Lately there have been comments about the rights people in our society have or the freedoms people here have.

Well, I reckon often that is mainly wishful thinking.
People don't have a right to a roof over their house, clean water, good education, free healthcare.

They don't have the freedom to do much of what they do, and many people should have many freedoms taken from them.

None of the rights or freedoms you mentioned are considered fundamental by most. They are the luxuries that come with the absurdly wealthy society we have created.

Which freedoms do you think should be taken away, and why?

Course they are, most weeks on the tv they spout the trash of the right for "free education", "clean water", "a roof over their heads".

We have been spoilt for decades by previous successive governments.  The last government set us on a path to lessen our expectations unless we are wealthy.

We used to have the freedom to buy a reasonably cheap home.  Banks were regulated and took a more humanistic approach.  We could go to hospital and know that we were safe and provided with nourishing food, warmth and hygienic medical care.

We could go down the street and leave our house unlocked and we could go for a long walk at night in an isolated area and assume we'd be safe.  

Progress has changed all that.  We now have so many people here from varied cultures who don't share the same patriotic ideology we were taught.

Families are so busy now earning a living to feed their materialistic wants that they haven't the time to teach their kids the values that used to be so important to communites.  As a consequence, many of these children are now a threat to our freedom.

Deregulation has meant that services we used to take for granted are unobtainable for many, or those that we can afford are second rate.

Most jobs were secure and if we were treated unfairly, we knew that there was a healthy IR office to ensure that our rights were restored.

Maybe we didn't think we were free a couple of decades ago, but compared with life today, we had everything we needed.

Another couple of decades into the future, as globalisation becomes more entrenched and more businesses are sent offshore, we will no doubt be on a par with developing countries.  Unless we are wealthy, the luxuries and freedom of living in Australia will be a distant memory.

most weeks on the tv they spout the trash

You could just stop watching it. What sort of TV are we talking about?

Not sure about health care or education, but a right to shelter and clean water should be a given.

There is a fundamental difference here, which I am having trouble putting my finger on. I think it's the difference between things derived from wealth (shelter, clean water) and more abstract rights derived from a social agreement involving restrictions on people's behaviour. It's the difference between an expectation that the community will do something for you, and an expectation that the community will refrain from doing something.

Does the right to shelter imply an expectation that the community will build a shelter for those who have none, or does it merely imply an agreement that the community will not knock down a shelter that you build for yourself?

A right to shelter is rather meaningless until you start specifying a certain quality of shelter, which implies a share of the community wealth. Otherwise you could just say that homeless people have a right to live in a cave that is 30 miles out of town with all the other homeless people living there, or under a bridge.

Quote:

There is a fundamental difference here, which I am having trouble putting my finger on. I think it's the difference between things derived from wealth (shelter, clean water) and more abstract rights derived from a social agreement involving restrictions on people's behaviour. It's the difference between an expectation that the community will do something for you, and an expectation that the community will refrain from doing something. Does the right to shelter imply an expectation that the community will build a shelter for those who have none, or does it merely imply an agreement that the community will not knock down a shelter that you build for yourself? A right to shelter is rather meaningless until you start specifying a certain quality of shelter, which implies a share of the community wealth. Otherwise you could just say that homeless people have a right to live in a cave that is 30 miles out of town with all the other homeless people living there, or under a bridge.

Well said FD.  Maybe we shouldn't use the words rights and freedoms, because it always implies giving money to someone who's "hopeless".  

"Sharing and inclusiveness" would be a better substitute and there wouldn't be a need to put a monetary value on helping those less fortunate, or even treating them as less fortunate.

Food and shelter would be a right that comes automatically without any thought to whether they deserve it or not.

Food and shelter would be a right that comes automatically without any thought to whether they deserve it or not.

You shouldn't use the word 'right' in this context. A starving African has a right to eat, but that doesn't imply anyone should be forced to feed them. A true right is something you have when you are alone and must protect once other people enter the picture. It is something that can be taken away by other people, but which cannot be given or forced upon someone.

'Food and shelter for all' comes with an equitable distribution of society's wealth. It is a form of socialism that is dependent on society having the wealth to provide it, not a fundamental right.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2008 at 2:07pm:

A starving African has a right to eat, but that doesn't imply anyone should be forced to feed them.

Couldnt agree more. :D

Welcome back AN. Been busy?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2008 at 3:32pm:

Welcome back AN. Been busy?

I broke my leg!!!!! Been immobilised for a month now. Changed Net provider also.

It's a shame you didn't have a laptop or something. How'd you break it?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

It's a shame you didn't have a laptop or something. How'd you break it?

Nah, dont need a laptop.
Broke it (leg) in a game of footy (rugby).

bad luck ausnat.
Must have been a bad break, hope it is healing ok for you

(So, going to tell us ALL the details !!!!!!)