Civil vs. Natural or Human Rights?
The title of this commentary found in today's Rational Review News Digest got me to thinking about something that's been on my mind lately: The writer suggests the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural, not a Constitutional Right". Setting aside any arguments for or against the right to bear arms, I like that he equates constitutional ones with what we commonly refer to as "civil rights".
I've been unhappy with the term civil rights for some time now. Maybe because that infers that those rights were given to us by government. I suppose that we have a Bill of Rights reinforces that inference. But ,with some issues, as I've alluded to here before, I think they should be more properly called human rights, although I suppose natural rights as used by the author in question would suffice.
Panhandling, for instance, has been said to be a civil right by some recently. I suppose it could be, if government can take that right away, but as I've wrote before, people have a human right to ask for help, which is what panhandling is.
Same goes with sleeping. We have a human right to sleep, although I wouldn't be so bold to suggest that human right includes sleeping wherever one wants.
Where to draw the line between a civil and human right, I'm not sure, but there is a difference.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:05 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
That's what I like about Austin Petersen, he is firm about the constitution protecting rights. He knows that voting on Rights is unconstitutional & repugnant to the constitution.
You're right, Fred, everybody has the right to seek help when needed. Nobody, however, has the right to infringe into another person's space & demand help... except, of course, in emergency situations of life & death, like accidents or fire.
You're also right, that everyone has the right to rest. Nobody, however, has the right to rest anywhere they please without proper protocol.
Solutions?
Asking: A person with a cup & a sign, hoping you will come over to them & donate is perfectly acceptable, because it is your choice to go to them & offer your help.
Nobody has the right to deny others food, rest, travel, shelter, defense, potty, drink, and it is up to the city, county, state planners to assure everybody's rights are not infringed upon. They are guilty of forcing infringements upon others when they do not plan areas for those who are without. The residents have elected the planners to plan for every citizen, not just the recent fortunates.
Excellent post, Fred! I agree wholeheartedly.
The author is missing an important part of the clause. First outlined in the constitution, is the right of the people to self govern, take self responsibility, unless they actually hurt another. If they hurt another, then that is where the state can step in and vote on consequences for that offense.
The state's accepted the same contract the main government signed, what we now call federal government thanks to their unconstitutional union with a bank that cleverly called itself the federal reserves bank. Before then, it was just government. The main government were DELEGATED to manage foreign issues like free flowing & fair commerce. The state's then signed the same contract that said, we agree that people are self governing, and that only the REMAINING powers are in our hands. These remaining powers consisted of consequences (note that the main govt were not delegated the role of enforcement of the people), infrastructure, education, utilities, voting for representatives of each city, county, to carry every person's voice into consideration. Today our representatives only consider their unconstitutional "party" considerations.
Towards the end of this very important podcast, KrisAnne points out the various forms of government that we the people created.
http://krisannehall.com/new-mission-cruz-supporters/
Post a Comment
<< Home