Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (54534)	10/6/2013 3:58:01 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Recommended By Bob FJB Joe Btfsplk TimF Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

The first time that I studied the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the philosophies on which this country was founded, was in 10th grade in U.S. History. My teacher, Mr. Hill, focused on the unique and brilliant distinction of a government's obligation to protect rights rather than grant (or take away) rights. You could feel Mr. Hill's excitement as he explained why it was so important and how it truly was innovative thinking to come up with this system of government. It made perfect sense to me the first time I heard it. Once you understand this basic rule, it can be applied to pretty much any situation involving the government as if it was a math equation. It is how I can be confident when I say "the supreme court is wrong". Once the government treats health care as a right that is being granted to the people, they are put in the position of forcing others to provide that health care. Which must violate the natural rights of those people now obligated to provide the health care. To take it to an extreme, if the government states that all people are entitled to health care (free, affordable or otherwise) and every doctor and nurse and physicians assistant in the country decided to retire on the same day, the people who the government has promised the "right" to health care will demand that their health care be provided. If the government doesn't deliver, the entitled masses will riot. So the government would take the only action available to them, which is to force the health care professionals to start providing health care. Any "right" that inherently requires the specific performance of another person to provide that "right", is not a right at all. It is a mandate, and as such, must violate the rights of others in the delivery. Of course, I know you get it. And, of course, I know that the progressive liberals, who want big brother to hold their pee pees when they go potty, will never understand it. I honestly can't understand why anybody would want to live under a government that claimed the power to grant rights rather than a government whose purpose is specifically defined as protecting naturally occurring individual rights. The actions of liberals are driven, in large part, by the fear of uncertainty. Hence why they want the government to provide a safety net for every possible life challenge (abortions for that unexpected pregnancy, unemployment benefits if laid off, health care when you get sick, social security when you retire). But there is no greater uncertainty than to live in a society that does not respect the rule of law and where the government can grant and take away rights. I doubt that any teachers like Mr. Hill exist in the public school system anymore. Anybody who understand the constitution, wouldn't be able to tolerate a work environment where every other person you work with, not only disagrees with the philosophies on which this country was founded, but shuns them and actively works against them.