You've gotta fight, for your right (and responsibility)

A friend (thanks, Rob) emailed me this link.

One of the essential points made is that "rights imply responsibilities."

I have tried to interject this truth in conversations with some educated people, because lately it has been almost universally ignored in "rights" conversations.

It was sad how many "rights" academically advanced people were willing to grant without ever considering:
(a) what a right is
(b) where a right came from

I had a professor in a graduate course I took in politics who was teasing out this concept, and expressed horror that the grocery at which he shopped listed a customer's bill of rights. As he explained, those "rights" were not granted by the store, they were an inherent part and parcel of his shopping experience - for if they were granted by the store, they could be removed by the store.

Same with government granted "rights" untied to any responsibility - if the government grants (to use my favorite example) an unfettered right to abortion, they have (1) granted a right without responsibility, and (2) can take that right away. This is more frightening than it sounds, because when the unity of rights and responsibilities is ignored, we begin to believe that the government (in this case, the Supreme Court) holds the power to ultimately determine what rights we have - and what rights we do not have.

Interesting that the granting of a right to abortion (and other rights that are philosophically similar) is seen by so many as being an expansion of freedom, when, if understood correctly, is really a pretty severe limitation of freedom.