Quotes About Rights

Onsuz ya?amaktan korktu?umu fark ettim. Benim hayat?m? y?kmaya ne hakk?n var, demek istiyordum. Benim senin hayat?n üzerinde hiçbir ?ey söylemeye hakk?m yokken bunu yapmaya ne hakk?n var?

marriage, they say, halves one's rights and doubles one's duties.

It was nobody's right to be happy, after all.

How is it you have the right to destroy my life, I wanted to demand of him, but I am not allowed a say in yours?

How is it you have the right to destroy my life but I'm not allowed a say in yours?

Last time I looked, God gave 'em two arms and two legs, just like the men.' - Miss O'Hare

Companies shouldn't use the law to prevent consumers from doing something legal.

If a person is homosexual by nature - that is, if one's sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one's identity as gender or skin color - then society can no more deny a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow.

The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time.

Do you want to be known for your demands for your rights, even at the potential cost of other people's lives? Or do you want to be known as the type of Christian who is happy to be inconvenienced to serve the weak around us?

To fret about political, social, or economic inequality in a free society is to fret about the problem of freedom itself, for in the presence of freedom there will always be inequality of some kind.

But at the same time, progressives want to claim that any effort to resist the forces of "progress" is an act of aggression in the culture war. From abortion and gay marriage to the hot fad for transgender rights, progressives want every institution and community to bend the knee to their movement. And when anyone refuses, the resisters are cast as the aggressors.

the Bolsheviks' intention to build a utopian society based on radical equality produced so many enemies so quickly. Part of this had to do with their need to turn the assumptions of Western liberal democracy upside down, thereby concentrating all power in the state. Only this could guarantee such equality. The result was that from a political standpoint, the individual counted for nothing. It was an equality based on an absence rather than a presence of rights.

Wells argued that, in fact, jury trials in fugitive cases were unconstitutional because they placed a barrier between a slaveholder and his slave property.

If torture is permitted, it's hard to imagine what isn't.

This principle—the need for democracies to protect the rights of minorities—was one of the reasons that the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added so quickly. (You don't need a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the majority in a democracy, because the vote already does that.)

The individualistic answer largely vanquished the sociocentric approach in the twentieth century as individual rights expanded rapidly, consumer culture spread, and the Western world reacted with horror to the evils perpetrated by the ultrasociocentric fascist and communist empires. (European nations with strong social safety nets are not sociocentric on this definition. They just do a very good job of protecting individuals from the vicissitudes of life.)

There's The Utilitarian Grill, serving only sweeteners (welfare), and The Deontological Diner, serving only salts (rights). Those are your options.

A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one's groups over concerns for out-groups.

People are not usually deprived of their liberties all at once, but gradually, by one encroachment after another, as it is found they are disposed to bear them.

Minorities are always better off in a culture which protects dissent than in a culture which protects us from dissent.

A very dangerous principle is now being established as a social right: Thou shalt not hurt others with words.

True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others.

As Talmon writes, 'When a regime is by definition regarded as realizing rights and freedoms, the citizen becomes deprived of any right to complain that he is being deprived of his rights and liberties.'21 Whereas English liberty set limits to the state, French liberty was to be imposed by the state. If need be, said Rousseau, we must force people to be free.