http://inthereddest.com/?p=1888

quoted for emphasis :

'We have laws, such as those prohibiting drunk driving, for a reason; they protect society. The real “entitlement” culture that’s harming America isn’t that of food stamps or Social Security, but that of far-right that supports the belief that individual citizens should have nearly unlimited liberty, regardless of the consequences to other individuals or the rest of society. If the “right” you believe you’re “entitled” to causes more harm for society as a whole than it does good, or poses a direct threat to the freedom and pursuit of happiness of other people, then you are in fact not entitled to that right. Where that line is drawn between personal liberty and the general welfare is a fair and interesting conversation, but some things are just obvious.'


of course, the statement about things being 'obvious' is one I disagree with,, its a very subjecvtive perspective to determine what is 'obvious'

Yep.

NOT entitled to a RIGHT?

Really doesn't matter whether you agree or not,RIGHTS are not conditional to the approval of the Majority,except maybe in a State ruled by Mob-Rule,as most of the world is today!
Rights are inherent in the Individual,NOT something that is bestowed by the Government!

Keep on drinking that Collectivist Kool-Aid!


Individual Rights

¶

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.

The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang. In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate, and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals, and sudden, bloody coups.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

You have a lot to learn,Grasshopper!

another example of how 'obvious' is very subjective

I do believe the reason 'rights' is in quotes is to reflect how others use the word to apply to anything they desire to be able to do

not to what an actual 'right' is,,,,

people have come to confuse capability with right
we are endowed with multiple capabilities just by nature,, but not all are LEGAL or ENCOURAGED,,,and not all should be,,,,

In the same manner that a child who is never trusted with any responsibility will never grow to accept liability for his actions (leaving it in the hands of the parent), the child will also always test his boundaries of just how much he can get away with.

This is doubly true with children of the state. They are not trusted to drive sober (as evidenced by the many cops lying in wait outside taverns and by the many (less crafty) drivers they nab who have booze breath and must be tested to see if they had "too much." (this is of course a revenue bonus for the state, who usually mete;s out a hefty fine as "justice.")

What would happen if adults were fully liable for their actions and simply trusted (in the absence of evidence to the contrary…consistent with a presumption of innocence) to behave in a lawful manner? I have a friend who gave me a clue in that regard.

He used to be a cop in the former Yugoslavia under Tito. There were no cops lying in wait outside the taverns because there were no "drunk driving laws". In fact, unless you appeared to be weaving on the road, or showing some other sign that you might not be competent to drive, the cops didn't bother you at all (and if you WERE weaving on the road, they pulled you over to see if they could help, which in some cases involved an overnight stay at the jail to keep you from causing harm owing to your condition…You might even get a lecture or fine for imprudent driving but that was about it), UNLESS you caused harm to people or property! At that point you had the book thrown at you and you could be stuck in a prison for as much as twenty years for being such a grossly negligent d¡ckhead.

There were comparatively few prison inmates in Yugoslavia and drunk (imprudent) driving was almost non-existent. Even though their penitentiaries focused on rehabilitation, taught trades & such, and paid good wages (mostly received upon discharge) and (which gave the discharged con a new lease on life after he'd paid his debt to society), the example set by the heavy prison sentences served as a sufficient deterrent to crime as to make all but the most juvenile & incompetent of minds straighten up and behave without being told what will happen if they didn't. They didn't need any catchy slogans or responsible driving campaigns to get people to accept responsibility for their actions. For those nitwits who did go to jail, they only went once…The recidivism rate was practically zero.

The prison inmates, by the time they got out were not the same men who had gone in…moreover they weren't starting from square one either and left prison with enough money & skill to establish themselves as upstanding members of the community, so they were not forced back into crime to survive and were not considered unrepentent crooks who were only taking a holiday from prison. but were welcomed back into the community as mature adults by people who acknowledged their debt to society as fully paid.

After my friend told me all this, it almost made me weep for the fall of Yugoslavia and made me wish we had a system half that good here.

There are a lot of benefits to be gained by assuming the best of people, instead of the worst, and writing "laws" to keep them "in line" (while simultaneously loading the state's coffers).

John Locke dealt with this very issue in his Treaties on Civil Government; which is a favored book among the Tea Party Members, so if you want to know how your Tea Party Friends think, it would be worth reading.

Locke's Point was when a Person is on His/Her Own Property, S/he is the Master and could do as s/he pleases; once s/he left His/Her Own Property into the Public, or the Property of another, he would have to conform his/her behavior to the Law, even the Law of another Property Holder as Everyone is the Law Over Their Own Property.

In the Pubic, as Everyone has a say in the Law, the Law Must Apply to All Equally; If One May Speak on a Topic of his/her own choosing, Then All May Speak.

It is good that the far right you speak of is such a small group to do any great harm.

yugoslav has about one tenth our population and there are about 1.5 cars per capita compared to our 6 or 7

there are quite a few regional/cultural differences which make our environments different and our precautions different as well

assuming the best and being PREPARED for the worst are not exclusive concepts

we do have plenty of drunk driving accidents in this country, and noone will convince me these idiots do it because laws are in place to penalize their behavior,,,

so we take logical 'precautions' to these accidents by trying to stop them before they happen


it shouldnt be your 'right' to endanger someone else

and intentionally doing so SHOULD carry heavy consequences,, in the opinion of many in and outside of authority

As usual, you missed the boat and it sailed without you aboard.

What I SAID was that the laws here are FAR TOO LAX and assume that people are base animals who must be controlled externally before they run rampant and kill & eat one another. (i.e they are trusted to live DOWN to what we believe them to be.)

What I SAID was that an infinitely better system would be one Where the PENALTIES ARE STIFF, but assume that most people CAN BE TRUSTED TO CONTROL THEMSELVES IF given the expectation that they will act like responsible adult human beings. (i.e. they are trusted to live UP to what we believe them to be.)

As usual, people will be what they are believed to be....That's practically a law of nature.

(BTW, you shouldn't use present tense when speaking of Yugoslavia...It has been "wiped from the pages of history.")

http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/164928_276623432472741_1219269990_n.jpg



Voltaire was right!

I dont see a difference in what was posted and what we already have except that cops arent 'lying in wait' in Yugoslavia


so yeah, we should and do give people the opportunity to live UP to what they can and we also take precautions for those cases where peoples inability or unwillingness to live up to it might cause others harm,,,

Of course he was!

haaaa,,,,past slaves are cracking up at the notion,,,,,that we are now 'slaves'...

Then why does the US have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and one of the highest (if not the highest) recidivism rate(s)? Are the American people the most criminal-minded on Earth?...Why?

Would you buy a Yugo?
Those Yugoslaves drink a lot of vodka too.

Slivovitz!

Very nice post Conrad.

The best slave is the person who does not realize he is a slave. That way, he does not try to escape and be free. He serves his master with glee and gratitude.

Also, the best soldier is one who truly believes he is fighting for a just cause, even as he bombs an entire city full of men, women and children.

I have to agree...On my best day I could not have put it any better, nor even as well I'm sure.

I don't understand the point of this.