Where do our rights stop? A popular saying holds that they stop at the end of the next person’s nose. But, judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it appears that everything on our personal and collective wish lists have now become rights, without limit.

Do we have a right to say and do anything we want, to unlimited health care, prescription drugs, subsidized housing, “to do drugs,” to prevent others from using drugs, to have health care plans pay for a sex change operation or prescriptions for Viagra, to a free college education, to receive “equal pay” for “equal work” (however that may be defined), to send your children to the school of your choice, to smoke or prevent others from smoking, to force our opinions or beliefs on others (as in Christian, Muslim or atheist, hedonist, or environmentalist)?

If our rights stop at the end of the next person’s nose, does that include their pocketbook? Stealing may be illegal and immoral, but whether or not it is acceptable seems to depend on who does it and why, and sometimes how. For example, is it acceptable for someone to steal food to feed their family but unacceptable if they steal money to keep from losing their home in foreclosure?

Taking money from others by force or at gunpoint or by embezzling it from an employer or some company is a crime, but how many people condone appropriating someone else’s dollars through taxation? Probably everyone, to some degree. But, isn’t that the problem? That is, the degree? Too often, in matters of taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is being gored.

When did we move from the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution to freedom of speech only if it is politically correct according to some particular group, as in African Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Jews…..you name it? Our treasured freedom of speech seems to be acceptable only so long as it conforms to some special interest group’s definition of expression they consider “correct.”

There always seem to be good and sufficient reasons to impose our individual or collective will on others. Both sides of the political spectrum find plenty of justification for pressing their values on everyone else. Abortion is about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body or it is murder, depending on one’s personal beliefs. Those on the left say that the Boy Scouts are wrong to prevent gays from being scout leaders, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees their right to make such a determination. But, that hasn’t stopped the ACLU and others who oppose the Boy Scouts’ policies from attempting to force communities around the nation to punish them in various ways, such as pressuring donors, including local governments, to stop giving them money or to cancel long standing privileges to use certain community facilities, such as parks or school grounds.

Schools have always been able to define the types of organizations that are permitted to hold meetings in their facilities or on their grounds or, for that matter, to even organize. But now, under the guise of keeping church and state separated, they go to such extremes as permitting clubs to organize celebrations like Kwanzaa or Voodoo rituals while preventing Christian students from holding club meetings on school grounds.

Or, how about the right of students to swear at others, including teachers, on school grounds? In some places vile language is considered acceptable, while prayer is not.

Do I have the right to demand that I be compensated for some perceived injustice, such as reparations for slavery? After failing to gain any traction with Congress, those who hold this view are now attempting to pursue claims against certain American corporations that were in business at the time their ancestors were enslaved and that profited from slavery. They may have the right to try, but should they? Apparently, stopping at the other person’s nose does not include corporate pockets.

Generally, we have the right to decide what and how much we eat, but there are some people who feel we should not be permitted to eat meat or a diet that’s high in carbohydrates or fat. Should they be allowed to determine what a proper diet should be for everyone else? Is obesity a disease or just lack of control? I suppose it can be either or, depending on the circumstances, but who’s to say? So, for some people it appears that it is just too bad if my “nose,” as in my dietary choices, happens to get in the way of someone else’s notion of what’s good for me.

Rights can be measured on a continuum, ranging from not having any rights to absolute, unrestricted and uncontrolled rights to do or say anything, that is, anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere. But, unlimited rights eventually reach the point where they become license. By license, I mean the unrestricted freedom to say or do anything we please, regardless of whose “nose’ gets in the way. Is that what we want?

In the final analysis, rights are really more about self-control than they are about laws or regulation or the constitution. You may have, or think you have, the right to say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or no law.

las vegas hotel deals