Volstead Lounge
Confusing 'Rights' With 'Wants'
RECEIVED Wed., Aug. 5, 2009
Dear Editor,
Tom Cuddy ended his letter on rights and health care with "to claim that the right to health care is fundamentally different from a right to own property is wrong" [“Postmarks” online, Aug. 4].
He started the letter with "conservatives have long attacked the notion of rights held by the left, the sort of rights that include a right to health care. Conservatives claim this sort of thing might be a social good but cannot be a right because it puts an obligation on another party to provide this right. Under closer inspection however, many commonly accepted rights also rest on an obligation from another to provide said right."
Actually, there is a fundamental difference. The difference, however, is how many liberals and conservatives view rights. Rights are not "provided" by the government, and this is an important distinction to make; rights are "protected" by the government.
He fleshed out his argument by saying that, "The right to own property rests on a structure of police, courts, laws, and a punishment regime."
Because there is a legal framework in place to protect a given right is not to say that the government has an obligation to purchase for you the object, in this case, that your rights are tied to. In other words, I have a right to own property, but Uncle Sam is not obligated to give me free land. Likewise, I have a right to protect myself by keeping and bearing arms, but the government isn't obligated in any way to give me a gun. The question begging to be asked is, what other desired goods and services provided in the marketplace should be given freely? Quite frankly, Cuddy is confusing rights with wants.
Let's look at this statement of Mr. Cuddy's again, because it is of paramount importance to all of us. Rights "rest on an obligation from another [the government] to provide said right." When we start to believe that the government provides instead of protects rights, we start moving into a dangerous area. Rest assured, if the government, or more rightly, politicians, "provide" our rights, then they damn sure can take them away when it suits them, and then of course there would be no such thing as "inalienable rights."
Tom Cuddy ended his letter on rights and health care with "to claim that the right to health care is fundamentally different from a right to own property is wrong" [“Postmarks” online, Aug. 4].
He started the letter with "conservatives have long attacked the notion of rights held by the left, the sort of rights that include a right to health care. Conservatives claim this sort of thing might be a social good but cannot be a right because it puts an obligation on another party to provide this right. Under closer inspection however, many commonly accepted rights also rest on an obligation from another to provide said right."
Actually, there is a fundamental difference. The difference, however, is how many liberals and conservatives view rights. Rights are not "provided" by the government, and this is an important distinction to make; rights are "protected" by the government.
He fleshed out his argument by saying that, "The right to own property rests on a structure of police, courts, laws, and a punishment regime."
Because there is a legal framework in place to protect a given right is not to say that the government has an obligation to purchase for you the object, in this case, that your rights are tied to. In other words, I have a right to own property, but Uncle Sam is not obligated to give me free land. Likewise, I have a right to protect myself by keeping and bearing arms, but the government isn't obligated in any way to give me a gun. The question begging to be asked is, what other desired goods and services provided in the marketplace should be given freely? Quite frankly, Cuddy is confusing rights with wants.
Let's look at this statement of Mr. Cuddy's again, because it is of paramount importance to all of us. Rights "rest on an obligation from another [the government] to provide said right." When we start to believe that the government provides instead of protects rights, we start moving into a dangerous area. Rest assured, if the government, or more rightly, politicians, "provide" our rights, then they damn sure can take them away when it suits them, and then of course there would be no such thing as "inalienable rights."
Patrick Zepeda
