2007-05-02

Rights? What Rights?

(Hat tip to Galt for getting us thinking about this.)

Over the last several decades, it seems that just about every demographic group you can think of has managed to dream up ever more bizarre "rights" which they demand that the courts enforce, usually with your money.

It should be noted that John Locke postulated that there were three inalienable rights -- the right to life, liberty and property. (How that last one got morphed into "the pursuit of happiness" is stil being discussed. But we note with disdain that the rights-mongers have even managed to bastardize that into the "right" to happiness at all costs, paid for if necessary by someone else.)

In the beginning -- as is with all such things -- it began innocently and properly enough. There was never any excuse for the legalized discrimination against Blacks. The law should have been perfectly neutral on the subject. If you choose not to serve Blacks at your lunch counter, so be it. No matter how petty and/or short-sighted that might be. But for the law to mandate that you are not allowed to serve Blacks at the same lunch counter as Whites is just flat-out wrong. And so we had the beginnings of the "civil rights" movement.

Unfortunately, as with all fanatics, the professional do-gooders weren't satisfied with simply overturning bad laws. They insisted on having the courts enforce their particular brand of "morality" -- at the point of a gun, if necessary. And so we wound up with "women's rights", which led most notably to the right to commit murder for the convenience of the mother. Now there's "'gay' rights", "immigrant rights", and who knows what else.

Oddly missing in all of this hysteria about everyone's perceived "rights" is any talk at all of responsibility. Apparently, almost everyone has a right to almost everything, but no one has any responsibilities.

Perhaps P. J. O'Rourke said it best: "There is only one basic human right -- the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human obligation -- the obligation to take the consequences."

Right on.

3 Comments:

At 11:58 PM, May 05, 2007, Blogger Galt-In-Da-Box said...

Therein lies the problem: THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES ANYMORE!
It's been proven by our "justice" (HA!!!) system, that you can murder someone in broad daylight on a street corner, and get away with it, but you better not drink and drive because you might kill someone...WTF!?
There's something quite the matter when if YOU steal, you'll get thrown in jail, but if government robs people to give you the loot, that's okay!
And don't even get me started on altruistic do-gooders. God save U. S. from those trying to brown-nose their way into heaven!

 
At 3:00 PM, May 06, 2007, Blogger Master Doh-San said...

What's that old line about courts being "a place where justice is dispensed with"? :-)

Beware of anything that's done "for your own good".

(And have you noticed that all their do-gooding is just like brocolli? They might not like it themselves, but they're convinced it'll do you a world of good.)

 
At 3:48 PM, May 07, 2007, Blogger Galt-In-Da-Box said...

Broccoli is actually pretty good - with sharp cheddar melted over it and real bacon bits!
And tobacco is much healthier than fascism!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home