If it involves someone else having to do something other than just leave you alone, it’s not a right.
Oh, I solved the puzzle: J.K. Rowling is taking over writing the next two books of Game of Thrones.
Wait, libertarians aren’t disciples of Joe Lieberman? Then what the hell are they?
*libertarian president takes office
“It’s time for freedom and–”
“BUT WHO IS GOING TO PAVE THE ROADS?!!”
*libertarian movement collapses
A few thoughts from the original Libertarian:
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” -Thomas Jefferson
“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” -Thomas Jefferson
if you want it done, you do it. Where’s the problem? Who did it before the feds took that over too?
We are witnessing the birth of the glibertarian party.
Because private industry can never do stuff like that:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/08/home-made-toll-road-diversion-welcomes-its-100000-vehicle-avoiding-roadworks-4897689/
Transportation is the responsibility of the states; it’s in the constitution; same with education. I can make a better case under the interstate commerce cause for a US Dept. of Transportation than a US Department of Education.
Oh, wait, you’re being funny, and I’m being pedantic. Oops.
The Feds are obligated to maintain “Post Roads” in conjunction with the Post Office.
to # 6. The feds are empowered to maintain post roads, as well as a post office. Neither are obligations. In addition, while they are empowered to operate a post office, the constitution doesn’t grant them the monopoly power they currently wield in the letter delivery business.
Actually, a right is defined as something that creates an obligation in others – usually the government. You have the right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure, which creates an obligation for government not to engage in such activity. You have a right to due process, which creates an obligation for government to provide it. Something that does not create an obligation for others is a privilege. I was taught this in law school, don’t shoot the messenger.
@Mark – was it a liberal law school?
Your description calls to mind Obama’s depiction of the Constitution as a ‘charter of negative rights.’
I don’t agree that a right creates an obligation in others.
A right to be free from burglary, or a right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure, is just that. It doesn’t create an obligation for the government to refrain from such activity, unless you indulge in gymnastic logic. It is simply a prohibition, not an obligation. The government shall not do the named thing, and the reason is that the individual has the right to be free from it. It’s the same case with the right to due process, or any other individual right you care to name.
The First and Second Amendments affirm rights of individuals, by placing prohibitions on governmental power. To call them “obligations on the government not to do something” is to place government, not individuals, first. It also seems to encourage sympathy for government, saddled with “obligations” — which perhaps can be removed, and aren’t as permanent as “rights.”
It is equivalent to saying that a child is not prohibited by an adult from doing something, but instead has “an obligation not to” do it. The adult (like the individual) possesses the real power, and the child (like the government) has limits. To call that an “obligation” on the part of the child or the government “not to do” something is really using semantics to distract from the fundamental truth and relationship.
#9 – Oppo,
Bacon to you, sir!
First off, all law schools are liberal — but the definition of “rights” is something that has been the subject of considerable academic writing and the relationship between rights and obligations is in the minds of many, quite logical. An obligation is a legal bond by which one or more parties are bound to act or refrain from acting. An obligation thus imposes on the obligor a duty to act or refrain from acting, and simultaneously creates a corresponding right to demand such performance by the obligee.
If you have a civil right to public accommodation, this creates an obligation for others to provide it. If others do not have an obligation to provide you with public accommodation, then you really have no “right” to it — it’s a privilege which can be granted or denied. With regards to Obama’s characterization of constitutional rights as “negative rights” – he is largely correct. Most constitutional rights are prohibitions on what the government can do to you. That’s not really controversial. His leap in logic — that we need to improve the constitution by including positive rights is very controversial (and stupid).