Originally Posted by raymor

Ah the difference between rights, privileges, and things that the majority chooses to allow.

I think most here would agree that the sought of free speech means you can think and day things that other people don't like. There's no "right" involved with saying things other people like to hear. The right of free speech comes in when you say things the majority doesn't want you to say. Hopefully we're together so far. The key here is that a RIGHT, for it to have meaning as a right, is something you can do even when the majority or the government doesn't like it.

The constitution says that the government may not infringe on the rights of the people. Not that the government must GRANT rights, but that they may not infringe rights. That makes sense because if the majority, through government, could grant rights it could also take them away. We already know that a "right" subject to the whim of the government is no right at all.
A "right" to speak may mind only if Obama likes what I have to say is no right at all.


If a right is something the government can't take away (only violate) and therefore can't grant, where does it come from? The founders said we are ENDOWED with certain rights by virtue of our humanity, that these rights are part of us as we were created. That is why though people may violate our rights, they can not remove them from us, and therefore could not have given them to us.



A road, a business license, anything someone else can legitimately give me, they can also legitimately take away. It is therefore not a right, but a convenience.