I read a Mark Steyn piece and was very impressed with the simplicity of his expression of the real guts of the operative portion of the concept of "rights. It is likely that Liberals will not understand what he said on the matter because they suffer from a highly skewed mental set. (If you do not believe that, let me know and I'll post a copy of a study that should prove it to you. It was done by a Liberal, no less.)
What Steyn said in his piece was: (substituting (in brackets) for his words "sovereign" and "state" the synonymous term "government") “RIGHTS” ARE NOT THOSE THINGS GRANTED BY THE [GOVERNMENT] AND ENUMERATED IN STATUTE, BUT THE PRECISE OPPOSITE. THEY'RE RESTRAINTS UPON THE [GOVERNMENT.] THEY'RE NOT ABOUT WHAT THE [GOVERNMENT] ALLOWS YOU TO DO, BUT ABOUT WHAT THE [GOVERNMENT] IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO TO YOU." (Emphasis mine.)
If those ideas sound suspiciously similar to those expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, you are correct. (For those who may have forgotten, those amendments are also known as the "Bill of Rights.")
What Steyn said in his piece was: (substituting (in brackets) for his words "sovereign" and "state" the synonymous term "government") “RIGHTS” ARE NOT THOSE THINGS GRANTED BY THE [GOVERNMENT] AND ENUMERATED IN STATUTE, BUT THE PRECISE OPPOSITE. THEY'RE RESTRAINTS UPON THE [GOVERNMENT.] THEY'RE NOT ABOUT WHAT THE [GOVERNMENT] ALLOWS YOU TO DO, BUT ABOUT WHAT THE [GOVERNMENT] IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO TO YOU." (Emphasis mine.)
If those ideas sound suspiciously similar to those expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, you are correct. (For those who may have forgotten, those amendments are also known as the "Bill of Rights.")
No comments:
Post a Comment