Today's Confusion on the Concept of Rights

After two hundred years, the constitutional protection of the right of
the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change.

It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer
to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student
rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, Asian-
American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless
rights.

Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an
individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves
will not be found. The longer we lack a definition of rights, the worse
economic and social problems will become.

Every year new groups organize to demand their "rights." White
people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are
quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and
Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus,
demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for
everyone.

The welfare ethic now universally accepted at all government levels
determines the concept of rights. No longer are rights individual but they are
based on demands, needs, and greed.

When Lee Iaccoca came before the House Banking Committee on
which I sat, he made the "right" of Chrysler workers to keep their jobs the
issue, not government largesse for a failing corporation. He explained in his
autobiography that the issue had to be workers' needs or he could not obtain
the bailout. Since the concept of rights is currently so inexact, he had no
difficulty convincing the Congress. The rights of the small businessman who
had his credit "stolen" and was forced into bankruptcy due to the Chrysler
bailout was not easily identified and thus ignored.