The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Rights vs Privileges

Well, this is a blog post with typos, but it gets to a distinction I find vitally important—the difference between rights and privileges.

Somewhere today I saw or heard something about health care not being a right in the United States, guaranteed by the Constitution, unlike some nations in Europe.

Hello!  Rights are against the Government.  Not against nature or God.

The Federal Government can give you health care, but it is not yours by right, unless you are arguing that the Federal Government is deliberately denying you health care.  Free Speech is a right, as is the right to assemble and to petition the Government.  Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right.  A job is not a right.  I am betting that is why Franklin D Roosevelt called them the "Four Freedoms", since the last two are goals or aspirations.  You can't go to the US Supreme Court and demand the Federal Government, or your state government, remove your "Want" or "Fear".  Those kinds of things you have to earn.

And so collective bargaining with your local government unit is not a right against the Government, it is something granted to you by the Government.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

2 comments:

Mr. Lynne said...

"Rights are against the Government."

Framing the description or properties of rights this way seems incorrect too me. Surely my right to be free from assault extends to non-government actors, yes? Also, the above concept makes an "inalienable right" an oxymoron.

Later, when you say "And so collective bargaining with your local government unit is not a right against the Government, it is something granted to you by the Government.", I think this is wrong as well. It frames rights as something I can't have until a Government defines them. This would also conflict with "inalienable rights". It also puts the 'default position' on 'non-right' until 'defined by a governing body'. I certainly don't think that's what people in general think nor the framers. I'd think the default position, rather, is 'right by default' until prohibited by a declaration by a governing body.

lance said...

You may have to blog again. This one did not make sense. "Rights are against the Government" leaves me puzzled. My basic right is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; are Government's formed to prevent that or help that? By nature will a Government tend to take away rights and so the constitution or common law requires that Government be restricted? is that what you mean by "against the Government?"

Then you wander all over. Collective bargaining have always been considered "rights" that have been won by the trading of something equitable, but now we propose to take away the right earned, based on concessions, and keep the concessions and even more. A Government is people and the Government must be fair or it will be overthrown in the long run.

And the red herring of health care? Well once again I would posit that it is the Government's obligation, not a right, to help care for the sick, just as it would be for anyone of any faith.