I find this amusing, and oddly true

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.sanfords.net/Bill_of_No_Rights.htm

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters. We hold these truths to be
self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.


ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.


ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - and 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.


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.


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 who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional
couch potatoes.


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not
interested in health care.


ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.


ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.


ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to
fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.


ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but
we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.


ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Half of it is libertarian wanking.

[TheDarkling]

I prefer the original version, you know the one which you guys stole off us.

[Alyrium Denryle]

heh

And Primus, do you know the difference between a right and a priviledge by chance?

[Keevan_Colton]

Half of it is libertarian wanking.

Just half?

[Andrew J.]

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.

The right to free (or at least government-assisted) healthcare is the logical outcome of the right to life and the right to pursue happiness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Half of it is libertarian wanking.

Just half?

So freedom of speech means "freedom of speech so long as I like what you say"?

[Andrew J.]

Half of it is libertarian wanking.

Just half?

So freedom of speech means "freedom of speech so long as I like what you say"?

...the fuck? He's criticizing something, not trying to suppress it! He's exercizing freedom of speech, you moron!

[Illuminatus Primus]

heh

And Primus, do you know the difference between a right and a priviledge by chance?

It doesn't matter, its just another one of those typical C&P pieces of cheap political rhetoric.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just half?

So freedom of speech means "freedom of speech so long as I like what you say"?

...the fuck? He's criticizing something, not trying to suppress it! He's exercizing freedom of speech, you moron!

You misunderstand.

Primus said, "Half of it is libertarian wanking"

Keevan asked "just half?"

and I responded with a question to confirm his opinion, because he impplied in his statement that the entirety was libertarian wanking.

[Alyrium Denryle]

heh

And Primus, do you know the difference between a right and a priviledge by chance?

It doesn't matter, its just another one of those typical C&P pieces of cheap political rhetoric.

Does a person have a right to that which they did not earn? They can ask for it, but that does not mean they have an inherent right to it. Welfare for example is a priviledge.

[Keevan_Colton]

You misunderstand.

Primus said, "Half of it is libertarian wanking"

Keevan asked "just half?"

and I responded with a question to confirm his opinion, because he impplied in his statement that the entirety was libertarian wanking.

I asked just half because it comes off as about 90% Libertarian wanking at the very least, about the only part that isnt is the bit about freedom of speech. Quite frankly how people can subscribe to this absolute idiocy is beyond me, so I'll take this oppertunity to conduct a little interview with leading representitive of Libertarianism, Mr. E. Scrooge.

"Mr Scrooge, is it true that you are opposed to a social welfare system?"
"Yes, it is, I believe what I earn is mine and that it is wrong for others to take what they have not earned. Frankly, we've too many people who dont pay their way in society."
"Well Mr. S, what about those who fall on hard times and cannot afford food and shelter?"
"Are there no prisons, no workhouses?"
"Well, we kind of got rid of the workhouses after the 19th century as the world found them an insult to human dignity, and imprisoning people for poverty would still cost the government money...."
"Nonsesne, dont you know we could simply take private donations to operate prisons? You should not underestimate charity!"
"So, how much would you donate to lock up poor people?"
"Me? Dont be silly, I keep what I earn."
"But you just said that cha..."
"Other people will give, not me. I dont want to."
"Well what if they dont wa..."
"Dont be dense, of course people will want to donate money to charity."
"But you dont."
"That's just me."
"Er...right, well, what is your stance on healthcare?"
"I believe that it's important to have an efficient private healthcare system. Socialized, communist like, systems are inefficent and wasteful, we need people who worry about the bottom line, the dollar cost...sometimes it's just too expensive to heal people."
"Too expensive? But what about the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Absolute nonsense, it's property not happiness, dont you know anything?"
"What about the life part of that? Surely if healthcare is more concerned with costs than the health of people that right to life wont be upheld?"
"They have the right to life so long as it doesnt infringe on anyone elses, particularly MY, right to property."
"Ah...well...lets move on to something different then..."
"Certainly."
"What do you think of the laws concerning liability?"
"Ah, people suing. Personally I think it's absolute nonsesne. If people think a company makes unsafe products or damages the enviroment or any other such nonsesnse they'll just stop doing business with them."
"But what if they build an unsafe product that injures someone who then has their life savings wiped out paying for the healthcare that's likely sub-par thanks to the dollar concerns and is then left living in the street with no food and no shelter and possibly children to support?"
"So what? They still have the right to freedom of speech, and religion...they can shout at others to help them and pray to any god they like to come save them."
"Ah, of course...wonderful...and that other right, the one to die from ill fortune and bad luck while there is still something that could be done. Thank you so much for giving your valuable time for this interview."
"Dont mention it, the bill for my time will be sent to your office."

[Andrew J.]

and I responded with a question to confirm his opinion, because he impplied in his statement that the entirety was libertarian wanking.

Anywhere between the entirety and 51 percent, actually.

[SirNitram]

heh

And Primus, do you know the difference between a right and a priviledge by chance?

It doesn't matter, its just another one of those typical C&P pieces of cheap political rhetoric.

Does a person have a right to that which they did not earn? They can ask for it, but that does not mean they have an inherent right to it. Welfare for example is a priviledge.

To draw you away from this Libertarian wankfest, explain how things which are apparently a massively immoral drain on society's wealth can support themselves on voluntary donations?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It doesn't matter, its just another one of those typical C&P pieces of cheap political rhetoric.

Does a person have a right to that which they did not earn? They can ask for it, but that does not mean they have an inherent right to it. Welfare for example is a priviledge.

To draw you away from this Libertarian wankfest, explain how things which are apparently a massively immoral drain on society's wealth can support themselves on voluntary donations?

I have before, mother lost her job and while she was retraining we didnt go on welfare, we found friends and relatives who loaned us money, and now that mother is working for herself, is paying back the loans.

If someone wants to work, they can. All welfare does is give an incentive to stay on welfare."I dont need to work, I get what I need to live reasonably comfortably anyway" there is a reason while people on welfare pump out more kids, so they get more money for(relativly) nothing.

As for lawsuits, if you hurt yourself due to your own stupidty(a screwdriver in your eye) it is your own fucking fault. If you spill coffee on your crotch it is your own dan fault. fresh hot coffee is by definition over 110 degees F, you are to stupid to win the case f you sue, while you have a right to do so.(In other words, you have a right to sue, but if you are stupid, you shouldnt win)

if a company ACtUALLY makes unsafe products(for example, KNOWINGLY makes something out of dengerous materials) then they should be sued. if they dont, and current information when they made the product was that the materials were safe(Ephedrin when it was released for example) then they shouldnt be sued(unless they continue to make said product after info was updated.

Key word is PERSUIT of happiness. You have a right to try, but not to succeed. Equality of opportunity, not condition. Healthcare is not a right. You must ask someones permission in order for them to use their sklls to help you. It is therfore a priviledge. WHy should someone work so someone else can recieve the benifits? In the US, despite what you may hear, emergency care wil be provided and payed for on a payment plan(for things like surgery) and life or death care is provied for free as a matter of hospital policy IIRC

Medication costs can be driven down if we didnt tax so much,but that is beside the point.

People do not generally have life-savings wiped out providing for medical care. And people are not islands. Friends, and relatives, at least with my family, are more than ready to pitch in if someone is having medical problems, if someone at school is having troube paying for sugery, the student body holds a fund raiser that brings thousands of dollars in aid EASILY. The incidents of "people starving" are very very low in the US. And while a welfare program I woulldnt be necessariy opposed to9so long as it is very very small compared to what it is now) the fact remains that such programs are not rights. They are priviledges, because one must ask permission to recieve the benifits.

[Gil Hamilton]

I have before, mother lost her job and while she was retraining we didnt go on welfare, we found friends and relatives who loaned us money, and now that mother is working for herself, is paying back the loans.

If someone wants to work, they can. All welfare does is give an incentive to stay on welfare."I dont need to work, I get what I need to live reasonably comfortably anyway" there is a reason while people on welfare pump out more kids, so they get more money for(relativly) nothing.

My family would be a standing rebuttle to this. When my father got laid off from Westinghouse, we ended up on welfare for about two years to stay afloat, despite my parents at any given time having three jobs between them. Eventually, my father was picked up by the Bulk Mail Center and ba-da-bing, off welfare again. But at no point did my parents like being on welfare, or having to use food stamps, but they had very little choice in the matter. At no point did either of them ever intend to stay on welfare or "pump out more kids" to get more benefits.

The thing here is that you are taking the stereotype of the "welfare queen" and making the assumption that it applies to everyone on welfare, or even the majority. With out evidence, I might add.

[Keevan_Colton]

I return to an earlier point of mine on Libertarianism.

You have the right to starve to death due to ill fortune.

It's the height of fucking stupidity and it saddens me to see you caught in it's bullshit. It's intellectual wanking at it's absolute worst "If someone wants to work, they can." Is such utter shite I can hardly believe you brought it up, every single unemployed person in the US right now is a worthless leach on society that doesnt want to work I guess? That seems to be basically what you're saying.

Libertarianism = The 19th Fucking Century.

All the shit in the world cant get you past the fact that while healthcare is not a right, apparently police coverage is...despite you not being able to force anyone to use thier skills to help you. Libertarianism is simply a steaming pile of horseshit and I'm getting rather sick of people pretending otherwise.

[Knife]

I have before, mother lost her job and while she was retraining we didnt go on welfare, we found friends and relatives who loaned us money, and now that mother is working for herself, is paying back the loans.

If someone wants to work, they can. All welfare does is give an incentive to stay on welfare."I dont need to work, I get what I need to live reasonably comfortably anyway" there is a reason while people on welfare pump out more kids, so they get more money for(relativly) nothing.

As for lawsuits, if you hurt yourself due to your own stupidty(a screwdriver in your eye) it is your own fucking fault. If you spill coffee on your crotch it is your own dan fault. fresh hot coffee is by definition over 110 degees F, you are to stupid to win the case f you sue, while you have a right to do so.(In other words, you have a right to sue, but if you are stupid, you shouldnt win)

if a company ACtUALLY makes unsafe products(for example, KNOWINGLY makes something out of dengerous materials) then they should be sued. if they dont, and current information when they made the product was that the materials were safe(Ephedrin when it was released for example) then they shouldnt be sued(unless they continue to make said product after info was updated.

Key word is PERSUIT of happiness. You have a right to try, but not to succeed. Equality of opportunity, not condition. Healthcare is not a right. You must ask someones permission in order for them to use their sklls to help you. It is therfore a priviledge. WHy should someone work so someone else can recieve the benifits? In the US, despite what you may hear, emergency care wil be provided and payed for on a payment plan(for things like surgery) and life or death care is provied for free as a matter of hospital policy IIRC

Medication costs can be driven down if we didnt tax so much,but that is beside the point.

People do not generally have life-savings wiped out providing for medical care. And people are not islands. Friends, and relatives, at least with my family, are more than ready to pitch in if someone is having medical problems, if someone at school is having troube paying for sugery, the student body holds a fund raiser that brings thousands of dollars in aid EASILY. The incidents of "people starving" are very very low in the US. And while a welfare program I woulldnt be necessariy opposed to9so long as it is very very small compared to what it is now) the fact remains that such programs are not rights. They are priviledges, because one must ask permission to recieve the benifits.

Clapity clap clap clap.

I have no problem with basic, ground level, coverage for people who need a hand. But it seems politicians have just too big of a heart with my tax dollars sometimes.

Although, at this point, I'd be more than willing to trade medicare and SS for a basic universal health care system (something akin to Canada or Britian) just due to costs.

I used to get soooooo pissed off when I was in the military. My wife needed to stay home because of the kids but even as an E5, times were tough money wise.

She started babysitting for other mothers who had to work, she couldn't get a regular job because most weeks I'd kiss her goodbye on Monday and come home on Friday (if I was lucky).

Anyway, one of the women she started babysitting for was a wellfare mother who got on a program for college. The tax payers paid for her tuition and then payed for her babysitting, which did not sit well for me.

Basicaly, the taxes I was paying at the time were fucking me over good, but those taxes were preventing me from sending MY wife to school (which she did want to go, and I wanted to send her) but those same taxes where not only sending this bitch to school but paying for her babysitting.

I was so upset at the system that it only lasted a couple months before my wife stopped watching the kid. Why should my tax bucks get sent to this bitch that I'd gladly use to send my own wife to school?



[/vent.]

[Keevan_Colton]

And of course, undermines the bullshit of people on welfare wanting to be there and being able to get off of it by themselves if they wish really really hard and say their prayers like good little boys and girls....and wish upon a star....

So, it seems you in your own little anecdote you show someone working to improve their employment prospects and get off welfare....and use that to bitch an moan about the existence of welfare.

Well fucking done, you're officially retarded.

[HemlockGrey]

If you spill coffee on your crotch it is your own dan fault. fresh hot coffee is by definition over 110 degees F, you are to stupid to win the case f you sue, while you have a right to do so.(In other words, you have a right to sue, but if you are stupid, you shouldnt win)

Christ, people, can we please stop using the McDonald's case as an example of a frivilous lawsuit? It's not, it wasn't, and it never will be, and it's getting really tiresome.

[SirNitram]

I have before, mother lost her job and while she was retraining we didnt go on welfare, we found friends and relatives who loaned us money, and now that mother is working for herself, is paying back the loans.

If someone wants to work, they can.

This sort of open lie about the state of the world today only works in Libertarian Support Groups. It does not go down well in the face of someone applying for work on a daily basis for two years and still only has a 4-days-a-month part-time job.

The world is not fucking magic, Alyrium. Wishing for a job does not grant one.

if a company ACtUALLY makes unsafe products(for example, KNOWINGLY makes something out of dengerous materials) then they should be sued. if they dont, and current information when they made the product was that the materials were safe(Ephedrin when it was released for example) then they shouldnt be sued(unless they continue to make said product after info was updated.

Funny that your Lib wankfest didn't mention this. Where's this come into what I asked, though? Oh, yea, no where.

Key word is PERSUIT of happiness. You have a right to try, but not to succeed. Equality of opportunity, not condition. Healthcare is not a right. You must ask someones permission in order for them to use their sklls to help you. It is therfore a priviledge. WHy should someone work so someone else can recieve the benifits? In the US, despite what you may hear, emergency care wil be provided and payed for on a payment plan(for things like surgery) and life or death care is provied for free as a matter of hospital policy IIRC

Yea, just no money to pay the hospital. Whoops.

Medication costs can be driven down if we didnt tax so much,but that is beside the point.

I'd love to see some proof of this one... It won't come, though.

People do not generally have life-savings wiped out providing for medical care. And people are not islands. Friends, and relatives, at least with my family, are more than ready to pitch in if someone is having medical problems, if someone at school is having troube paying for sugery, the student body holds a fund raiser that brings thousands of dollars in aid EASILY. The incidents of "people starving" are very very low in the US. And while a welfare program I woulldnt be necessariy opposed to9so long as it is very very small compared to what it is now) the fact remains that such programs are not rights. They are priviledges, because one must ask permission to recieve the benifits.

So in short, you have no answer. Though so. Piss off.

[Knife]

And of course, undermines the bullshit of people on welfare wanting to be there and being able to get off of it by themselves if they wish really really hard and say their prayers like good little boys and girls....and wish upon a star....

So, it seems you in your own little anecdote you show someone working to improve their employment prospects and get off welfare....and use that to bitch an moan about the existence of welfare.

Well fucking done, you're officially retarded.

Yeah, good job reading what you wanted to read.

Lots of people want to improve their lot, go figure. This bitch was improving her lot by muching off of others totally and completely. I could have done the same, or my wife could have done the same, but why would I or she want to hamstring others by using their money to send our selves through school?

She didn't even pay her god damn babysitting. She relied on tax money to do even that. A free ride. Yup, she ought to just respect the hell out of herself. She worked sooooooo hard for it.

What work did she do?

Again, she wished upon that star and the politicians and MY tax money responded.

[Keevan_Colton]

Wonderful, you really are that fucking retared. Here you are clapping away to the usual Libertarian bullshit about being able to get work if you want to and how charity will pay for those that really need it. Yet you are opposed to a woman on welfare, with children, getting support to help her get a decent job to support those fucking children. So, because you find yourself in a situation where you are self sufficient you figure every fucker has that as a baseline to improve from?

What the fuck is it with the have your cake, eat it and get a fucking refund from the baker too crowd that seems to make them the major proponents of such complete and utter bullshit?

[Perinquus]

It simultaneously amuses and irritates me to see people derisively dismiss this thing categorically as "libertarian wanking". I am not a wholehearted libertarian, for any number of reasons, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some things is this article that are at least partly true.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

As I cop, I see this sort of thing a lot. One of my part time jobs is working security for the Oakmont North Apartments here in Norfolk. This is low income housing. Many of the people there are receiving government assistance. Yet there are quite a few Lincoln Navigators and Lexuses parked out front, some with those spinning rims that cost thousands of dollars, and when you go into these people's apartments, most of them seem to have big screen TVs and expensive sound systems. Yet when I take larceny reports or domestic violence reports, and I get to the part where I ask, "do you have a work number?", I am very frequently told "no, I ain't workin'." Some of the money for this sort of thing comes from drug dealing and larceny, but not all.

I understand the need for public assistance for people who have fallen on hard times. I am fully aware that it happens, and I believe that some form of welfare is necessary to help people through times like this. But at the same time, we really do have a significant number of welfare spongers out there, leeching off my and other citizens' taxes. I see the above statement as nothing more than an indictment of that fact. The system needs to be overhauled to reduce this problem.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - and 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.

Again, this seems like common sense. We have far too many people these days who do indeed seem to feel they have a right not to be offended, and whenever someone does offend them, they try to sue or to have some new law enacted.

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.

Again, who can deny this? It does happen. Every time I have to restart my lawn mower because I let the handle go, I miss the lawn mowers we had when I was younger - the kind that didn't have that damn safety lever. But the lever is there because some dumbass was too fucking stupid to realize that reaching into the grass chute of a running lawnmower is a completely idiotic thing to do. We do have frivolous law suits. Again, I see this quote as no more than an indictment of that fact.

We could probably fix this with a very simple tort reform: a loser pays rules like some countries have. But since an high percentage of our politicians are lawyers, I see little hope of this, unfortunately.

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 who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional
couch potatoes.

Again, I do agree there should be some form of welfare as a temporary assistance to those who have lost their jobs. But the system that we have now is far too easily and too often abused. I see it every single day at work. I agree with what Benjamin Franklin said:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

This is why I think our system needs to be overhauled. I see the corroboration of this quote of Franklin's every day.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not
interested in health care.

I think everyone, regardless of circumstance, certainly does have a right to lifesaving emergency care. Beyond that, I am unconvinced of the benefits of universal health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

It's hard to argue with this one.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

Ditto.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to
fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

This one looks like an indictment of military intervention where we have no national interests at stake. Basically, I agree. We haven't the resources to police the planet, nor would we get approval for trying to do it in every case of need. I think it is irresponsible to spend lives where we have no interests that are threatened.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but
we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

Again, for people who are indeed trying to find and take advantage of opportunities, I am all for public assistance. But I see too many people who don't try. Dismissing this as "libtertarian wanking" does not mean this is not actually a problem. It is. We do have people who do this.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Equality of opportunity vs. equality of condition. Attempts to engineer equality of condition, aside from being ultimately unsuccessful, amount to penalizing the most successful while carrying freeloaders. Equality of opportunity is not perfectly realizable either, but I think it is a better goal to strive for, since it is more just.

[ArmorPierce]

I have before, mother lost her job and while she was retraining we didnt go on welfare, we found friends and relatives who loaned us money, and now that mother is working for herself, is paying back the loans.

When my father went crazy with mid-life crisis and left my mother, brother and me we had no one. My mother has no family on her side that could loan us money and my father's side tried to screw us. We were new to the area and my mother didn't have any close friends there. My mother didn't have a job being a house wife. What would you have had us do, starve? Eventually my mother was able to find a job and my father comes back and we get off welfare.