Wrong About Rights

This has become one of my pet peeves:

That one, there.

Would you say “I’ve got a right for my kitchen not to catch on fire?”

Only if you’re an idiot. You have a right to a kitchen. You have a responsibility to keep it from catching on fire.

Would you say “I’ve got a right not to have my house hit by a tornado?”

You could. It’d be absurd. You do have a responsibility to watch the sky, turn on the radio, and look out for your and your family’s safety, though.

So – is there a “right to safety?”

No. Adults have a responsibility to protect children.

And literally none of the things Rep. Edelson is demanding will ive up to any part of that responsibility.

12 thoughts on “Wrong About Rights

  1. I wonder if she has a security guard that taxpayers are footing the bill for?

  2. 19 kids murdered by horrific violence
    Should read “19 kids murdered by Salvador Ramos”
    Or maybe “19 kids murdered with horrific violence.”
    “19 kids” is the subject, “murdered” is the verb, and “violence” is another verb but a verb can’t be the object of another verb, it needs to be a noun or pronoun.

  3. She went to high school in Columbia Heights, Hamline for undergrad and has a Master’s of Social Work from the U. She lives in Edina and represents that district in the state legislature as her only job. Her prior experience was Guardian ad Litem for Hennepin County.

    Her husband is CEO of United Health Care.

    DFL limosine Liberal through-and-through. I suspect she likely has little understanding of how the Constitution came to be, why it was a breakthrough in political philosophy, what protections it offers nor what dangers it guards against, and doesn’t care about all that old dead White man history stuff because it’s irrelevent to modern society.

    She’s wealthy enough and connected enough that the Lesko Brandon administration’s endless fiascos probably don’t affect her lifestyle. She likely knows little about daily crimes of violence in Minneapolis and cares less – it’s Black on Black which is out of sight, out of mind for her. But a school shooting hits closer to home – she has three kids – so she’s the perfect audience for DFL gun control chanting points.

    There’s no reasoning with a person like her. She’s not operating on an intellectual level, she’s operating on an emotional level. She’s afraid for her kids and like any good momma bear, she’s willing to sacrifice everybody else on the planet to protect them. Ignore her and move on.

  4. Just to clarify Bret Edelson is CEO of United Health Care Services (MN, ND & SD) a subsidiary of United Health Group Inc whose CEO is Sir Andrew Philip Witty.

  5. A friend pointed out my response was ad hominem and not substantive. That’s a fair cop.

    The questions of “what rights should everyone have” and “where do those rights come from” and “how do we guarantee everyone is able to fully and freely exercise their rights” are not easy. They’ve been debated at least since ancient Greece and the answers have changed over time.

    Prior to the Declaration of Independence, most of Western Civilization believed rights were given by God to the King who could dispense priviliges to his subjects. The modern analogue is rights come from the government and are guaranteed only to those who deserve them.

    The Declaration made clear Americans don’t believe in that. Rights are given by God directly to the people living in America. Government’s job is to guarantee that all Americans get to enjoy their God-given rights.

    Of course there are exceptions and limitations. Minor children haven’t acquired all their rights yet. Convicted felons lose some of their rights. But the general framework is clear: the American concept of the relationship between the Grantor of rights and the guarantor of rights is different.

    More in next post.

  6. Historically, the fundamental organizational unit of Western Civilization was the Family: Mom and Dad taking care of kids when little; kids caring for parents when elderly. That was most people’s primary focus in life.

    A secondary focus was Extended Family: brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins (think: Montagues or Capulets). Not as important as Primary Family, but more important than non-family. A tertiary focus was Tribe (collection of extended familes, think: Dakota or Cherokee) which eventually became Nation (collection of Extended Families in a specific geographical location). Nation-states really didn’t take hold as an accepted political entity until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

    When the Primary Family is the fundamental organizational unit of society, the responsibility for protecting family members lands hardest on the family. Higher levels of organization may exist, and they may offer assistance, but when seconds count, help from them may be hours away. That part has not changed over time – you cannot rely on others (cops) to protect your family. They have no legal duty to you or your kids. If they choose to stand outside the school discussing the weather as a madman kills everyone inside, you have no lawful recourse against them.

    So how does a school get authority over the kids? Schools are said to be ‘in loco parentis’ which is Latin for “in the place of the parents” a further indication of how long these questions have been debated. Parents who send their kids to school delegate to the school the authority to teach, discipline, and protect the kids.

    more in next post

  7. Finally, we get to Heather Edelson’s point. She’s sick of hearing about gun owners’ rights. What about the rights of kids to be safe in schools?

    Parents give in loco parentis authority to the school to discipline their children, but does the school have any obligation to keep the children safe? Sort of. Now we’re getting into specific law and I’m not well versed in school law so take this with a grain of salt.

    Schools have an obligation to keep the premises safe from hazards (slip and fall on wet pavement, dangerous playground equipment, electrical outlet hazards) much the same as Wal-Mart or the landlord of an apartment building. If the school chooses to provide transportation, it must make sure the bus is safe. It must buy safety equipment for football players. Children with learning disabilities get special lessons, children bullied on account of LGBT status get special protection. Most of these obligations seem to come from higher authority (state statutes, Department of Education, federal law).

    I’m not aware of any law, rule or case saying schools have a legal duty to protect students from mass shooters. Which kind-of makes sense, if you think about it, since schools stand in the place of the parents and the parents have no legal duty to protect their children from mass shooters. Ethical, moral, emotional, familial, but not legal. You’ll never see a big verdict in “Estate of Dead Kid vs. Parents” for death by mass shooting (car accidents, yes, by insurance law statute).

    It’s already illegal to carry guns on school grounds but schools can voluntarily take additional steps to protect students (man-trap doors, armed security on site, lockdown drills).

    Who has the responsibility to ensure the kids are safe from mass shooters? Sorry, Heather, but that responsibility lands back on the parents. If you want your kids safe in Edina schools, then convince the Edina School Board to step up security. Convince the taxpayers of Edina to pony up for security. Or pull your kids out of public schools and send them to private school where the administration takes safety seriously.

    final post next

  8. Why stick parents with that burden? What about parents who live in Frogtown and send their kids to Central, parents who can’t afford more security and school boards that won’t invest in it? Why not place the burden elsewhere in society?

    Transfering private obligations to the public sector to spread the burden also reduces accountability. No Fault Insurance is an example. Obamacare is another. School funding equalization laws already exists so if the state wants to spend more on school safety statewide, the mechanism is in place.

    But why put the burden on schools or taxpayers? Why not on the people causing the problem? If school vehicle safety is an issue, ban all other vehicles. If playground equipment safety is an issue, ban playground equipment. If sports safety is an issue, ban sports. If safety from guns is an issue, ban guns. Why not Momma Bear everything in society, For The Children?

    Because there are trade-offs. Other people have rights, too. It may be inconvenient and annoying to have to deal with them, but that’s the nature of political science in a representative democracy.

    It’s not my fault the policies DFL limosine liberals enacted have a boomarang effect they dislike. Don’t punish me for your mistakes. Roll back the policies that caused the problem. Increase police funding. Stop and frisk. Prosecute crimes and punish criminals. Kick disruptive kids out of class. Report disturbed kids to mental health treatment and give them more mental health treatment options with real accountability to follow through.

    Mitch’s response was directly on point and absolutely correct: take care of your kids. Nobody else will. And that’s as it should be. Nobody else cares as much about your kids as you do. Everybody else has their own things to care about.

  9. Right on cue to follow up JD’s excellent treatise (emphasis mine):

    On Tuesday’s “PBS NewsHour,” National Education Association President Becky Pringle argued that allowing qualified teachers to carry guns in school “puts more guns into schools, we know more guns equals more violence,” and will put “pressure” on teachers “that the society believes that they are the ones that should be defending our kids with guns.” And also “won’t do anything” because teachers won’t take up the option to carry guns.

  10. It strikes me that even if we assume a “right” to be safe in school, the question still remains about how to best achieve that. OK, we’re conceding that the policies put in place by the left did not work in this case. So we are going to assume, then, that more of the same will fix our problems?

    I think not.

  11. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 06.15.22 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.