claimed that only government can give us our rights; thus, without government no rights would exist; therefore, we must have unlimited government in order to give us unlimited rights.

Now that the world has become secular, the state can no longer utilize divine right or the will of God to justify its own existence. Now they claim something so out there, that it actually offends statists. Instead of a 'social contract' (though morally reprehensible on its own), they have come to reject the very notion that people have these rights to begin with.

Instead of 'voluntarily' giving up ones rights in a coerced social contract, we are now being told that we never had them.

It's like we are having a crazy-off and the government is constantly winning.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


What is morally reprehensible about a social contract?

I never quite understand the position of folks who think all government is wrong and evil. Some governments and some forms of government are wrong and evil, but government per se is necessary: anarchy is workable only for the utterlly ruthless whose only morality is "it's good for me at the moment".

A social contract defines the shape of social intercourse, and every single society that has ever existed was based upon one. What defines a good one is how well it takes care of those weakest and least able to care for themselves, and by that I definitely don't mean just children: the aged, infirm, and socially inept must be included or it's not a very good one. A good social contract places limits on those who have no moral compass of their own to tell them to take only what they reallly need and leave some for evryone else, and to tell them that might does NOT make right just because they can beat everyone else up and take what isn't freely given.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Now that the world has become secular, the state can no longer utilize divine right or the will of God to justify its own existence. Now they claim something so out there, that it actually offends statists. Instead of a 'social contract' (though morally reprehensible on its own), they have come to reject the very notion that people have these rights to begin with.

Instead of 'voluntarily' giving up ones rights in a coerced social contract, we are now being told that we never had them.

It's like we are having a crazy-off and the government is constantly winning.

Sir, the only thing that is crazy is your disrespect for the State!

I am alive, therefore I am entitled to keep myself alive, thus I am entitled to put a gun to your head and force you to labor for my healthcare.

See? Simple, beautiful, perfect.

The Utopian dream of total harmony can only be realized by me holding a gun to your head. You simply need to accept this fact and get back to work.

Now.

What defines a good one is how well it takes care of those weakest and least able to care for themselves

Ah yes, the children.

What would they do without nanny government to educate, feed, house, clothe, reprimand evil parents, and in all other aspects take care of them?

THE HORROR!

My logic goes like this:

1. I have a child

2. I come to your house, put a gun to your head, loot everything you have, then use that money to raise my child.

3. Profit

Lets look at the elderly from the same perspective.

1. I get old

2. I come to your house, put a gun to your head, loot everything you have worked for in your life.

3. Profit


However - this does not account for evil corporations that have robbed me by actually producing things I want and *gasp* profiting at the same time they are doing so.

Thus, I also will come to your place of employment, put a gun to your employers head, loot him of all his labor, then - you guessed - profit.

BUT

BUT

BUT

Here's the truly beautiful thing.

Because I am a busy man with important things to do, I can't actually be bothered to come to your home and loot you personally. Thus, I have contracted out my looting to some nice men with badges and guns to do the looting for me.

IMHO this is the only proper way to run a society.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I take it either you don't read complete sentences or you like to distort: I specifically said I didn't mean that.

What you describe is the very thing a good social contract prevents. It holds the people who create messes accountable for them, preventing or at least mitigating horrors like Love Canal and thalidomide. corporations aren't necessarily evil, but if they aren't held to a higher standard than merely making profits at all costs, then they can be.

What I find strange is that corporatist apologists always, always, always want to privatize profits while socializing costs, and utterly fail to see the irony in it.

Capitalist corporations are the biggest promoters of socialism on the planet.

reply to post by apacheman


Sir, if you were rich, would you donate freely to the poor?

Of course not.

That's why I have a gun.

Being greedy is actually a crime against nature, and I'm here to make sure you don't violate the laws of nature.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Why wouldn't I?

Here is a pertinent Native American aphorism:

"No man can be rich who takes proper care of his family."

While I'm pretty sure you won't comprehend it, it is quite true. I have been rich in my life, and poor, in both cases I've shared freely with those less fortunate (and there's always someone less fortunate).

I pity your lack of empathy and understanding, it obviously makes you an unhappily threatened person.

reply to post by apacheman


Well, I have to assume you wouldn't because you assume others wouldn't.

That's what psychologists call projection.

Lets look at this another way.

If I was rich, do you think I would donate freely to the poor without coercion?

Lets put some hard number perspectives on charitable giving.

In 2008, American's donated over 300 billion in charitable contributions.

There are 35 million people living below the poverty line.

That breaks down to $8571.00 dollars of charitable giving for each poor person in America.

What do you think that number would be if there were no taxes at all?

No medicare tax, no social security tax, no income tax, no property tax, etc..

Think it might be just a tad higher?

Do you think if hospitals, doctors, medical equipment provides, etc.. were allowed to get rich in a free market, that they might donate their time, equipment, and money to those who could not afford to pay?

That was once the case in this nation.

Prior to medical care at the point of a gun, the poor could easily find adequate medical care through charity hospitals. Charity hospitals have now almost been eliminated entirely. Government has removed the necessity of charity through medicare and has massively distorted and inflated medical costs at the same time.

Now the poor are worse off than they were prior to the system being put in place.




[edit on 26-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Upon what do you base that assumption?

And based on your posts, I do believe you wouldn't give a dime to anyone if you could help it.

The wealthy don't generally give unless they get a tax break for it, or they can turn it into a PR boost, or a business opportunity. The wealthy are wealthy mainly because they use other peoples' money for their "investments" (gambling), and they acknowledge no debt to others for anything, and delude themselves into thinking they "create" wealth as opposed to taking it.

Most of the money that is donated in America comes from people who don't have very much themselves: poor people donate more than rich ones do, and don't give for any other motive than to actually help those who need help.




[edit on 26-2-2010 by apacheman]

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Upon what do you base that assumption?

And based on your posts, I do believe you wouldn't give a dime to anyone if you could help it.

The wealthy don't generally give unless they get a tax break for it, or they can turn it into a PR boost, or a business opportunity. The wealthy are wealthy mainly because they use other peoples' money for their "investments" (gambling), and they acknowledge no debt to others for anything, and delude themselves into thinking they "create" wealth as opposed to taking it.

Most of the money that is donated in America comes from people who don't have very much themselves: poor people donate more than rich ones do, and don't give for any other motive than to actually help those who need help.

OK, lets go through this.

1. I have given to Save The Children regularly, not that it matters. That's a personal choice and I certainly wouldn't force anyone - rich or poor - to contribute anything against their will.

2. The mega-rich in this country didn't get rich by gambling other peoples money, they got rich by gambling or stealing YOUR money. And who gave them that money? Your loving government.

A full lecture on the fundamentals of free market economics is too much for a forum post, but rest assured these key points are true:

1. In a pure free market, competition reduces all profits to zero.

2. Monopolies can only be maintained by force of government.

3. Government contracts, kickbacks, tax breaks, regulations, subsidies, and control of interest rates = Corporate control of those very same things.

Mega-corporations get rich by using government as a tool to suppress competition and to horde tax payer dollars.

Without government, there would be very few mega-corporations and absolutely no monopolies.

Corporations are not inherently evil, any more than you or I are inherently evil. Corporations act in their own self interest. - thus, they take control of government to do their biding because it is in their best self interest.

Government does not serve the poor, and in fact, government can NEVER serve the poor. It is impossible. As government gains in power it will always be corrupted by the influence of corporate America.

The only people that can serve the poor are you and me. The free market and charity serves the poor a thousand times more than government ever could because it forces prices down, quality up, and encourages charitable contributions directly to the poor without bureaucracy.

Oh yeah, and this:

Most of the money that is donated in America comes from people who don't have very much themselves: poor people donate more than rich ones do, and don't give for any other motive than to actually help those who need help.

was covered by ABC News here:

abcnews.go.com...

unsurprisingly, by John Stossel.

While the poor give the most in terms of their income, the rich by far give the most in terms of actual dollars.

Those with incomes of 1 million or more a year make up 50% of charitable givers in the nation.

reply to post by apacheman

What is morally reprehensible about a social contract?

It is not a contract at all, but one party forcing another to do something and calling it voluntary.

A group of people wrote a document over 200 years ago. They then force all people within a certain geographical region to abide by this contract from now until forever. Then they do not abide by the very contract they wrote, and claim it is for your own good.

What is not morally reprehensible?

Some governments and some forms of government are wrong and evil,

Show me one form of government that has not led to theft, murder, and human suffering.

but government per se is necessary

There is no moral argument to legitimize this assumption. When is theft, murder, and destruction of individuals and their property necessary to prevent theft, murder, and destruction of individuals and their property?

Government is not necessary.

Let 'X' stand for all bad things people do. 'A' is the whole of humanity. Within 'A' is group 'B' and 'C'.

Group 'C' is given the sole responsibility to do 'X' in order to prevent people in group 'B' from doing 'X'.

'A' (the whole of humanity) is not better off when the right to perpetrate 'X' (bad deeds) is given to a small sect of society, 'C', that has convinced the rest of the people 'B' that the existence for this relationship is necessary.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

GOVERNMENT is workable only for the utterlly ruthless whose only morality is "it's good for me at the moment".

I corrected your statement.

A good social contract places limits on those who have no moral compass of their own to tell them to take only what they reallly need and leave some for evryone else, and to tell them that might does NOT make right just because they can beat everyone else up and take what isn't freely given.

It sounds like your definition of a good social contract is one made entirely out of hopes, dreams, and the perennial pursuit of a socially engineered utopia. Good luck with that. It is interesting how this has never existed and will never exists when a group of people are given a monopoly on the intrusive violence of statism.


I guess I do not understand what binds me to a contract I didn't write, sign, or even agree with. Government is a cancer on humanity. Taxes are theft, wars are murder, and all of it is based on the point of a gun.