I wish I had been surprised by this article: Fast Internet access becomes a legal right in Finland. Having grown up in a time before the PC, I marvel at even the idea of making high speed internet access a “right”. Of course, the people of Finland are free to pass any legislation they deem appropriate. This is, however, a prime example of the direction many governments, including in the U.S., have been moving: declare something a right and then force the citizens to fund it.
Where does this end? Well, if you agree with Hayek as I do, it ends in totalitarian regimes forcing individuals to labor, at the regime’s direction and discretion, to fund the ever growing cost of all the discovered “rights”. After all, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. This is why it remains vital that we stand up to such activities wherever free people wish to remain so.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Cost of Citizenship
Primaries will be held in North Carolina tomorrow to select the nominees for November's mid-term elections. As is usually the case, these primaries will likely involve limited participation by the voting public. Similarly common is the populist mantra which reappears around these events insisting that those who fail to vote have no right to complain about the situation.
It is with this last point that I take issue. While there is no doubt that people who fail to vote are less justified in vocalizing their displeasure with the outcome, their right to complain is in no way impacted by their lack of participation. While we as citizens have prescribed rights protected by the constitution, there are no limits to those rights based on our willingness, or lack thereof, to vote.
Of course, many might think I'm overreacting based on idle chatter. Perhaps I am, but I see ample instances of populist rhetoric growing teeth. This issue in particular has had a history of debate, such as is currently occurring in Colorado among other places. What we tend to forget is that rights are not requirements. While we might tire of non-voters complaints, their right to vote, much like their right to free speech, implicitly includes their right not to vote.
It is with this last point that I take issue. While there is no doubt that people who fail to vote are less justified in vocalizing their displeasure with the outcome, their right to complain is in no way impacted by their lack of participation. While we as citizens have prescribed rights protected by the constitution, there are no limits to those rights based on our willingness, or lack thereof, to vote.
Of course, many might think I'm overreacting based on idle chatter. Perhaps I am, but I see ample instances of populist rhetoric growing teeth. This issue in particular has had a history of debate, such as is currently occurring in Colorado among other places. What we tend to forget is that rights are not requirements. While we might tire of non-voters complaints, their right to vote, much like their right to free speech, implicitly includes their right not to vote.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Entitlement Lost
I had the misfortune this morning of watching a cable network where I was treated with indignation concerning people stranded by the Icelandic volcano who had to return to exorbitant parking fees. I realize that all bankers and big executives are exploitive and inhumane, at least according to conventional wisdom, but now the robber barons of public parking have been exposed for their greed and avarice as well. These thousands of travelers were forced to remain in Europe well beyond their planned departure, saddled with the costs of lodging and food associated with that delay, and subjected to the mental anguish of being separated from home and loved ones only to have to return to a bill for maintaining their transportation in a secure location. Does insensitivity know no bounds?
Of course, this is simply another of the many attempts to besmirch industry in defense of the consumer. What the announcers failed to mention was that these people had vehicles occupying spaces that might otherwise have been occupied by other vehicles. Should we assume that these spaces themselves should have been free of charge, even to people not impacted by the eruption, or is our humanity limited to those instances where the media can fain moral outrage? Perhaps, like health insurance, public parking should be a right extended to all citizens.
Like health care, the question would remain as to the source of the money to create or maintain parking structures. Right now that money comes from the willing in exchange for the service provided. However, the current system callously allows for the cost of misfortune to be passed on to those directly impacted by their circumstances. If parking is similarly a right, then the taxpayer should be footing the bill to protect the less fortunate from being subjected to such anguish. This logic can reasonably apply to any of the as-yet unidentified rights guaranteed by citizenship.
Of course, this is simply another of the many attempts to besmirch industry in defense of the consumer. What the announcers failed to mention was that these people had vehicles occupying spaces that might otherwise have been occupied by other vehicles. Should we assume that these spaces themselves should have been free of charge, even to people not impacted by the eruption, or is our humanity limited to those instances where the media can fain moral outrage? Perhaps, like health insurance, public parking should be a right extended to all citizens.
Like health care, the question would remain as to the source of the money to create or maintain parking structures. Right now that money comes from the willing in exchange for the service provided. However, the current system callously allows for the cost of misfortune to be passed on to those directly impacted by their circumstances. If parking is similarly a right, then the taxpayer should be footing the bill to protect the less fortunate from being subjected to such anguish. This logic can reasonably apply to any of the as-yet unidentified rights guaranteed by citizenship.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Concerning rights and privileges
This morning I heard a news article concerning the health care piracy bill signed into law today by the president. The commentator indicated that the question hinged on whether a person thought that health care was a right or a privilege. It occurred to me that those who pushed this down our throats don't consider it a right at all. Instead they consider it a responsibility. I base this assumption on the fact that they seem bent on forcing us to maintain insurance. If it were a right, then there would be no such requirement.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
