I went to a class yesterday that was part rifle marksmanship and part Revolutionary War history, and we spent about eight hours lying on our bellies in very cold mud (and it's always a good way to remind yourself of what soldiers sacrifice to go home afterward and take a hot shower and realize how lucky you are), and it was pretty fun for the most part.
But the instructors gave a big speech at the end about how America was in trouble and the government wasn't going to save America, the educational system wasn't going to save America, it was up to people like us to save America.
...Save America from what?
My friend whispered "the blacks and the gays," and I hope she wasn't right. I'm guessing it's maybe a little of that (and the feminists, and the immigrants, and the liberals, and the atheists, and the Je... "Hollywood and finance types," and whatnot), but a lot more of the idea that the government is intolerably oppressive, and just some free-floating feeling that things are getting worse all the time.
Which I don't share. I know I have a Pollyanna streak, but I don't see America as a nation in distress. We have plenty of problems, yes, but this is still basically an amazing place. We have more liberties than anywhere else in the First World and more privileges than anywhere that isn't First World. And I certainly believe in defending those liberties but I don't believe that they're going down the drain that fast.
In a weird way, the "oh no America is in ruins" rhetoric reminds me of paranoid Christians talking about the evil of "the world" or paranoid feminists talking about how patriarchy is eeeeeverrrywhere. There's a certain mindset that sees the outside world as degraded (and themselves glorified by contrast), and I want nothing to do with that mindset.
Maybe my context is a little different because I'm Jewish, and I've heard my grandmother's stories about what it's like when they really take your rights away, and to hear her tell it, it's not some subtle thing you'd have to read just the right blogs to know about. Taxation may be "holding your grandmother at gunpoint," but buddy, my grandmother's been held at gunpoint.
That's a nation in distress. And frankly that's the only political reason I'm learning to shoot. Because as long as guns, and the knowledge of how to use them, are distributed among the people, it'll be a lot harder to run a Holocaust. Nobody--not the government, not another government, not a group of crazy people of any stripe--will have an easy time taking over a country where any citizen has the power to fight back. If there was a war on our soil, the doorstep of every armed household would be its own front line.
But don't go telling me that because they passed a healthcare bill and you had to pay taxes and there were some scary blog posts that the war is on now. This is a great nation--right now, as it is, this is a wonderful place and if you think this is distress you've never seen distress. If you think that there's cause to take up arms right now, well--frankly, buddy, you're part of the reason I have guns.
I believe in readiness, but not paranoia. I am prepared for threats, but I'm reasonable enough to know when there really aren't that many and I'm free to live my life. My gun is by my bed, but it's not in my hand.
"the blacks and the gays"
ReplyDeleteIt always amazes me that anyone actually still believes this about the constitutionalist gun-toter type, or the tea-partier type, given that it always turns out to be made up. It shouldn't amaze me; people believe all kinds of crazy things, especially when it assuages their own guilt or reinforces their own sense of superiority, which is the case with most promoters of this myth.
People are astonishingly good at hawklike vigilance in the wrong direction. Ask someone from the Pink Pistols whether shooting ranges and gun shows is where they get bothered. Another example, 'the Je... "Hollywood and finance types,"'. That's not something you'll hear at an Appleseed shoot. It's something you'll hear at Obama's church. Check out current American treatment of Israel. Virtually all of the racism remaining in this country is on the left; it's in the Chris Matthewses and SEIU thugs. I helped a friend build a secret room to hide Jews, or whoever needs hiding from the authorities. I don't have one myself; when I need to hide Jews from the authorities is when I start proactively shooting the authorities, at which point a secret room in my house would be a trap.
So if not that, save America from what? From loss of liberty. You point out with total accuracy that this is still a very free country. But it's losing that. In 2010 we now have a country where the government owns car companies and has been running massive investigations of the foreign competition. I would have dismissed that as tinfoil-hat stuff if you'd told me that in 2007 (look up the definition of fascism). Drug laws, gun laws, tax laws, hate speech laws, waste disposal laws, laws requiring paperwork to ease enforcement the other laws; there are thousands of new laws for every sodomy law repealed.
America does need saving, and it is so important to save America BEFORE the final resort of guns becomes necessary.
Speaking as a Jew, i don't shed too many tears over Israel. They're doing just fine, and our policy toward them really hasn't shifted radically. Actually, a lot of Bush policies weren't shifted radically, or in some cases at all, under Obama.
DeleteAnd as for the definition of fascism, it's a centralized, authoritarian government that uses nationalism and patriotism, religion, and social conservatism (for instance, traditional gender role enforcement), as well as the scapegoating of certain minority groups that don't fit the "ideal citizen" mold, to maintain control over the population. Now, i can only think of one major american political party that loves to support traditional values/roles, the mixing of church and state in a pro-religious sense, and patriotism, as well as targeting certain groups (gays, women who have premarital, protected sex, illegal immigrants). And it's not the Democrats. Just saying.
I think a lot of fear and feel for a need to be better prepared for whatever is that it's all one big house of cards. All of our freedoms and liberties can go away at the stroke of a pen and while no one issue illustrates every time one group of people see some liberty of theirs go away they realize how easy it would be to lose another. For me, most recently, it was the health care fiasco. I don't have insurance, I don't particularly need it, and I don't want it. I won't have a choice when the new legislation goes into effect. That really pisses me off, and more than that it's ethically wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think maybe that's what it comes down to for me. I think it's ethically and morally wrong to use force, or threat of force, to compel someone to do something they don't want do unless that force is being used in self-defense. That's where I draw the line as far as deciding when government action is ethical or immoral. Deciding what to do about it at that point is the sticking point. For now I'm going to to stick to legal means of redressing my grievances. But I can't say that won't change, that there won't come a point where it becomes intolerable for me.
You're right, though. It's not that bad yet.
Amen, sister.
ReplyDeleteEgregiousCharles--
While I do agree to some degree that accusations of bigotry have turned into a weapon the left uses against the right regardless of whether they're true, it's flat-out dishonest to pretend there is no significant bigotry in the American Right. And that's from the stuff that comes out of their own mouths, not from liberal propaganda.
The trouble is that it's a very soft tyranny, it won't kick your teeth out, it will snuggle you to death. Congress will keep making so many laws for your own good that eventually you won't be able to make any real meaningful choices on your own.
ReplyDeleteSkydiving? Too dangerous, too many carbon emissions.
Fast food? Bad for you, too much sodium and fat.
Tobacco? Bad for you, second-hand smoke murders babies.
I could go on, just please don't forget that there are millions of people out there who would control some little aspect of your life if they had the power. Collectively they would control every waking decision you ever make, and they vote.
Are you sure the US has the most rights of any first-world country? Canada has free health care and gay marriage (and the legal drinking age is either 18 or 19 depending where you go)...places in Europe have free health care AND free university AND gay marriage AND legalized prostitution (maybe Europe isn't "first world"...I don't totally know how these things are defined).
ReplyDeleteI do know (from my mom, who is American) that when you grow up in the States, you get taught how awesome the US is but nobody ever tells you much about any other countries. So you guys go around pounding your chests shouting "USA! USA!" but you don't actually know enough about anywhere else to be able to compare.
* Liberties and privileges, rather. Not "rights".
ReplyDeleteAnon--
ReplyDeleteTrue, but it's my understanding that most of these places also have significantly more restrictive gun laws, for example. And that's kind of a big issue for a lot of Americans.
So you guys go around pounding your chests shouting "USA! USA!" but you don't actually know enough about anywhere else to be able to compare.
Wow, that's not a sweeping generalization, or anything.
Nor a sweeping and profound misunderstanding of how "rights" are conceptualized to begin with. (Hint: if it requires someone else to give you something, it's not a right.)
ReplyDeleteEgregiousCharles - I don't believe that the Tea Party movement is inherently bigoted, but I do believe there are a shit-ton of bigots within its ranks.
ReplyDeleteRobertM - I'm not saying to do nothing, I'm not saying to be politically apathetic, but it would take a lot for me to pick up my gun for a political cause. My guns are for defending my life and limb--whether from a lone nut or a political front--but only when my life or limb are under threat.
Gudis - The thing is, skydiving and fast food and tobacco are legal. I'm not going to worry about what people supposedly "would" do when they clearly haven't.
Also, if they outlaw fast food, I'm going to vote pro-fast-food and I'm going to protest and I'm going to cook my own and eat it in defiance, but I'm not shooting anyone.
Anon - Health care and free university aren't rights. They're privileges, but they come with much higher taxes and much more restrictive gun and free speech (and other) laws and a greater level of government bureaucracy and surveillance.
I've lived in three countries and been to a shit-ton and I still think America is the best. The other places are (hideous oversimplification follows) all either "don't drink the water" or "the rules and the CCTV enforcement of the rules are here for your safety."
I believe that there is every chance the USA will end relatively soon, perhaps in my lifetime. Frankly, I'm doing what I can to hasten that along. I don't see the USA's "destruction" (retirement? passing? pupa stage?) as a bad thing. I think we can do better.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like something that came up during the "raising the debt ceiling" debate. the idea that we must save america by smashing it and creating it anew. for anyone who doesn't know: this idea screws over many poor, many sick, many disabled, and many elderly. it'd be nice to think that we could all just survive on self-reliance and occasional neighborly charity, but that really isn't realistic.
Delete"doing what I can to hasten that along"
ReplyDeleteI'm curious what you mean by that.
Probably just that your angry Internet posts are very revolutionary and like totally shattering the system dude.
Why should not having to die of a preventable disease because you're too poor to afford treatment be a privilege and not a right?
ReplyDeleteAsp - Because it's not free. Rights are things you have unless they're taken away, a person in the woods with no government has the right to free speech and religion and any weapons they can make out of rocks and sticks. Healthcare is a resource that requires the input of other people.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as "free" healthcare, because doctors and nurses and EMTs gotta eat. (And buy supplies, and build hospitals and clinics, and very much more.) The question of who pays for it is what healthcare reform deals with, but you can't just "have" it, because it's gotta come from somewhere. That's why it can't be a right.
i disagree. it's a human right, similar to education (which i would argue that someone else gives you, because we humans have always passed down knowledge from one generation to the next).
Deleteif this is about to turn into the obamacare debate, i'll say this: i'm a type 1 diabetic, and i'm concerned that if the economy doesn't get better, i won't be able to find a job. i can't pay for insulin out of pocket, and i may not be able to afford insurance on my own. right now i'm on my parents' plan, but this runs out.
I understand that "it comes from somewhere" but i think that if the tradeoff is tax dollars/labor versus death by insulin starvation (or whatever) it's clear where the priority should be. i don't see frankly how it's different from social services- and if people here don't believe in those, we really have nothing to talk about politically.
asp said...
ReplyDeleteWhy should not having to die of a preventable disease because you're too poor to afford treatment be a privilege and not a right?
Because medical care requires another person's labor.
Sorry Holly, my point was that those things aren't illegal yet, but if healthcare does end up in government hands all bets are off. The problem with a soft tyranny is that it doesn't really warrant shooting anyone, there aren't any cattle cars or pogroms.
ReplyDeleteAsp - By the way, "it's not a right" isn't in itself an argument for purely private-pay healthcare. Roads and police aren't a right, but they're awful nice to have. The government can decide to give privileges to the citizens and sometimes that's a good thing.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't mind paying for other people's healthcare as much as some of my friends, because from inside the system I know that I was already paying for it. When people get those preventable diseases, they go to the ER, and because they couldn't afford $200 of prevention they cost Medicaid/Medicare tens of thousands of dollars. Or if the goverment won't pay the hospital eats the cost and passes it on to other patients.
Other people's healthcare isn't a "right," but since we're not quite cold enough to have proof-of-funds-required ERs, we end up paying for it either way, so we might as well figure out an efficient way to do so.
Gudis - The other thing about a "soft tyranny" is that under it I can have just about any lifestyle or information or speech or property I want and can afford! If this is tyranny, it ain't too bad.
ReplyDeleteAnd healthcare, see above. You're already paying for it. The only way to not pay for other people's healthcare is to have cash-at-time-of-service ERs with people dead on the sidewalk outside. Otherwise, someone has to pay somehow.
But everyone has the right to live. If you limit that to everyone who has enough money to afford treatment if they get sick, you're denying them the basic human right to life.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of a human right defined as something you can have because no one has to pay for it. It's a novel approach, at least.
Asp - I think that people shouldn't die of curable conditions, but that's distinct from thinking they have the right not to. Like I think that there should be roads, not that I have the right to pavement.
ReplyDeleteA right is something you're allowed to do, not something you're allowed to get. The concept is that a person with no government has all their rights, and that government takes some rights (like the right to keep everything you earn) away in exchange for providing some services. Some of these services may be really good things, things I support, but they're still not rights.
A person without government doesn't necessarilly have all the rights, because she may not have anyone to protect her right to have rights. The government is not providing you merely services, the government is ensuring that what rights you have you can actually exercise.
ReplyDeleteTo say that we all have the right to live but not also the obligation to ensure that people actually have the right to live is, in my opinion, pointless. It advocates an abstract idea, but not really the implementation of that idea in reality. It's like saying, for example, that we all have the right to free speech - in the sense that no one will be jailed or prosecuted for what they say - but not a single venue where that free speech may be exercised and no way (tv, papers, internet, places where people gather to converse) to have that free speech heard. Yes, technically, there is free speech, but not really because your speech is not heard by anyone at all.
* Liberties and privileges, rather. Not "rights".
ReplyDeleteI presume you're talking about the Appleseed program?
ReplyDeleteInteresting training, didn't care for the politics. Too many black helicopter types both in the classes, and involved with the instruction; though oficially that's not what they are about.
I've written about this a couple times before:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2008/09/appleseed-and-gun-nuts.html
"Health care and free university aren't rights. They're privileges, but they come with much higher taxes and much more restrictive gun and free speech (and other) laws and a greater level of government bureaucracy and surveillance."
ReplyDeleteYes, not every idiot here is allowed to own a gun...and I'm perfectly okay with that.
What restrictive free speech laws do you think Canadians have? I live here and as far as I can see, anyone can express themselves however they want (as long as they're not threatening to kill a politician or whatever) just like in the 'States. I'm also not aware of any government surveillance-type stuff going on here aside from the occasional traffic camera.
I do know that in the US, pharmacists have denied women the morning after pill because apparently allowing women to have agency over their bodies is bad and wrong. And I know that in my high school sex ed class they taught us where the clitoris is and how to use birth control instead of just telling us "BLARGH IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU'LL DIE BLARGH".
CA-NA-DA! CA-NA-DA! CA-NA-DA! *pounds chest*
Asp - A person without government doesn't necessarilly have all the rights, because she may not have anyone to protect her right to have rights.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's true. I guess I was thinking of "a person alone in the woods", rather than a person in a state of anarchy.
To say that we all have the right to live but not also the obligation to ensure that people actually have the right to live is, in my opinion, pointless.
No, the right to life in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" refers to the right not to be killed. Not killing you, like not silencing you and not taking your guns, requires no effort on the government's part.
It's like saying, for example, that we all have the right to free speech - in the sense that no one will be jailed or prosecuted for what they say - but not a single venue where that free speech may be exercised and no way (tv, papers, internet, places where people gather to converse) to have that free speech heard.
But this is the case. The government won't buy you TV time or help you print your newspaper. You have the right to say anything, but getting a venue is your own problem. Your right is only that once you find that venue, the government won't tell you what to do with it.
The other problem with healthcare as a "right" is that healthcare is not a simple binary thing. There's forms of healthcare that aren't about life and death, like pain control or physical therapy. There's many different levels of quality of healthcare. There's end-of-life care that doesn't attempt to preserve life, and conversely there's care for ventilator-dependent terminal-vegetative-state patients that provides them with life but no enjoyment of that life. And of course there's the concern that all this costs a shit-ton of money.
As I said, I actually think healthcare reform was necessary, but not on the basis of "rights." I believe that it's morally right (but not a right) to prevent needless death, and that it's practical to pay for routine care rather than have people require expensive emergency care.
Chris - Yeah, it was Appleseed. I didn't want to call it out by name because I actually liked most of it; the rifle training and history were both excellently and engagingly taught. (And it was extra cool to take in Massachusetts because the story is so local.) But there were definitely some "black helicopter" dorks around.
ReplyDeleteCanadian Anonymous - In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. That's a restriction on free speech. I realize not a heartbreaking one on its face, but here it would be considered a serious violation of the First Amendment.
Pharmacists denying women birth control are not acting as agents of the government. Also, I never said America was perfect, eh?
And I know that in my high school sex ed class they taught us where the clitoris is and how to use birth control instead of just telling us "BLARGH IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU'LL DIE BLARGH".
ReplyDeleteFunny, mine too. It's almost like the US is a big country with a large degree of variance in political climate instead of a monolith run by Rush Limbaugh. Amazing concept.
For someone whose opening argument is that Americans are too ignorant of other cultures to make an educated comparison, you're not really making a great case for your own understanding of American culture.
I think a better way of looking at it is something like this: There are two kinds of freedom - capability and privilege. A person who lives alone in the woods and never has any contact with another human being has all the privilege in the world - there's no one to stop them from doing whatever they want to do. But they have very little capability - nearly everything people do or know is largely made possible by the actions of others. On the other hand, someone who lives in a highly advanced society which can cure any disease, but medical treatment is hideously expensive, and they are a member of a social caste which is not allowed to do any job which pays higher than subsistence wages, then they have plenty of capability in regards to medicine but virtually no privilege, which renders the former largely irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAnd further complicating the issue is that many of the things that people consider to be "human rights" are really privileges - technically, you have no right not to be murdered. Living in a society where the murder rate is less than 1% (instead of around 30% like most ancient societies) is a privilege of living in one where taxes are paid for law enforcement agencies that make it unlikely that someone will murder you.
But still, there needs to be a balance - only a combination of both privilege and capability leads to freedom as most people would define the term.
Not Me - Your definition of "privilege" doesn't match any I've ever heard. It sounds like you're describing a right instead.
ReplyDeleteAnd hell yes I have the right not to be murdered! That's like the most fundamental human right that there is. Unless your definition of "rights" is so existential that it comes down to "you have the right to consist of atoms."
The privilege in that case is living in a society with a police force and legal system. But not being murdered is definitely a right.
I'm really bad at expressing ideas in writing sometimes, I'm not saying we're living currently living in a state of soft tyranny, just that the progress towards a cradle-to-grave nanny state is continuing apace, and I don't really see any solutions.
ReplyDeleteGudis - I don't see that. I see a society that's always changing, definitely not perfect, but I don't see a clear downward trajectory. Things like the increasing acceptance of gay marriage, the end of the assault weapons ban, and the likely impending decriminalization of marijuana actually give me a lot of hope for increased freedom in the future.
ReplyDeleteNo, the right to life in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" refers to the right not to be killed. Not killing you, like not silencing you and not taking your guns, requires no effort on the government's part.
ReplyDeleteThen what's to stop a person from killing you if there's no authority to implement the laws and norms that say killing is forbidden?
But this is the case. The government won't buy you TV time or help you print your newspaper. You have the right to say anything, but getting a venue is your own problem. Your right is only that once you find that venue, the government won't tell you what to do with it.
You misunderstand. The venues exists, and so do the ways of getting to use them. The government doesn't need to provide you with TV time, but there are still ways you can get that. I'm talking about a hypotetical society where this does not exist. TVs don't exists. Nor do other venues by which any person's speech may be heard by others. In that kind of society you would still have the right to speech, but it would be completely pointless. It's literally worthless.
ASP - Then what's to stop a person from killing you if there's no authority to implement the laws and norms that say killing is forbidden?
ReplyDeleteNothing. They'd be violating your rights, but they wouldn't be stopped. A police force is a government service, not a right.
I have a feeling that when I say something's not a right you hear me saying that I therefore oppose it. I think the police should exist, even though they're not a right. What qualifies as a "right" is a question of philosophy, not the be-all-end-all of political debate.
I'm talking about a hypotetical society where this does not exist. TVs don't exists. Nor do other venues by which any person's speech may be heard by others.
Well, then you're going to have to go ahead and invent them, because no one's doing it for you, but no one's stopping you. If you've got what it takes to create your own venue, your freedom of speech wasn't worthless after all.
...Really, "no one's doing it for you, but no one's stopping you" is a pretty good summary of how freedom in general works.
Then what's to stop a person from killing you if there's no authority to implement the laws and norms that say killing is forbidden?
ReplyDeleteNothing. All the 'right to life' means in terms of the government is that the government won't hunt you down and kill you. It doesn't mean jackshit about what people who aren't agents of the government might do.
That's where things like laws and services come into play, but those aren't the same as rights and its disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I have a feeling that when I say something's not a right you hear me saying that I therefore oppose it.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I just fundamentally disagree with this idea that you can have a right if you are not really able to exercise it or if your ability to exercise it is not protected. A society in which you are not protected against random killings is not a society where people can freely exercise their right to life.
For example, gay and lesbians could abstractly have the same rights as heterosexuals, if there were no laws that prohibited them any of the things that are allowed to heterosexuals. But they wouldn't really have the same rights as heterosexuals if there were no government "service" that legally enforced people to treat them equally. But by your definition of rights, gay and lesbians have the same rights as heterosexuals even when they are discriminated against. It's just that people are violating theirs while not violating those of heterosexuals.
And, I'm sorry, but saying that you have the right to free speech but you need to invent the venues in order to exercise it is like saying you have the right to health care but you have to build your own hospital. What use is that?
What qualifies as a "right" is a question of philosophy, not the be-all-end-all of political debate.
ReplyDeleteWell, actually, what qualifies as a right and who gets to have it is mostly the result of social agreement. Philosophers may theorize about it, but it is the society which makes the decision and enforces it.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I'm sorry, but saying that you have the right to free speech but you need to invent the venues in order to exercise it is like saying you have the right to health care but you have to build your own hospital.
You were the one hypothesizing about a society with no TV or other venues of communication. If they don't exist, then the only way you have access to them is if you invent them. If they do exist, then the government should not restrict access to them, but the right to free speech only guarantees that the government won't forcibly shut you up, not that you'll have access to the means of disseminating your opinions.
Even in cases where gays and lesbians have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, society does not treat them equally. Much like the fact that sexism is still violently rampant even though women are (generally) technically equal under the law. You can only legislate behavior so far; there are some things that fall outside of government purview. Which is where social activism comes in.
You can't legislate everything, but that doesn't mean that bad behavior can't be changed by other means.
You've missed my point re venues of communication. The point was not that if they don't exist the only way to have access to them is to create them, the point was that if they don't exist your free speech right is worthless if you don't have the means to exercise it. And it's not like that's a minor obstacle. In my opinion, there is not much difference in not being able to exercise a right because there are legal obstacles to that, and because there are severe environmental, situational and social obstacles that prevent you to do that.
ReplyDeleteAs for legislating behaviour and influencing it via social activism - social activism would be worthless without legal back up. Women's attempts to achieve equality were pointless before they were legaly recognized as equal to men and given the right to vote and own property and go to university, etc. Legislation is prerequisite to social change. But you are right - legislation alone cannot ensure that everyone will be treated equally.
In my opinion, there is not much difference in not being able to exercise a right because there are legal obstacles to that, and because there are severe environmental, situational and social obstacles that prevent you to do that.
ReplyDeleteFine, but freedom of speech still only guarantees that the government won't prevent you from talking, not that they'll give you a platform. And maybe you're okay with it, but I for one am violently uncomfortable with the idea of the government-funded soapboxes. A free society only guarantees freedom from governmental interference, not access to resources.
A decent society should work toward removing the inequalities that citizens face, but that isn't really the same thing, and I think it's problematic to conflate the two.
I just find the entire premise of this post to be ill informed if not just naive. The polarized nation isn't about race or prejudice, though that's how it's being marketed to you. It's a difference in ideology, and approach to governing. The country is at a crossroads, and it's strange to use the horrors of the Holocaust as a litmus test. We have unprecedented legislation which is wildly controversial, being passed without having been read, that will change huge portions of our economy. It's fine to disagree, and feel that the changes being made are excellent, but this whole notion that people are falling into hysteria by expressing dissent is beyond scary.
ReplyDeleteA free society only guarantees freedom from governmental interference
ReplyDeleteReally? What about interference from other people? You'd say you're free as long as the government does not have too much authority over you, but would you be free if the government didn't work to protect you from those who would limit your freedom in whatever way?
As a clarification of the distinction of having a right/being able to exercise that right, here's an example - abortion in the US is a woman's right, yet increasingly women are denied the opportunity to exercise it. For example, 90% of Utah counties have no abortion provider. The women in Utah who cannot travel to where there is an abortion clinic - because they cannot leave their families/jobs, because they cannot afford it, because of whatever reason - are denied the right to have an abortion. Yes, legally, they still have that right but if they cannot exercise it, what is the point of saying that women in Utah have the right to abortion?
ReplyDeleteThere is the need for the government to ensure that its citizens can exercise their rights - whether it is the right to an abortion, to carry guns, to free speech or whatever - otherwise rights have no point.
Anon - Oh my gosh, read the post, it actually has content other than "LIBERALS RULE CONSERVATIVES DROOL."
ReplyDeleteAsp - This argument is getting really circular. We have different definitions of a "right" (and yours makes no sense) and we can keep giving examples until the cows have the right to come home.
You seem to be defining absolutely every government service as a "right," to the point where you're on the edge of telling me about how your right to a post office is violated when they close before you come home from work.
...would you be free if the government didn't work to protect you from those who would limit your freedom in whatever way?
ReplyDeleteYes.
@aebhel
ReplyDeleteSo if you were kidnapped and called the police to tell them someone's been keeping you locked up in their basement for years, and they said "Sorry, nothing we can do about it," you'd still be free? I guess we'll just have to agree we have a different definition of freedom.
@Holly
You seem to be defining absolutely every government service as a "right,"
No, those are not rights, that is the infrastructure that needs to exists for people to be able to exercise rights - so if you have a right to abortion, there need to be abortion providers, if you have a right as a woman to be treated equally as a man, there need to be laws that allow you to challenge your employer's discrimination against women, etc. You seem to think rights can exist in an environment where you cannot exercise them. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
to the point where you're on the edge of telling me about how your right to a post office is violated when they close before you come home from work.
Now, there's no need for that, really. If you disagree with me, fine, but don't paint me as some loony. I think the question of whether rights can exists in an environment where there is no possibility to exercise them is a valid question. Obviously you don't agree and you find this discussion tiresome. I apologize. I guess there's no need to continue.
No one is going to force anyone to perform an abortion they don't want to perform. But to say that a woman has the right to an abortion when she cannot leave her job or family and travel hundreds of miles to a clinic, is to gloss over the fact that many people have certain rights only in an abstract sense, but not really in reality. My opinion is that this needs to be acknowlegded because I believe the society as a whole has a moral obligation to ensure all its members have equal opportunities to exercise their rights. But I understand many will not agree with me, and that's fine.
ReplyDeleteHolly, for what it's worth, I'm with you on modern America: it's amazingly free compared with how the overwhelming majority of humans have lived and continued to live, and I'm extremely grateful for that. And while I think the path of "third way" socialism is probably an unsustainable one-way trip to economic catastrophe, that's a speculative idea that smart people can and do disagree on. But there _is_ a fundamental downward trend in this country in one specific and crucial way.
ReplyDeleteSee, I don't trust my government. I think everybody should distrust their governments. I think it's fundamentally _insane_ to trust a government. And that's why our Constitution was written the way it was: governments can't be trusted, and straight democracy isn't an effective way to control government and preserve liberty, so we need a robust document that limits the power of government, divides that power between different levels of government, and restricts the scope of issues the government may involve itself in.
For at least the last century, we've seen the federal government steadily growing its realm of authority, ignoring states' rights, ignoring the Bill of Rights, and generally overstepping its legal bounds in the pursuit of whatever social programs it can sell to its constituents at the moment (and don't get me wrong; while this has traditionally been a liberal Democrat problem, Bush blew any lingering pretext the Republicans had of being Constitution-respecting limited government advocates).
Our government on both sides of the aisle is steadily eroding the checks and balances that keep us free. We can disagree on precise government programs, and the precise level of involvement the government should have in private life and choices. And amidst those disagreements, we can still be free regardless of which of us is ahead at the moment. But our federal government's routine and casual (and growing) disregard for the Constitution is something that should have us all very, very worried.
If the federal government can ignore the separation of powers whenever they figure it's important enough, what's really to stop them from passing laws against "hate speech"? I dunno about you, but I don't trust elections alone to protect my rights. If the Democrats had kept their "healthcare reform" to matters of interstate commerce or had amended the Constitution to expend federal authority to matters of intrastate medical insurance, I'd think this was merely a bad idea, not an offense against liberty.
On a depressingly related note, would you really only fight to preserve your life and limb? Or would you also fight to preserve your freedom if it really was the only way? After all, yesterday was the anniversary of a bunch of American colonists opening fire on government employees to resist taxation and gun control...
[Full disclosure: I believe that getting shooty is sometimes necessary, and that we may come to that point again. Despite that, I'm willing to go a long way to avoid it, even if the thugs in office are abusing the social contract in ways our founders wouldn't have begun to tolerate. Revolutions suck: lots of good people die, and you have a pretty slim chance of ending up with a better government. But after a certain point, there's really no alternative.]
elmo_iscariot - To be honest, I don't think I would have been in on the American Revolution. Once it war had broken out I hope I would have fought for the Americans, but beforehand... I think my attitude might well have been "man, just pay for the damn tea."
ReplyDeleteI value life very highly. And frankly, I value life more than liberty. I want liberty really really really bad, but... I'm not 100% sure I'd die for it.
I guess that's terrible, but it's honest. I wouldn't classify myself as a sheep, but I'm a lot more likely to run than fight if I get any choice in the matter.
I know this post is a few months old now, but I wanted to add the concepts of "positive rights" vs "negative rights." In the Jeffersonian sense, we have negative rights. The government can't take away the stuff you've done without some due process. Positive rights means you have the right to stuff from the government. Think about it, the rights in the bill of rights are almost all negative rights. Free speech (talk all you want, all you can afford, but we don't have to put you on TV.) 4th amendment, unless we suspect something, we can't just come in and take stuff...the only exception I can think of is right to an attorney, and that has been established through court decisions, not in the Constitution. Originally, the right to an attorney meant the gov't couldn't keep you from obtaining counsel, not that they had to provide it to you. It wasn't until the 14th and later Gideon v Wainright that the concept that "Due Process" could only be guaranteed if the government made sure you had counsel was established.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with you, having health care is a good thing, just not a human or civil right. Oh yeah, also, I have guns and the knowledge to use them as a very last resort, not because I lost an election.
Frankly, your attitude is the same as that of Appleseed/pro2A types. It's not paranoia, it's readiness, just in case. You don't want another Holocaust. Neither do I. You believe in being responsible, not being trigger-happy. For the most part, *so does everyone else!* The difference is that those other folks probably vote for different politicians than you. So what? They're not a different species, and when it comes to self-defense they actually have the exact same values.
ReplyDeleteIDK. I do get very annoyed at the really hardcore gun nuts who think that their small-arms and their hardy rapacious frontier folk romanticism will stand up to the fighter-bombers and the machine guns and the federal troops. But it doesn't look like anybody here is really suggesting it\
ReplyDeleteOn a weirder note, I don't actually believe in the concept of rights, inalienable or otherwise, or privilges as is being used here. I simply recognize all humans in the accounting of the Greater Good.
I also pretty much favor the *right kind* of soft tyrrany. At least until transhumanism fixes our brains so that everybody having super-agency like libertarians want will actually work.