Yes, it IS a right! “Liberal” State-humpers have told us it is–because people NEED jobs, and if they NEED something, it’s automatically a right! And everyone else should be forced to provide it!
Ya nailed it. This is why the left and right can’t come to terms. They start with a different foundation.
You can not assail a religious belief. Harsh reality is the only counter, but it isn’t just harsh on the zealot (who doesn’t notice in any case.) We are in for bad times like history has never recorded. Yes, I include people eating their own children.
Right you are, ken. Just follow any of the exchanges on this blog between anyone on the pro-freedom side and State-cultists and Obama Zombies Chris Gerrib and Jim on the other. They’re living examples of what Voltaire meant by, “You can’t reason anyone out of what they first haven’t been reasoned into.
I remember being a naive 20-something and asking why food should not be a human right. Why we, in the west, fail to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, etc to all. Ya know, your typical liberal welfare argument. Most people I asked just shrugged, and some agreed. One day, a friend looked me in the eye, almost said something and then looked away. I said “no, really, tell me” and he said “someone has to provide the food, if they refuse, are we to enslave them?” and that was it. My mind was changed by a logical argument. It can happen.
Scary part is a lot of people don’t share your decency and would think nothing of enslaving people, with a heavy dose of they deserve it rationalizations.
Neither is there a “right” to food, shelter, or medical care. “Rights” that impose a positive obligation on others are not “rights”, they are properly called “welfare”, or “the dole”. “Charity”, if you enjoy tormenting the English language.
Used to be, I would regard anyone who thought that such “rights” existed and ought to be enforced in law were simply soft-headed do-gooders. Now night begins to fall, and if all the bad breaks happen, soft-headed do-gooders will become mortal enemies.
Am I the only one getting a Spanish Civil War vibe these days? I hope so.
We have a tradition which strongly suggest the military will not cooperate with a coup (assuming you don’t consider us to have already undergone a coup.)
Various militia may act and be squashed. I think it is very telling that people are not responding to my suggestion that it is a moral obligation to claim, unclaimed territory.
Our minds have already undergone a state change, so that true liberty is considered a wacko concept.
It’s not such an easy answer really. Certainly not in the sense the hard left usually means it. On the other hand, people should always have a right to enter in to a voluntary contract on whatever terms they find acceptable, provided they are not directly harming any third party. In this sense it is generally the left, through such things as minimum wage laws, that interfere with our right to work.
Sorry, but no answer is easier. Employment is something you trade for (your time and skill for their money.) So what you’re saying is you are not sure you believe in free trade. If it’s not free it’s slavery. Do you really support slavery?
The Left has twisted the meaning of a lot of words to suit their ends. Thus making open discourse impossible.
One of their most egregious twists is on the word: Right.
You ask a Lib-Dem to define a right and you get a hopeless mush of conflicting synapse firings.
But that doesn’t stop them from defining everything as a right.
As Ken Anthony said up above: the very foundations, premises, axioms that the Left takes are so at odds with those of Conservatives that discussion about higher level issues like health care or minimum wage is, I fear, a waste of time. At least that’s been my experience.
So if our Lib-Dem colleagues want to be taken seriously, they have to be willing to get down to flat basics in the discussion and start with the axioms and definitions. Conservatives have always willing to do that; the left flees from it because they are terrified. They know that they have no definitional basis. This is why they resort to emotion.
Failing that kind of discussion all we are left with are results. We know what the results are of Lib-Dem-Soccie policies – we’ve seen them for the last 400 years or so. We’ve also seen the results of Conservative policies based upon understanding of human nature. For the same 400 years.
The first, and perhaps clearest, example of both, in terms of North American history, is Plymouth.
“How about we play politicians against businessmen?”
Yes, it IS a right! “Liberal” State-humpers have told us it is–because people NEED jobs, and if they NEED something, it’s automatically a right! And everyone else should be forced to provide it!
Ya nailed it. This is why the left and right can’t come to terms. They start with a different foundation.
You can not assail a religious belief. Harsh reality is the only counter, but it isn’t just harsh on the zealot (who doesn’t notice in any case.) We are in for bad times like history has never recorded. Yes, I include people eating their own children.
“You can not assail a religious belief.”
Right you are, ken. Just follow any of the exchanges on this blog between anyone on the pro-freedom side and State-cultists and Obama Zombies Chris Gerrib and Jim on the other. They’re living examples of what Voltaire meant by, “You can’t reason anyone out of what they first haven’t been reasoned into.
I remember being a naive 20-something and asking why food should not be a human right. Why we, in the west, fail to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, etc to all. Ya know, your typical liberal welfare argument. Most people I asked just shrugged, and some agreed. One day, a friend looked me in the eye, almost said something and then looked away. I said “no, really, tell me” and he said “someone has to provide the food, if they refuse, are we to enslave them?” and that was it. My mind was changed by a logical argument. It can happen.
Scary part is a lot of people don’t share your decency and would think nothing of enslaving people, with a heavy dose of they deserve it rationalizations.
Neither is there a “right” to food, shelter, or medical care. “Rights” that impose a positive obligation on others are not “rights”, they are properly called “welfare”, or “the dole”. “Charity”, if you enjoy tormenting the English language.
Used to be, I would regard anyone who thought that such “rights” existed and ought to be enforced in law were simply soft-headed do-gooders. Now night begins to fall, and if all the bad breaks happen, soft-headed do-gooders will become mortal enemies.
Am I the only one getting a Spanish Civil War vibe these days? I hope so.
We have a tradition which strongly suggest the military will not cooperate with a coup (assuming you don’t consider us to have already undergone a coup.)
Various militia may act and be squashed. I think it is very telling that people are not responding to my suggestion that it is a moral obligation to claim, unclaimed territory.
Our minds have already undergone a state change, so that true liberty is considered a wacko concept.
It’s not such an easy answer really. Certainly not in the sense the hard left usually means it. On the other hand, people should always have a right to enter in to a voluntary contract on whatever terms they find acceptable, provided they are not directly harming any third party. In this sense it is generally the left, through such things as minimum wage laws, that interfere with our right to work.
Sorry, but no answer is easier. Employment is something you trade for (your time and skill for their money.) So what you’re saying is you are not sure you believe in free trade. If it’s not free it’s slavery. Do you really support slavery?
Mike you are not the only one.
There are just not enough people like you Trent. You must love the truth to be changed by it.
The Left has twisted the meaning of a lot of words to suit their ends. Thus making open discourse impossible.
One of their most egregious twists is on the word: Right.
You ask a Lib-Dem to define a right and you get a hopeless mush of conflicting synapse firings.
But that doesn’t stop them from defining everything as a right.
As Ken Anthony said up above: the very foundations, premises, axioms that the Left takes are so at odds with those of Conservatives that discussion about higher level issues like health care or minimum wage is, I fear, a waste of time. At least that’s been my experience.
So if our Lib-Dem colleagues want to be taken seriously, they have to be willing to get down to flat basics in the discussion and start with the axioms and definitions. Conservatives have always willing to do that; the left flees from it because they are terrified. They know that they have no definitional basis. This is why they resort to emotion.
Failing that kind of discussion all we are left with are results. We know what the results are of Lib-Dem-Soccie policies – we’ve seen them for the last 400 years or so. We’ve also seen the results of Conservative policies based upon understanding of human nature. For the same 400 years.
The first, and perhaps clearest, example of both, in terms of North American history, is Plymouth.