1) If God gave us rights, He would give us food and housing, etc.
Answer: A: A right is a “just claim,” which no man has upon God; God gave us just claims with respect to our fellow men – so, our rights are indeed from God, but not against or upon God; B: God provided us with everything we needed, and for certain reasons of our own devising, we now must live with a less ideal set of circumstances… which, just like when parents punish their children, may *seem* bad and unpleasant, but REALLY is still for our good. And, just like children can make the best or worst of a punishment, our free will can be put to better or worse use in coping with our present calamity.

2) If God gave us rights, why would He give us a certain number of rights?
Answer: Because for God to give us any rights at all, obviously requires a “certain number” of rights. What a smart guy he is!

3) God forgot about slavery.
Answer: the Scriptures make it plain that God, starting from some absolutely barbaric cultural assumptions in the ancient world, is having compassion upon mankind’s stupidity through the course of the scriptures, only gradually placing greater and greater moral and spiritual burdens upon us. Hence, the Scriptures themselves, as they unfold, make plain that some of the moral assumptions or commandments of earlier portions, are not really good enough. For example, the Scriptures often refer to the fact that the very sacrifices, which God commands, are not really germane or pertinent to the things that really matter to God, but are symbolic of them, and point to them. So, rather than try to absolutely abolish slavery from the beginning, at a time when all mankind practiced slavery and more or less depended upon it, God instead commanded that the Jews treat their slaves with compassion and respect, giving them the chance to go free after a certain time. Recognizing that some Jews were so kind to their slaves that the slaves became a member of the family, He even made provision for the slave to choose to remain with the family, making the family responsible for continuing to do well by the former slave if he chose to remain and eat their food, live in their home, etc. That may not be perfect yet, but it was an huge improvement over the situation everywhere else! In Christianity, slaves are encouraged to gain freedom if they may, and Christian masters are encouraged to free their slaves or, failing that, to treat them well. Since slavery was a fait accompli in the Roman Empire, it was not God’s plan for the fledgling community of Christians to add one more “social cause” to their already major task of converting the world. Once the world was converted, one notices that Christianity slowly stamped out slavery. Protestant nations reintroduced it late in the game, but EVEN THEN, pious Christians everywhere fought against nominal Christians’ acceptance of the practice and Abolitionism was very much a Christian movement. So, slavery didn’t “slip” God’s mind. He had a pretty good plan, I’d say, for weaning His followers off of it, despite how convenient and natural it is for people to abuse each other.

4) Why does God give people in different countries different rights?
Answer: A: He doesn’t. Some people understand God’s laws and know Him better or worse than others, and so do a better or worse job of recognizing and defining those rights. B: None of the countries’ Bills of Rights claim to be exhaustive; they indicate a recognition of certain Rights that the use of reason and revealed religion can positively affirm, all the while admitting that, as new situations present themselves, reason guided by revelation may find that new definitions of rights can be categorically made. For example, now that economical power has come to eclipse more traditional concepts of governmental power in importance and influence, I think economic rights will be amongst the next to be examined and defined in clear and absolute terms.

5) The abuse of Japanese-Americans proves we have no rights, and the erosion of our rights proves that we don’t have rights. Only “privileges” exist.
ANSWER: “Abusus non tollit usus.” “The abuse of a thing, does not nullify the proper use of a thing.” Just because people IGNORE rights – i.e., just claims of one man against another – does not mean that the right does not exist. It means that some people have no qualms about violating your rights. Carlin’s attempted point, is one I used to make in my liberal days. But, he misunderstands (as I once did), that “a right” is not the same things as “a guarantee.” It is a description of what SHOULD be done, so that society may come together in the recognition of that fact and strive to defend what is just against what is unjust. It’s not a guarantee, but it is a great help.

6) After saying we don’t really have any rights, Carlin argues that we must have “infinite rights.”
ANSWER: Carlin displays what a profoundly short-sighted and irrational man he really was, right here. First, the point goes against everything he just said. Then, as his own example shows, this concept is ridiculous and meaningless. There would be an endless amount of rights that were asserted against other asserted rights… meaning, no rights would really exist at all. So, for example, Carlin says he has the right to do “whatever he pleases,” but then, if we don’t like it, we have the right to kill him. So, it would seem that the “right to life” is not a right, and the number of rights is anything but infinite. Thus, even when he stops saying we have no rights, in order to state that we have infinite rights, he still winds up saying we have no rights. He truly was a luminary amongst atheists.

I used to be leftist and atheist… but, once I sat down and really thought about these issues in some actual depth, I couldn’t help but perceive what rubbish it all is. Liberals often spout their irrational philosophy with sarcasm or condescending humour, which has the effect of causing people to emotionally identify with the intellectual superiority of its snide invective. It short circuits the critical step of actually examining what is said, replacing it with the mere feeling of a secure smugness. Hence the iconic nature of “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” etc. That’s exactly what I got from this bit by George Carlin: if you say it snidely enough, and with enough of an air of intellectualism, people will identify with it (desiring these traits for themselves), and so congratulate themselves for being hip, smart, perceptive atheist progressives who can laugh along with so OBVIOUSLY smart and funny a guy as Carlin… when really, they’re buying the weakest trains of thought that have ever been on the market.

As several “atheist islands” have shown us, many atheists do make it their business if people choose to practice a religion. Millions more believers have died at their hands, than vice-versa.

While Islam (and perhaps, once upon a time, Judaism) has put atheists to death, there is no known instance of an atheist who has been martyred by the Church.

About rights to things that haven’t existed for a long time: Self-governance certainly pre-existed the organization of governments and the state. The organization of a government would only have come about after a certain number of people and the ensuing complexity required it. So, the recognition that people have the right to have a say in how they are governed, is a right that goes all the way back to the beginning. That said, the mere question of “how long something has existed” isn’t a solid or iron-clad rationale for establishing rights, and I wouldn’t accept it, either.

The real reason health care isn’t a right, is because there is a difference between a right to a good or service that someone must provide you, and rights to do certain things or be free from certain kinds of constraint. The Constitution doesn’t give us “the right to a gun,” but “the right to keep and bear arms,” since this “is necessary to the security of a free state” (i.e., guns ARE more necessary than pre-natal care!). But do you see that the “right to keep and bear arms” is not the same thing as “a right to a gun?” I.e., you may have the right to own a gun, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to force anyone to *provide you* with a gun. If you did, you would have the right to force someone to sell you a gun (even if he didn’t want to do business with you); if you couldn’t afford to pay, you would also have the right to force him to give you a gun for free, or to force “the State” to pay for it (since, if it’s a “right,” your ability to pay should be irrelevant!); and, if “the State” pays, who really pays? The people, via taxes. So, you would have the right to force the rest of us to pay for your gun. Tell me, do you want your tax dollars to pay for my gun? I don’t own one yet, and I’m a monk (and so without money), and so my “right to a gun” means YOU have to pay! It’s my right!

You see, if you start introducing a “right” to be provided with goods and services, you are actually advocating slavery. How? You are forcing someone to provide you with the good or service in the first place. In the second place, if you can’t pay for the good or service, but you have a “right” to it, then somebody not only has to be there to provide it to you, but somebody has to PAY for you. I.e., other people are required to work for you and pay for your stuff; people are literally enslaved for your “right” to goods and services. Real rights aren’t like this; real rights harmonize with the rights of others. Take a case study:

Let’s say there was only one doctor near you; let’s say he is an actual Buddhist (and not your typical, leftist, American wannabe-Buddhist); let’s also say that he only wants to take on 50 patients in his practice, so that he can give them the attention his moral standards require of him; now, let’s say you wanted an abortion; let’s say we live in a liberal paradise, and abortion is “health care” and therefore “a right;” let’s also say that you are poor.

Your “right” to health care requires us to deny this doctor several rights of his own: 1) Real Buddhism, as the Dalai Lama explains, is just as opposed to abortion as Christianity – so, you are denying this doctor his right NOT to provide you with a service, which he finds immoral; 2) you are denying him his right to choose the number of patients he wants to help; 3) you are denying him his right NOT to be your slave, working for you for free; 4) OR, if you think “the State” should pay him for his work, you are taking away MY RIGHT, and EVERYBODY ELSE’, not to be slaves… because, since “the State” only has the money it takes from us, you would be requiring the people to give their wages to you, in order to pay for your “rights.”

Now answer this: once people realize that they have a “right” to things like food, housing, health care, etc., and, since these are “rights,” that they don’t have to pay for them, how many people do you think will choose to work hard in order to pay for these goods and services? How many do you think will take it easy, and demand that “the State” give them food, housing and health care? And, even if a few people do still have enough moral backbone to work for a living, I bet they’ll stop REAL FAST, when they realize that most or all of their wages are being taken in taxes to pay for the MULTITUDES of people who AREN’T working, in the expectation that “the State” will provide them with all of their “rights” for free.

Do you see how stupid this whole idea is? We can forgive some young liberals for being blinded by the idealism and zeal of youth, into believing nice-sounding ideas about a “perfect world.” But, you have to grow up some day and see how these things would play out in the real world. If you have a “right” to goods and services, soon the State will have to provide them to you… and the State can only provide them, by enslaving or stealing from the people. And THAT is not American; it is the most egregious possible violation of human rights. So, now you know better, and have no excuse. Strive to learn to truly think critically about the half-baked ideas of the left. I promise you, they are ALL half-baked. Or, more accurately: the real movers and shakers of the left know exactly what these policies lead to… and that’s what they’re hoping for. They just have to hoodwink the rank-and-file leftists into thinking that they’re really working for beautiful hope-n-change.

Yet, charity is a virtue, which comes through faith and the grace of God. St. Paul tells us that “If I have not charity (and do all kinds of neat things for people and for God)… I am but a clanging gong or resounding cymbal.” It’s possible, then, to do things that seem charitable, but without real charity. If charity must be an act of virtue done by the grace of God, then the State cannot compel it. In fact, when the State takes money from people and distributes it without their consent, it is precisely NOT charity. It is IMPOSSIBLE for that to be charity. We must be charitable, but the State can’t force it.

The problem with “Catholic Social Justice,” is that it is neither Catholic, nor socially just. It’s not religion and policy; it’s cultural (as opposed to economic) Marxism, propagated by a clerical counter-culture in defiance of authentically Catholic teaching. Traditional and pious Catholics have been fighting against “Social Justice” for decades; though it has been deeply entrenched in Catholicism since the unwashed hippies took over the sanctuary in the 60s, the octogenarians are dying off and younger priests tend to be more sensible and conservative.

By the same token, if people say they want to be free from crime it means they either defend themselves or they hire others to do it but they should have no right to force to pay for it.

Of course. What’s the problem with that?

Your hypothetical is a ridiculous straw man and you know it. In a free society, someone would be free to perform sexual acts out in the open on their own property, of course, but they would be no more likely to do so, and even less likely in fact, than in our current statist society.

Why? Because discrimination would be legal in a free society, and if a person was dumb enough to offend all of his neighbors, they would be free to blacklist him from any of the local businesses, including even the roads.

The normative majority are forced to tolerate the antics of a pathological minority instead of the pathological minority simply keeping their impulses in check. That’s why restive minorities enlist the State to protect their precious, imaginary civil rights so they can keep practicing and socializing the costs of their harmful behavior.

Ancaps don’t think that people *would* do whatever they currently want to do (as you correctly point out, what people currently choose to do is based on a distortion of the true costs of each action), only that people *could* do whatever they wanted, if they think it’s worth it. You could go “humping everything in sight” but you would be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

That’s not to say that such practices would disappear, though. I can imagine that if there are enough people with “compromised immune systems” some entrepreneur will form a mutual aid society that doesn’t test for diseases before letting people join, but then charges a higher premium. In South Africa, because of the high incidence of HIV/AIDS, there are already companies offering life insurance and funeral plans without a medical certificate required, but if you choose to provide a medical certificate, your premiums go down.

Incidentally, it’s cost of operation is greater than the GDP of iraq itself. It would be absurd to have the war be paid by iraqis themselves because they do not find your marginal state legitimate.
On the other hand, you have several million suckers across the atlantic that DO believe in their “ideological” state and will support it because they find it to be “legitimate” even if they claim to prefer their country not engage in wars of naked aggression.
I’d also like to remind you that dollar for dollar, the insurgents are doing a hell of a better job fighting than u.s. troops, so the free market wins again.

If you refer to ancaps, I’ve never encountered a one with that view.