The Value Of Opinions

I gots a queshtun.

How valuable are opinions?

Really.

We're told having an opinion is the "piece de resistance" for a democracy. Well, the rule of law is but you get my point. The more people express themselves the more we're "democratic."

Maybe but there's a lot of bullshittin' out there. Nothing but bearpiss.

Years ago we were stopped by a school reporter asking questions on campus. I can't recall what the question was but I do remember what the person I was with replied, "I don't know enough about the subject to offer an insightful thought." To which she answered,"it doesn't matter. Don't you have something to say?"

She didn't care about the quality of the response so long as it was a response. Coulda been verbal vomit and she wouldn't have cared. The more opinionated (and skillful) you are the better chance of getting heard. There's a difference between "opinions" and being "opinionated." The latter being vulnerable to blowhards.

It's the same with film makers. So long as they get their point across it doesn't matter how much they skew and mangle facts. The ends justify the means I reckon.

Democracy. Where even the most idiotic get to say something on nothing.

Like me.

***

Which brings me to a remarkable opinion I heard on the radio. A "community activist" and editor of a community paper, of socialist leanings, actually said - on air I reiterate - that "driving a car is a fundamental right."

It's amazing how often people confuse what are rights (legal and natural) and what are privileges. Rights are said to be inalienable; although conservative philosopher Edmund Burke believed all rights stem from government action. And he's right as far as I can tell.

Thus begins the debate and while it preceded the American Constitution, the tenets within the document are generally accepted as the blueprint for man's rights.

"Natural" or inalienable rights, if they exist, are universal and apply to all and come with birth, like life, free will or liberty, right to own property (or estate) and happiness. They can include justice and the right to peace. No one and no state can take these from you. Libertarians believe "ownership of your own body" is a natural right. They can never be surrendered because they never were part of any contract with the state. It's between God and man - if one so chooses to view it in this manner. As you can see, the debate about natural rights can get quite philosophical.

Legal (or civil) rights are codified contracts with society and decreed by the state. They evolve over time and do change with customs and beliefs. They include "right to free speech," "right to vote," "right to politically assemble," "right to a fair trial," "right to legal counsel" etc. All of these can be, in theory and in practice, be suspended or terminated by the state.

Driving a lousy car is not a right of any kind even if it means it's a necessity "to get to work." That has nothing to do with it being a "right." Driving a car is a privilege. Where is it written that you have a "right" to drive a car?  Same with higher education. However, everyone has a right to basic education but even then it's not an inalienable right.

What about health care? Universal health care too is not a natural right. It's a privilege to have it. Not all people want the government taking care of them. Health is intensely personal and the minute you ask someone else to pay for your health problems you infringe a person's right to liberty - for example,  to choose to not pay for another person. If a person is told by the government they can't have a particular procedure or done or that the service is not offered, how is this fair? In this way, you can't really apply a "natural" right to health care as it doesn't apply to all 


I'm not even sure if it's a legal right either. The people can request for the government to take care of them but you can't say it's "our rights" to have it. And that's what they've done in the West. The collective "well-being" takes precedent over individual freedoms.

So be it. Just don't take it for a right; nor is it necessarily right.