Is the origin of those rights the constitution? If we take them out of the Constitution do those rights cease to exist? If we add something to the Constitution does a right get created? What is the ultimate source of a right?

 

 

That is kinda the crux of my quandary. If the only things that are rights are those clearly defined in the Constitutional document and it's subsequent amendments, then a lot is assumed, and now law.

 

Is there such a thing as "rights due to tangent"? :lol:

Great argument, and I can largely agree. But, as with health care, this is a "right" that is founded upon the concept "greater good" right? It's for the good of the society.

 

Yes, I suppose that it is theoretically for the good of society.

 

For what it's worth, I don't believe that children of illegal aliens (or "undocumented people", as they are often called) should receive the benefits of "free", public education. I understand the rationale for providing them with an education (the innocent children should not be punished; prevent widening the gap between the wealthy & the poor, etc.) but I do not think that the legal citizens should pay for the illegal aliens' schooling.

 

I guess my views on education carry over to healthcare as well. :lol:

Is the origin of those rights the constitution? If we take them out of the Constitution do those rights cease to exist? If we add something to the Constitution does a right get created? What is the ultimate source of a right?

 

According the Founding Fathers:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

 

Basic rights are endowed by the Creator.

 

What is interesting is the use of the term inalienable. Some early versions fo the Declaration of Independence used the term unalienable. Unalienable rights means that it can never be taken away. Inalienable means that you can give it away if you consent to. Interestly, we seem to be giving away basic individual rights for rights "of the greater good". Thus our basic rights are only inalienable and not unalienable.

 

To this day there is no inalienable or unalienable right to education. But it is now part of the social contract and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

As for the new health insurance takeover law and whether it is a right. Again there no right. Rights are individual based. You can justify anything for "the grreater good" and the definition of "the greater good" changes over time. Rights do not change. The insurance bill has required us to give up individual rights for the "greater good". Basic rights such as freedom of association and freedom of privacy have been destroyed by this bill. But, oh well, its for the "greater good".

 

Remember this:

 

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

 

Change the word safety to insurance and it would be accurate for what is going on now.

Great argument, and I can largely agree. But, as with health care, this is a "right" that is founded upon the concept "greater good" right? It's for the good of the society.

 

Slippery slope argument as "for the good of society" has different meanings to different people.

According the Founding Fathers:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

 

Basic rights are endowed by the Creator.

 

What is interesting is the use of the term inalienable. Some early versions fo the Declaration of Independence used the term unalienable. Unalienable rights means that it can never be taken away. Inalienable means that you can give it away if you consent to. Interestly, we seem to be giving away basic individual rights for rights "of the greater good". Thus our basic rights are only inalienable and not unalienable.

 

To this day there is no inalienable or unalienable right to education. But it is now part of the social contract and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

As for the new health insurance takeover law and whether it is a right. Again there no right. Rights are individual based. You can justify anything for "the grreater good" and the definition of "the greater good" changes over time. Rights do not change. The insurance bill has required us to give up individual rights for the "greater good". Basic rights such as freedom of association and freedom of privacy have been destroyed by this bill. But, oh well, its for the "greater good".

 

Remember this:

 

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

 

Change the word safety to insurance and it would be accurate for what is going on now.

 

I seem to remember seeing that quote quite often in debates on the Patriot Act.

Thank you for considering the post in the manner it was intended.

 

I've been really considering the different "rights" we enjoy in America, especially those not guaranteed by the Consitution.

 

I also have spent some time, for a different reason, researching the "evolution" of public, tax-payer funded education. Not just in the United States, but from the earliest times, back to Plato.

 

Very interesting, the evolution of public education.

 

I've thought a little more on these two issues. Rather than my blanket statement of "...nor should the government be spending billions or trillions of dollars on either." I'd say I don't believe either should be government run or mandated. But, I'd have no issue with government assistance in some form. In a time of financial boom and excess, I wouldn't have any problem with the government putting that extra money to use on good causes like health care and education. However, when we're in a financial crisis, I think its irresponsible to spend huge amounts of money on these same issues.

I seem to remember seeing that quote quite often in debates on the Patriot Act.

 

What specific rights were impacted by the Patriot Act? Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search? Maybe there is some theoretical impact to the later due to increased wiretap capability and requirements fo financial instutions to report certain activity such as transactions above $10,000 and to proactively look for money laundering activities.

 

The new insurance take over law gives impacts 2 of these. It impacts freedom of association because it requires or forces association with government approved or government provide insurance agencies. It also provides for real time access to individual financial information. This was something the Patriot Act did not do.

 

BTW, most financial institutions are scoff laws when it comes to the Patriot Act reporting requirements. Its simply too expensive for them to put in the Anti-money laundering (AML) functions as called for in the act.

Yes, I suppose that it is theoretically for the good of society.

 

For what it's worth, I don't believe that children of illegal aliens (or "undocumented people", as they are often called) should receive the benefits of "free", public education. I understand the rationale for providing them with an education (the innocent children should not be punished; prevent widening the gap between the wealthy & the poor, etc.) but I do not think that the legal citizens should pay for the illegal aliens' schooling.

 

I guess my views on education carry over to healthcare as well. :lol:

 

Me personally, I'd rather pay for the education of a child of an illegal that actually wants to get an education than pay for the education of the child of a legal that doesn't care at all about getting an education yet sits in class, is disruptive and interferes with those interested in teaching and learning.