Bill of NON-Rights (Rebuttal)

Some lame-brain conservative idiot posted these 'non-rights' on another message board. There were a few others besides those I've listed and rebutted here, but I seem to have misplaced the file somewhere. Although these 'non-rights' might seem obvious to many, they are actually, upon closer inspection, fairly insidious attempts at destroying some very important protections currently in the law.

(ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.)

Whoever said that this was an inalienable right in the first place? Talk about stretching a nothing to look like a something! This is typical Republican shit. No one has ever suggested these luxuries be paid by taxpayers, although the politicians themselves appear to receive many such luxuries at taxpayer expense. That a politician derides the idea of anyone getting something for nothing is laughable. No one does less than a politician does and gets so much in return.

What exactly does “other form of wealth” mean? He is not very specific. Does he mean education, health care, savings accounts, stock portfolios, real estate, or employment opportunities? How does he manage to lump those in with big screen TVs and cars? At least he could explain his idea of ‘wealth’ a bit clearer. We all know that wealth is not about things we have but opportunities that provide long-term security and growth. That the author should harp on small-time material possessions is just plain fear mongering. Besides, wouldn’t making sure that everyone had a big screen TV be really good for the big screen TV makers?

(ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.)

What he really means to say is that he has the right to offend you in any way he sees fit. He wants to wear a swastika in a synagogue or shout ‘nigger’ in downtown Harlem and expect no one to get upset about it. This is typical of the racist majority who acts the victim in order to shift blame away from his own divisive and infantile behaviors. He does not realize the effects of ‘mere’ words, or how ideas can shape society’s attitudes and overall demeanor. That he fails, perhaps deliberately, to grasp this simple concept is not surprising. It means he can be the childish, raving asshole he always wanted to be without consequence.

He is correct in one matter. The world is chock full of idiots and, if he takes a good look at his immediate surroundings, one idiot in particular should stand out.

(ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.)

This is probably the worst NON right of all. The author posts what appears comman sense and obvious but really intends it as something dark and sinister. What he truly envisions is an economic and legal culture where one can make any product one wishes, no matter how awful or dangerous, and have no liability whatsoever should someone be injured by its use. He wants a world where ‘buyer beware’ is the only rule, whether it be apples, automobiles, or children’s cold medication. No law suits, no government oversight, no product testing, and no corporate liability or accountability. They assume the ‘market’ will correct the problem on its own, but care little about those who become ill, are impoverished, or die in the process. The ‘market’ corrects nothing on its own.

(ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes….)

This right-wing asshole asserts that “Americans are the most charitable people to be found” yet, simultaneously he decries the notion of making this ‘charitable’ behavior part of our national policy. Amazing ‘logic’ he employs there. What gives? If we are charitable as he claims then why the opposition to social programs that HELP others? I don’t get it. One should not feel ‘forced’ or put out when performing an act that one would, or a least claims would, perform quite willingly.

As we are a nation that frowns upon negative behaviors and makes it part of the law to dissuade fellow citizens from engaging in such acts, why not, conversely, encourage good acts through the law? If we are ‘charitable’ people then we should encourage more charity! I cannot think of a better medium than government to promote such a noble public cause.

(ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.)

This idiot thinks that because he has some ‘philosophical’ objection to a program, therefore the rest of us shouldn’t have it. This is the basic reasoning behind all conservative ideals. He has no clue how national health care would or wouldn’t turn out in America because he really doesn’t care how it would turn out anywhere in the world. That’s not the real issue here. He just doesn’t like the idea and, by golly, we ain’t gonna have it! This in spite of the fact that the right-wing douchebag is himself a government employee receiving public, taxpayer-funded health care as part of his salary package. He loves having taxpayer funded medical care for himself and his family, but when it comes to you and I, suddenly the system he benefits from would become a horrific national nightmare.

Hypocrites abound.

SL