WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacsFollow

If you want to call them "rights", then yes. They do.


This is actually part of the problem here. Somewhere along the line the social liberalists (aka progressives, aka liberals) decided that it would be easier to get people to accept their big government solutions if they re-defined a set of specific benefits as "rights". That's what you're talking about when you say that codified rights do not have to also be natural rights.

We also can refer to these as negative (natural) and positive rights. Natural rights are negative in that when codified they tell the government what it cannot do. It cannot infringe the right to free speech, or to bear arms, etc... Positive rights are an invention. They are benefits which some believe that the government ought to provide to the people. Again. That's a wonderful position to take and a valid issue to debate. However, they do it via exactly the process I spoke of earlier: They label the benefits as "rights" so as to avoid the argument about cost versus benefits.


When you even suggest that codified rights can be anything other than a subset of natural rights, you are following that bogus line of reasoning. If those benefits are so important that everyone is willing to give up some of their liberty in the form of taxation to provide them, then by all means make that argument and lets move forward. When the argument consists of trying to relabel those benefits as rights, and make them appear equivalent to the ones we're infringing in order to avoid the costs question, then you are engaging in a falsehood and I'm going to make a point of it every single time.




No. It's not surprising at all that our education system, largely built, funded, and run by the same people who want to include those positive rights in our Constitution, fails to educate our children about the concepts of liberties and rights as they were understood by those who wrote the Constitution. It does make their job easier, doesn't it? Heck. It's worked on you...

Standard gbaji format. 3 miles of text built on logical fallacies to create a case for an argument. Then the word "heck", then a rash and unreasonable (yet short) statement accusing democrats of something.