We are hearing the terms entitlement, entitled to, rights, and right to so often these days. I cringe everytime I hear them wondering what new entitlement or right has been discovered at taxpayers' expense. Should any entitlement/right be at the expense of another person. Should funding for an "e/r" demand the resources, money (taxes), talents, skills, services, etc. of other individuals? What do I really believe about rights?
Like other claims, these terms are used so often with the assumption that if the right or entitlement can be repeated often enough and loud enough and if it can be attached to a particular group, it can leapfrog right over the logic log into the Lake of Loosely Managed Legal Opportunism and onto a slippery, slimey lily pad of nebulous civic contracts. Gee, that was fun! Oh, come on now. Does it really have to make sense. Loosen up!
Have you considered what your basic rights are as a mere human on planet earth? The Bill of Rights enumerates a few for us as Americans.
#1 - freedom of religion (much diminished), speech (scratch this one, it's gone), press, assembly, & redress of grievances (overused-so many are grieved to the point of suing for $'s to soothe their little psychies);
#2 - freedom to keep and bear arms (under attack);
#3 - in peacetime military cannot take your home for housing without your permission (guess this one was a problem at sometime in our history);
#4 - protects against unreasonable search and seizure;
#5 - due process;
#6 - right to a speedy trial (really) and counsel (those speedy counsels are called ambulance chasers);
#7 - common law guidelines (don't really understand this one);
#8 - no excessive bail or fines nor cruel and unusual punishment (no problem there);
#9 - Constitutional rights do not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (states); and
#10 - powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (states rights - this one's in jeopardy).
Several years ago I heard a Republican couple claim on national t.v. that they had a "right" to good childcare. Oh, my gosh. I almost slid out of my chair. Republicans, no less. I always knew that Dems felt that if "they could name it, they could claim it" as a right. But a Republican. We are in dire straits, indeed. But then, I guess if it works for the dems....Nah. Can't go there.
So now in America we have a growing list of rights when my own personal list is soooo short. Here's my list: I have the right to:
#1 - live up to my potential limited only by my own initiative and choices, etc.;
#2 - work as hard as I want in order to obtain the kind of lifestyle I desire;
#3 - fellowship with God any time or place either aloud (some restrictions) or quietly;
#4 - commune with nature and enjoy the world around me any time or place;
#5 - love and appreciate my family and friends all the time;
#6 - * breathe natural air unpoluted by cigarette smoke and the obnoxious/dangerous fumes generated by corporations or the public who lack sensibilities or responsibility toward their fellow citizens (stop and take a deep breath-we're almost there) as long as it does not infringe on their ability to produce a product/service necessary for the continuation of the human race (necessary is the key word and sorry for the long sentence-are you okay?);
#7 - have as many children as I can afford;
#8 - starve to death if I decide not to work;
#9 - drop dead from an unhealthy lifestyle and too much Blue Bell;
#10 - control my own destiny and the destiny of my underage (17 yrs. & younger) children short of denying them food or shelter or imposing torture to their bodies (some is okay) or minds.
Well, I guess it is not so short. I may add to this list from time to time. These may not even be rights as much as they are personal responsibilities and consequences.
But, did you notice something about my list? None of my rights required your taxes to go up. None required you to help me out financially. And this is what makes my list totally out of the reach of the government and any intervention they might impose. There's nothing here that should require legislation for public funding.
The truth is that some of the rights I hold dear have actually been addressed in the halls of congress and some of those rights are being enjoyed now only until they are challenged in court. The one that comes to mind immediately is the right I claim to paddle my child (in theory only as my children are grown). Some state agencies want to eliminate paddling altogether. By virtue of the perceived threat of the state's intervention in this family matter, most parents feel compelled to relinquish this form of punishment rather than risk having their children taken from then while having to do battle in a courtroom to regain custody. The liberals have sold most state and federal agencies on the notion that paddling is a form of child abuse. This is, of course, contrary to Bible teaching, to good common sense, and the test of time. Generations of children were disciplined in this manner, suffered neither permanent damage to their posteriors or their personalities, and were safer in their environments than children of today. There is something to be said for a little healthy fear of pain.
The state has also sabotaged my parental authority in determining whether or not my child has the right to an abortion or the services of the local Planned Parenthood Clinic. I guess this is one of the most odious examples of the liberals move to take control of our families. We know that Planned Parenthood Clinics operate either on high school campuses across the country or very near the campuses in order to service their customers--our precious daughters and sons. All of this is done behind the backs of parents who would most likely refuse their services. School districts do not seem to protest this invasion of the home. The rationale for allowing this is the liberal argument that some girls would not seek their services because they would have to face an angry parent. Oh really! Being afraid of an angry parent has served for eons as a deterent to bad behavior.
Many of the rights proclaimed by groups and individuals are attached to a law or legislation that will require money from the national treasury for funding. For example, the right to: daycare and after-school care for children of working moms, summer school assistance plus daycare, health insurance for children of indigent parents, health insurance for all, etc. The list goes on.
I acknowledge that these "rights" highlight problem areas for folks in our communities who lack sufficient funds. My problem is that they are labelled "rights." They are not. One person, no matter what his/her plight, does not have a claim on another person's income or resources. We may, as a community or government, decide to assist people with problems, but not because they have a right to the assistance. They should get it out of our moral commitment to help those who need help.
It would seem that many today focus on what they can get from this country and not what they can give. Sounds like something President Kennedy once said, "Ask not ...." And, it is in the "getting" that the rights list grows longer and longer because folks have looked through the window of opportunism and not through the window of opportunity. Opportunism is the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences [Websters]. Opportunity exists when a person recognizes a good chance for advancement or progress when a favorable juncture of circumstances exists.
In America a favorable juncture of circumstances exists and has existed for several hundred years for most folks. Our culture has tried to right the wrongs of our history when various groups were denied access to those favorable circumstances. No culture is perfect; no governmental system is without flaws. To the credit of our founding fathers, a system to redress these injustices was written into our form of government, and the Bill of Rights took its rightful place beside the other important documents. Thus, with few exceptions, no person in America can say that they have been denied the right to follow his/her dreams and just maybe achieve them. Achieving them is not a right, only the attempt.
Bottom line: If a right requires that someone else pay, it isn't a right. Am I wrong? Whatever your feelings are on welfare or charity, the focus here is on the use of the term "rights." Check the Bill of Rights list. None require federal or state funding.
I welcome your comments. Would enjoy seeing your list of rights. There is so much more that can be said on this topic, but enough for now.
* On the national scale, types of air polution may require some legislation, but surely I should be able to suck oxygen in most places without someone's smoke drifting into my nose space. The exception-in your house or your space. I can leave.
No comments:
Post a Comment