26
Aug
09

Constitutional Rights

When I engage in a political discussion, if someone says something about “Constitutional rights” he/she is instantly dismissed, in my mind. Sorry, but I can’t take anyone seriously who actually believes that “rights” come from some words written on a piece of parchment, by some deceased dudes who wore fake, powdered hair pieces.

There are no such things as “Constitutional rights.” Men, and their pieces of ink-stained paper, do not grant any “rights.”

Let’s be honest about the meaning of a “right.” Simply speaking, “rights” are entitlements.

I hear many people regularly state that there’s a “right” to education, healthcare and housing–and, now, I’m even hearing commercials for debt consolidation companies stating that you have a “right” to settle your credit card debt “for less than you owe.” What these people don’t seem to understand is that the use of force to get these things is completely unacceptable and has nothing to do with any kind of inherent “right.”

For example, no one should impede you in your desire to learn new things, schedule a medical procedure, or build/pay for a place in which to live (though government often gets in the way and screws things up). You cross the line when you feel someone else should be forced to pay for your books, tuition, school buildings, house/apartment, or chemotherapy–basically, socialism. You have no “right” to anything that someone else must be forced to provide.

Let’s look specifically at healthcare, for a moment.

Of course, you should be able to secure the help of a physician when you have healthcare needs, but a physician should not be forced to give you use of his time, talents, tools, hands, or knowledge that he spent years acquiring–and paying for. You do not own the doctor, so you have no “right” to his labor.

In my opinion, there are only what are sometimes referred to as “negative rights.” In other words, no one has a right to tell me how I can live, what I can say, where I can work, where I can travel, how I can use my time or talents, etc. To do so, is enslaving–and for a country that claims to love freedom so much, you would think all the talk of rights and using force would be a non-issue. Sadly, that’s not the case.

The next time someone talks of “rights” coming from an old piece of paper, written by deceased men, set them straight and remember: Free people don’t need “rights.”

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Constitutional Rights”


  1. 1 Godless American
    August 27, 2009 at 2:26 AM

    How utterly bizarre that you, in practicing you 1st Amendment rights, bash the idea of rights while simultaneously ignoring the entire sociological and political history of mankind.

    The Constitution is used to define rights like a dictionary defines words. Without something to define rights than anyone can do anything they want, at any time, to anyone they, with no regard for other people. It’s called a government; you know, people get together and come up with some definitions of “rights” that everyone agrees to work with.

    I understand you’re an anarchist, but I think with maturity you’ll see how foolish anarchy really is. Unless, of course, you’d prefer going back to a more barbaric period.

    • 2 anarchistpov
      August 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM

      GA, you come across as an arrogant, self-righteous and very misinformed person.

      First of all, I couldn’t care less about the “entire sociological and political history of mankind”–things that I am ashamed of, and don’t support, in the first place.

      Second, I’m not exercising any “right” when I speak; I’m simply doing what comes naturally to most humans: Communicating. A “right” implies force against others, or approval, and I need neither.

      Third, I don’t need you or anyone else to “agree” on how I can live my life. You are a regular person, like me, and you don’t own me, so where do you get off with the arrogance in thinking that I should have to “get together” with you and others to determine what I can and cannot do? You should read one of my earlier articles, “Reality Check,” for a more detailed explanation. ( https://anarchistpov.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/reality-check/ )

      Fourth, if you honestly believe that anarchy equals barbarism and chaos–and basically say, in so many words, that supporting a socialist system of slavery shows maturity–you have a severely poverty-stricken IQ.

      True anarchists are the most peaceful people on the planet, since they promote community cooperation and do NOT support the initiation of force against others. If you can somehow get barbarism from that, it shows just how uninformed you really are.

      In my opinion, it shows maturity to actually be familiar with the topic at hand, before opening your mouth and showing your ignorance.

  2. 3 David Morris
    August 27, 2009 at 2:44 AM

    Technically, you are correct. Rights are not “constitutional.” However, in all fairness, many people mean the right thing when they use the term. If you define “constitutional rights” as “rights mentioned in the Constitution” then that is really OK. The Constitution was never meant to be a limiter of rights – a definitive document of all the rights which exist. It does a fairly good job of listing many of them, however. In this day and age, however, people misuse the term and think that the Constitution gives people “positive rights”. Congress and judges certainly have gotten off the right track. “Negative rights” are the only ones which exist, since phony “rights” which impose slavery on others are not really rights, because they depend on the existence and compliance of the slaves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: