Submitted By Todd on March 7th at 10:51am
he believes in giving rights to people that aren't rights at all. The ability to support such a thing signals that you're dealing with a liberal - or, more commonly, someone who hasn't explored and doesn't understand the nature of what rights are - or worse, someone who simply doesn't believe in America. What are positive rights? They are rights that are antithetical to the notion of freedom - the opposite of what Americans know rights to be.
The "positive" in positive rights refers to the fact that to satisfy these rights, other people must provide them. They require action from others, instead of inaction. A "right" to health care is such a right. In order to fulfill it, a doctor must be enslaved. The doctor may be paid of course, but then others are required to pay the bill.Real rights, such as those upon which the U.S. Constitution are based, are bizarrely called Negative Rights.
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute. A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others.Consider the rights that our nation is built upon - rights that are guaranteed to individuals by limiting the power of government to act.
First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The great privilege of the United States is the opportunity to carve your own path in life, and to be the beneficiary of the results of your efforts. Liberals can't cope with the inequities that are inherent in the concept of liberty - instead, they seek to guarantee end results for people - what they call Positive Rights. This is accomplished by infringing on the real rights of others.
Positive rights are not compatible with real rights, or "negative rights". The positive right requires actions on the part of others. Negative rights require that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want. The two are incompatible. Positive rights are accepted at the expense of negative rights... they are polar opposites.Positive Rights aren't positive at all. They are negative insomuch as they are only accomplished by limiting the rights of others. They also aren't rights, as rights are fundamental to the human experience - a man is fully in possession of his rights even if he is the only man on the planet. The lone man has the right to free speech, the right to exercise the religion of his choice, the right to his own property, etc, without needing other people to sustain those rights. With Positive Rights, others are needed in order to make those benefits possible by taking things from them.
Understanding this is essential to the debate over Universal Health Care. The mantra of "health care is a right," that has been programmed into the heads of Americans frustrated over the high costs of health care, without a conversation over how to reduce those costs, is parroted without the speaker understanding what a right is. The President is one who seeks to make America into a country that guarantees results for people rather than guaranteeing one's right to succeed or fail based on one's own talents and drive.
When you confront the parrot, tell them that there's no such thing as a right to health care because rights aren't things that are built upon the productivity of others.