Don't I have a right, say, to compensation for my work from my employer? Or a right to expect reasonable and responsible conduct from the entities with which I do business?
Not to belittle you, enbar, but your post perfectly illustrates the confusion of the term "rights" among those on the left. No "rights" are involved in your two examples. These are simple examples of legal contracts.
More generally, I suppose this clip implies a rejection the importance of the third of Roosevelt's four freedoms ("freedom from want"). Is that right?
Nope. Re-read the additional quote I pasted in my first comment for clarication. Personally, I would take it a step further -- charity is a sacred respons...

Don't I have a right, say, to compensation for my work from my employer? Or a right to expect reasonable and responsible conduct from the entities with which I do business?
Not to belittle you, enbar, but your post perfectly illustrates the confusion of the term "rights" among those on the left. No "rights" are involved in your two examples. These are simple examples of legal contracts.
More generally, I suppose this clip implies a rejection the importance of the third of Roosevelt's four freedoms ("freedom from want"). Is that right?
Nope. Re-read the additional quote I pasted in my first comment for clarication. Personally, I would take it a step further -- charity is a sacred responsibility, not merely a noble motivation. Even so, there is a difference between emptying my bank account and picking the pocket of my neighbor to fund my good works.

In fact, FDR typifies this mindset. Last I checked, he lived and died a wealthy man. What has happened to the concept of charity beginning at home? The transfer of the responsibility for our neighbors from ourselves to the government in large part is simply an unwillingness to give on an individual basis. It is more an act of greed than of unselfishness. There is little else that has done so much to undermine the sense of community in the modern age.

Don't I have a
right, say, to compensation for my work from my employer? Or a right to
expect reasonable and responsible conduct from the entities with which
I do business?

Not
to belittle you, enbar, but your post perfectly illustrates the
confusion of the term "rights" among those on the left. No "rights"
are involved in your two examples. These are simple examples of legal
contracts.

More generally, I suppose this clip implies a rejection the importance
of the third of Roosevelt's four freedoms ("freedom from want"). Is
that right?

Nope.
Re-read the additional quote I pasted in my first comment for
clarication. Personally, I would take it a step further --...

Don't I have a
right, say, to compensation for my work from my employer? Or a right to
expect reasonable and responsible conduct from the entities with which
I do business?

Not
to belittle you, enbar, but your post perfectly illustrates the
confusion of the term "rights" among those on the left. No "rights"
are involved in your two examples. These are simple examples of legal
contracts.

More generally, I suppose this clip implies a rejection the importance
of the third of Roosevelt's four freedoms ("freedom from want"). Is
that right?

Nope.
Re-read the additional quote I pasted in my first comment for
clarication. Personally, I would take it a step further -- charity is
a sacred responsibility, not merely a noble motivation. Even so, there
is a difference between emptying my bank account and picking the pocket
of my neighbor to fund my good works.

In fact, FDR typifies this mindset. Last I checked, he lived and died
a wealthy man. What has happened to the concept of charity beginning
at home? The transfer of the responsibility for our neighbors from
ourselves to the government in large part is simply an unwillingness to
give on an individual basis. It is more an act of greed than of
unselfishness. There is little else that has done so much to undermine
the sense of community in the modern age.

There are plenty of ways to define "rights." I understand your point, but what I'm saying is that you're not being clear about precisely what definition of "right" you're using. In ordinary conversation, there's no contradiction involved in saying that I have a right to expect that someone else will fulfill his contractual obligations to me. In a technical, legal-philosophical sense, maybe this doesn't fit the definition of "right" that you're talking about, but you don't actually specify what you mean. Maybe you'd like to clarify. Anyhow, I don't think my comment reflects "confusion" so much as an awareness that words can have multiple meanings and that people need to be clear about what th...

There are plenty of ways to define "rights." I understand your point, but what I'm saying is that you're not being clear about precisely what definition of "right" you're using. In ordinary conversation, there's no contradiction involved in saying that I have a right to expect that someone else will fulfill his contractual obligations to me. In a technical, legal-philosophical sense, maybe this doesn't fit the definition of "right" that you're talking about, but you don't actually specify what you mean. Maybe you'd like to clarify. Anyhow, I don't think my comment reflects "confusion" so much as an awareness that words can have multiple meanings and that people need to be clear about what they're basing their arguments on.

I think the point about FDR's personal wealth is a red herring. He couldn't have met the needs of every poor person in the country. So, while I agree that charity's great, I don't think there's anyone who seriously observes the economic facts of poverty in this country -- the wealthiest and most profligate on the planet -- or elsewhere in the world, who believes they can actually be solved by hoping that people will be more charitable. I don't imagine that you think so, either.

To me, it's perfectly legitimate to make the argument that in a just, well-ordered society, you don't have some people who are multibillionaires and others who can't afford decent housing, have no access to health care, can't satisfy basic nutritional needs, through no fault of their own. To me, that describes a society that has some serious problems. We may disagree on the proper solution, but I'm sure you can agree that you can't really describe such a society as "just."

There are plenty of ways to define "rights." I understand your point,
but what I'm saying is that you're not being clear about precisely what
definition of "right" you're using.

While a bit crude, papabenny's comment does answer this question. Rights as spoken of in the clip are defined in the full article. I apologize to both of you, but I can only clip so much. Since I use Clipmarks as a means to bookmark articles for future reference, I have the bad habit of assuming one has read the article, and not just the clip, when commenting. Thus the confusion and the ensuing attempt to define rights.

I think the point about FDR's personal wealth is a red herring. He...

read more»

There are plenty of ways to define "rights." I understand your point,
but what I'm saying is that you're not being clear about precisely what
definition of "right" you're using.

While a bit crude, papabenny's comment does answer this question. Rights as spoken of in the clip are defined in the full article. I apologize to both of you, but I can only clip so much. Since I use Clipmarks as a means to bookmark articles for future reference, I have the bad habit of assuming one has read the article, and not just the clip, when commenting. Thus the confusion and the ensuing attempt to define rights.

I think the point about FDR's personal wealth is a red herring. He
couldn't have met the needs of every poor person in the country. So,
while I agree that charity's great, I don't think there's anyone who
seriously observes the economic facts of poverty in this country -- the
wealthiest and most profligate on the planet -- or elsewhere in the
world, who believes they can actually be solved by hoping that people
will be more charitable. I don't imagine that you think so, either.

I think you missed my point. My use of FDR was used as an intro to the thought I developed in the paragraph -- namely that the transfer mentality is an act of greed and an attempt to avoid personal responsibility that is cloaked by the veneer of concern for the poor. My argument was that this attitude perpuates poverty rather than helping those in need. Disparaging the concept of charity does nothing to refute the fact that little is accomplished with the sums spent by the government to "solve poverty." I do not have the stats at my fingertips this morning, but much of the tens of thousands spent on each "poor" person does not reach him. That is hardly a solution in my opinion.

As you go on to state, we certainly do have a duty to care for our unfortunate neighbors. Our difference is one of means, not end. That in itself should be a source of hope.