Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Crooks and Liars Criticizes Ron Paul for Saying that Entitlements are Not Rights
It just so happens, Ron Paul is correct, and once again the writers on Crooks and Liars do not understand the Constitution……shocker!
by Larry Simons
January 10, 2012
A Crooks and Liars writer, who just goes under the name “David” [another chickenshit afraid to post their actual full name], has once again, ironically, lied in a story posted on Sunday titled, “Ron Paul: 'Entitlements Are Not Rights'”. The story points out that during Sunday’s NBC debate, Ron Paul, when asked by Andy Hiller, “In your opinion, what services are Americans entitled to expect to get from government?”, Ron Paul responded:
“Entitlements are not rights. Rights mean you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.
“Earlier on here, there was a little discussion about gay rights. I, in a way, don't like to use those terms: gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right: It's a right to your liberty.”
Then he added: “No, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys, the rich people, they get the entitlements, the military-industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.”
“David” then resorts to referring his readers to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of the word “right”, which is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract”.
What “David” fails to grasp is the fact that this completely flies in the face of what the founders saw as a right. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, “It Is Dangerous to be Right, When the Government Is Wrong” when he says, “A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity.” These rights include “the right to life, the right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, the right to worship or not worship, the right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our property as we see fit and our right to be left alone”.
In other words, the government does not give us these things, so they cannot take them away.
Napolitano continues, “A right involves a sphere within which we are free to make our own decisions without any interference from the government, individuals or entities. If the government were to regulate any of our rights, we would lose our personhood. Rights ensure such a result will not happen”.
Social Security and Medicare are social programs provided by the government, therefore they, by definition, are not rights. Rights are not provided, so therefore rights cannot be taken away. They are, however, entitlements. They are entitlements because of the fact that [clarifying what I said above] American taxpayers actually pay into these programs so the government really is not providing the program, they are just regulating and micromanaging them.
The government does not even have the right to take our money away from us in order to pay for these programs. Our money is our property [something that cannot be taken away, but our government does anyway, violating our right to our property]. This is what Ron Paul meant when he said, “One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else”. Exactly right. That is what the government is doing. They take our money out of our checks to pay for these social programs which may or may not benefit us, yet the government takes our money [our property] away from us anyway in order to take care of another group who needs it. The taxpayer is robbed of their money even if that particular taxpayer never needs the program itself in their lifetime. The founders would have been vehemently against this.
Basically, in short, if it can be taken away and regulated by an outside entity, it is not a right. Entitlements can be taken way.
Above, I also said that rights are “God given” [quoting Napolitano]. In reality, “rights” really are not a religious issue. Napolitano adds on this subject:
“Nor is…natural rights a uniquely religious concept. The only premise one need accept is that humans are created; it is immaterial whether it is by God or by nature.”
“Just as pregnancy exists no matter how it is explained, the different explanations of the source of Natural Rights, God or rational humanity, do not change human’ possession of Natural Rights upon our entering into existence”.
Ron Paul was correct. Entitlements and rights are not the same thing. An entitlement, whether we feel is our “right” to receive the entitlement, is something that is regulated, controlled or micromanaged by an outside entity, such as a government. A right is that which is ours independent of an outside entity. Nothing can control it, regulate it or micromanage it but ourselves.
“David” should start reading the words of John Locke and abandon Noah Webster.