[quote=MANmom]It is not government’s job to expand basic rights…read the constitution. Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness…not the guarantee of happiness. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome. [/quote]
All the rights outlined in the declaration of independence are natural rights. They are rights conveyed to EVERY person by virtue of their birth. The exercise of these rights by an individual does not necessarily affect anyone else and is only prohibited at the point that one person’s exercising their rights infringes on another’s ability to do so. That is why murder is illegal…me murdering another infringes on their right to life.
However, many of the ‘rights’ that politicians are touting now are nothing of the sort. There is no ‘right’ to health care. There is no ‘right’ to own a house or to shelter in general. There is no ‘right’ to food. As (an arguably) enlightened society, we may desire to provide these things for as many people as we can, even if they can’t provide them for themselves but it is erroneous to refer to them as ‘rights’. They are nothing of the sort.
The assertion that these are ‘rights’ is at odds with the natural rights outlined above. The exercise of these new ‘rights’ suredly means that someone else has their rights abridged or infringed in order to provide them.
Consider healthcare as a right. It should be provided for anyone regardless of their ability to pay? Who shall provide this care? The doctor or nurse? Shall they work for free? Shall they be told what they can earn or where and how they can work (we already have our quota of doctors in San Diego, you can’t practice medicine here)? Shall the doctors, nurses and hospitals be paid by the government? With taxes? That means that someone else has had the fruits of their labor confiscated to provide a ‘right’ for someone else. This doesn’t meet the test for a natural right. Exercise of this ‘right’ requires that someone else’s rights are infringed.
