Friday, August 13, 2010

Not everything is a 'right'

So this was the photo on Drudge Report this morning:

Now, I have no idea about the context of the photo since it wasn't in the posted article about youth unemployment at record levels, but it struck me nonetheless as being so ... wrong.

I don't have a 'right' to a job. Rights are not something granted by someone else - whether it is a house, a job or health care. Rights are not 'given' by other entities, though they can be respected by others. Rights are inherent - unalienable, as our Constitution says.

A job is something that someone else must give to you. An individual or business must decide that they have a need you can fill and you must agree that you are willing to fill that need for the price being offered. It's more of a contract or agreement that benefits both parties.

A house is a similar situation. If someone owns a property and I want to live there, I can't just demand access to it in order to fill my own needs.

Health care is the same thing. In order to receive any type of medical treatment, I must be willing to pay someone else for their skills, knowledge, etc.

I do not have the ability to confiscate another's property (pay for work performed, house or other shelter, or intellectual knowledge which they have gained often at great cost) simply because I have a need.

Now, if we are all abiding by our moral and/or religious teachings, we know that we - individually - have an obligation to 'help' others by offering some of these items, either through our talents or our assets (money or property).

Somewhere along the way, the idea that such charity was a governmental function has become accepted. Even some churches are supporting the government takeover of the personal obligation, which is clearly a distortion of the teachings.

And with government assuming the individual obligation, those within the government have perpetuated the false notion that simply because someone has a 'need,' they also have a 'right' to force others to provide for that need.

We saw some of this type of thinking with the Housing Trust Fund this week in Toledo as members of the Fund openly stated that government has a "moral" obligation to help people in need. Of course, no one asked the members of Toledo City Council how much they've contributed personally to this 'need' before taking taxpayers' money and spending it on a non-governmental function that benefits only a few.

What it boils down to is this: 'needs' are not 'rights.' Just because you have a need, it does not mean that you can take from others to satisfy that need. And the sooner that individuals recognize and support this concept, the sooner the government will as well.

1 comment:

Tim Higgins said...


These are not rights but "Lefts", part of the continuing onslaught designed to redefine the discussion in this country.

You do however have the 'freedom' to look for a job, to work hard and pay for a place to live, to seek and pay for health care, and to give to others in need from your generosity.

Most of what these people consider their rights is little more than a form of wealth redistribution being demanded at the point of the government gun. You know, what most of us consider a legal form of armed robbery...

Google Analytics Alternative