As American citizens, we have become very spoiled. We tend to take the rights for granted assuming that the rest of the world recognize the right of individual. Such thinking could not be further from the truth. In our spoiled bliss, Americans have assumed rights that are neither mentioned anywhere in our founding or could not be intelligently justified to even exist.
First, a quick background into the history of our own nation is in order. In the 18th century, a change in thinking known as "the Enlightenment" occurred. The concepts that came out of the Enlightenment were applied in the founding of the United States of America. In establishing the United States, the founding fathers determined that it was essential to lay out a Bill of Rights. The most common misconception today is that the Bill of Rights grants us our rights. Instead, it is a bill that protects what the founders knew to be unalienable rights that could not justifiably be denied any person.
In the modern era, there has arisen a new and disturbing trend of assuming rights that not only are not covered by the Bill of Rights, they simply do not make any sense when critical thought is applied. The following are some of the most common grievances which hold no weight.
The Right to be Heard:
This common complaint is usually voiced by someone with a fairly inflated ego, particularly celebrities and musicians. You have the right to voice your opinion, however nobody is obligated to listen. If a musician chooses to use a concert as a political sounding board rather than perform the music fans had anticipated, it should come as no surprise when fans walk out. If fans have spent money to hear music performed but instead are lectured on some political stance, they have every right to be upset. This is where the fans will use their freedom of speech to make it known that they are not pleased.
The Right to not be Offended:
In recent years, this one has reared its ugly head in pop culture and on college campuses. This "right" completely contradicts the Freedom of Speech. To truly be allowed the free expression of ideas, it is highly likely that someone may take offense. There is more to be gained by the thoughtful debate of ideas than there is through the suppression of those ideas. Rather than trying to shut down an opinion that contradicts our own, those opinions should be engaged in vigorous (albeit civil) debate in public. This allows citizens the opportunity to formulate their own opinions based on the views expressed in such public debate. Offensive and ignorant opinions may find small followings but the public, by and large will disregard such feeble thinking. One example would be that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. brought his views into public debate, which challenged the status quo. While originally opposed in some quarters, the overwhelming majority of the public found his views inspirational and enlightening which ultimately helped to alter the public's opinions on race. Imagine if, instead, Dr. King had been silenced because his opinion was offensive.
The Right to Have our Life Choices Accepted by Others:
This is difficult to argue as everyone does have the right to live their life as they see fit so long as it is within societal limits and does not infringe on another individuals rights. By societal limits, we can agree that abuse of women, children, or animals because of a religious or cultural practice is unacceptable. Nor does one have the right to engage in illegal activity based on personal or religious beliefs. Outside of these examples, we are free to live our lives as we see fit. However, if a person finds your lifestyle offensive or inconsistent with their own beliefs, they are under no obligation to show support from such practices. Nor should they face persecution for expressing their views just as they have no right to persecute you for living your life according to your own values.
The Right to Free Education, Health Care, Housing, Employment, etc...:
One the surface, it would seem that each of these are good ideas. Who would not agree that everyone deserves and education, health care, and a house? However, to make this argument is to ignore the fact that for someone to have a right to such things, someone else is required to provide them. For a government to provide you with something, it must take something from someone else. Ultimately, by insisting that these are rights is to insist that someone is obligated to provide these things to you regardless of compensation for time or material. What can be defended here is the opportunity to get the education which you desire, the health care you need, and a house of your own. It is essential that you do what is needed to receive these things. What gets lost in this debate is the effect that government has on education, health care, housing, and employment. Government subsidies often encourage waste while taxes and regulations drive costs up.
Ultimately, it must be remembered that your rights end where another persons rights begin. Our nation is founded on the concept of Negative Freedoms which limits what the powers the government has. To make the argument that the government must provide for you or keep another person from enjoying their freedoms, we are dismantling the essence of what a free nation is.
No comments:
Post a Comment