When Do Rights Require Others’ Labor

Feeling squeezed to “pick a side” on every issue? We pull the lens back and ask a deeper question: what is a right, and what do we owe each other to make it real? With Elena joining the table, we test our friendship across belief lines—a progressive Christian, a conservative atheist, and a listener who pushes hard on language and policy—to map the territory between personal liberty, social duty, and the state’s role.

We start by sorting fundamental rights from civil and social rights and examine the claims-and-duties framework that underpins them. Does calling something a “right” add moral gravity or muddy the waters by demanding other people’s labor? We explore charity and taxation through the “Forgotten Man,” consider whether a fair trial is a state construct we traded for order, and question the costs of outsourcing care to impersonal systems. The theme keeps returning: rights can protect us from each other, but responsibilities connect us to each other.

Education becomes our test case. Alayna argues that free, quality public education is both a moral obligation and a safety measure that strengthens communities and competitiveness. We separate the goal of raising the floor from the means of public versus private delivery, and we debate the language of “deserve” for children versus a clear duty owed to the vulnerable. Along the way, we unpack social contract theory, individual autonomy, and why entitlement grows when we export responsibility to the state.

By the end, we land on real common ground: claims must be matched by obligations, and outrage needs to become action. Alayna’s fight against a third-grade retention law—paired with hands-on support for families—shows how to move from critique to care. If you’re tired of rights talk that never leaves the page, this conversation offers a practical path back to community: feed the person in front of you, teach the child across town, and rebuild trust one responsibility at a time.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help more people find Living on Common Ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Chapters

• 1:16 Marker 1
• 1:16 Marker 3
• 1:18 Marker 4

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:02

Does it feel like every part of your life is divided? Every scenario, every environment, your church, your school, your work, your friends, left, right, conservative, liberal, religious, secular. It seems you always have to take a side. This is a conversation between a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be great friends. Welcome to Living on Common Ground. Do you think if we met today, we would still be friends? I don't know.

SPEAKER_05: 0:35

But we're friends.

SPEAKER_00: 0:42

Man, so well, we want a few games. Y'all fools think that's something? Man, that ain't nothing, y'all. And you know what else? We ain't nothing either. Yeah, we came together in camp. Cool. But then we're right back here, and the world tells us that they don't want us to be together. We fall apart like we ain't a damn bit of nothing, man.

SPEAKER_06: 1:17

All right, so we are joined today by uh a uh another libertarian.

SPEAKER_04: 1:22

Wrong.

SPEAKER_06: 1:23

Elena. Uh friend of the show, Elena. And we have already determined before we started courting that she is the only reason that she's a friend of the show, the only reason she listens to the show is because she agrees with everything that Lucas says.

SPEAKER_02: 1:37

Also wrong.

SPEAKER_06: 1:39

And um and feels like She must be very smart. That's right. That's how I determine if somebody's smart. Okay, so so uh I asked Elena on one because she often will um engage with me after the uh um after the episode, after she's listened to the episodes.

SPEAKER_02: 1:58

No, Lucas also gets my unhinged text messages. Does he? Yeah.

SPEAKER_06: 2:02

Okay, fantastic.

SPEAKER_07: 2:03

She li she uh she like live tweets to uh to my text message thread. I love it as she's listening to it. Yeah. It's pretty great.

SPEAKER_06: 2:13

Awesome.

SPEAKER_07: 2:14

So um she'll ask me a question. She'll be like, well, but what about this? And then like before I could even respond to her, she's like, oh, sorry, I just heard your answer.

SPEAKER_06: 2:23

That's fantastic. Um and well, Elena's one of the reasons, Elena and a few other friends, but that we're gonna do the live event next year where we're gonna record so that she can ask her questions right while we're recording. Yeah. Yep. And then we I gotta figure out um it actually it won't be that hard. We'll have a microphone that we can pass around to people and then they'll be on the the episode too, asking questions. And um, we'll probably at some point just pass my microphone around because I'm sure most questions will go to Lucas.

SPEAKER_07: 2:54

One's just gonna want an opportunity to tell me I'm full of crap.

SPEAKER_06: 2:57

Maybe. Okay, so the the thing I wanted to talk about today is this. Um Elena responded to your comment a few weeks ago about rights. It can't be a right if it comes at um if it causes others.

SPEAKER_07: 3:14

I forget exactly how you worded it, but if it requires the labor of another, it cannot be a right. Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 3:20

It's not inherently a right, what I would say. But yeah.

SPEAKER_06: 3:24

Okay. Here we go. Great. So what this I I think a p a great place to start is what then what is a right?

SPEAKER_02: 3:32

Well, I feel like that's like exactly the issue is because that because like everything else, it's just all jumbled into one thing. Uh well, everything's a right. There's there's different kinds of rights. Human rights, fundamental rights, civil rights, employment rights. I mean, not every like it's just not enough to say I think that that's precisely the problem is that you know, everything to everyone is a right.

SPEAKER_07: 3:59

Is that we're using the same word to describe all of this?

SPEAKER_02: 4:03

Yes, but I also feel like the overgeneralization of it limits the importance, especially when you're talking about human rights and fundamental rights. Um So I I don't know, I just feel like a fundamental right has less to do with the labor of others and really everything to do with just don't do things like don't kill me, don't enslave me, don't extort me. I and then you get into and I I think I think that human rights um support uh and fundamental rights. But but at its core, um uh fundamental right is more or less just don't do certain things. I I would say that um the right to a free trial or to a fair trial is a fundamental right. And that does require, I guess, you know, the labor, quote unquote, of others. But by and large, I think fundamental rights just they just don't require people to do things.

SPEAKER_06: 5:17

So when you say a fundamental right, you're talking about like a fundamental freedom, like something that that uh I might say like a transcendental. It's sort of it's just one of those that is inherently exists because of of the shared humanity.

SPEAKER_02: 5:29

Aaron Powell Right. Simply be because you're a human. But there's there's different levels to it. There's there's a philosopher whose name I don't know. It's Wesley something. Um and the the philosophy like compares rights to DNA and the fact that they, you know, bond and intertwine. And so there's there's a right with a claim and a duty. So you make a claim and now I have the duty to uphold that. So you claim that I can't murder you, and so now I have the duty to not murder you.

SPEAKER_04: 6:04

Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 6:05

And then there are liberties with no claim. So I am I don't know, I'm at liberty to travel and you have no claim on whether I can travel or not. But then again, people also like there's what's the there's a common term, um first rights or I can't think of it, but there's there's first and secondary because the the secondary comes into play of you know whether whether said rights are going to be upheld. And I don't there's there's layers to it and they all they all intertwine. And I I'm just saying that I don't when I say something like if it's at if it's at the labor of somebody else, it's not inherently a right. That doesn't mean that I don't think it's a right or that it should be the right of of people. But but when we say when we s I think we use language that really discredits humanity because what we're saying are rights is actually responsibilities. I mean access to free, good quality public education is a responsibility. It's not I don't I wouldn't say that it's a right, which is crazy because that's my like that that's my life. I would die on the hill, but but it but when we just say, well, it's it's my right, then it takes away the responsibility of of the needy to be less needy, and it takes away the responsibility of the privileged to be more helpful. Because if we just inherently think that everything is inherently our right because that's how we feel, then we're not responsible of ourselves or each other. So I think even when something is a right, we should maybe chill for a second and understand that maybe it's actually not, and even if it is, it may not continue to be. So maybe we should be more responsible of ourselves and of each other. I just think that it takes away from humanity the language.

SPEAKER_07: 8:19

Yeah, I I think that there's actually something that's maybe even a little bit more cynical in there, which is that um I think that there's a either a conscious or unconscious attempt to smuggle in the um the uh connotation of the fundamental right when you're using it for these other things that are clearly rights given by uh an organization, a state, a society, whatever. You know, if we get together and we say we're gonna make an agreement that everyone gets to have free education. We'll just stay with free education.

SPEAKER_02: 9:08

But I'm a big fan of, by the way.

SPEAKER_07: 9:10

Everyone gets to have that. And we've made the we've made the agreement. That's an agreement between people. And you could say within our society, we've agreed that is a right. You could use that term, I guess. Um like we said before in the past, like the these are just mouth sounds, but they're meant to describe something. And we've agreed if you're in the society, we're going to provide this. I think that there is an attempt, when you use the word right, you have a right to free education in our society. I think there's, for some people, an attempt to smuggle in the connotation of that you would see the weight, the gravitas that we place on a right to life or a right to liberty, or a right to property. Um so I I agree with you. I think some of it is just confusion, um, confusing the the terms. But I think sometimes it's a little bit more cynical than that. I really like the um the point that you made about um about devaluing um uh humans' responsibilities when we're using it this way, and it makes me think of um charity, the idea of charity, and how I think that um you know, there's this ongoing debate between people who want um government to provide income for um for the poor, just for the for the sake of the the conversation, we'll just use simple terms. To to provide income for the poor, provide resources for the poor, they want the government to do that. And they'll and they'll use concepts like charity, like you should uh you should help, you know, the the this is something that um people um should want to do.

SPEAKER_02: 11:25

Moral obligation.

SPEAKER_07: 11:26

Yeah, there's like a moral obligation. It makes me think of there's a um there's a little pamphlet book um that I've read before called uh The Forgotten Man, and it's a it's just a speech that was given in like the it's like the early 20th century, 1900, early 1900s, something like that. And um and the the main concept in it is expressed where he says, um and I might butcher this, but uh person A and person B get together and and notice that there is uh some agree that there is a problem with person B, with per excuse me, with person C. A and B get together and say, C has a problem and we must fix this.

SPEAKER_05: 12:07

Right.

SPEAKER_07: 12:08

And so in order to do that, we are going to um take from person D in order to give to person C. And that is the the that's the forgotten man in the in this in the in the speech. That's the forgotten man is the is the person D. And so why I think that it's important, the the concept that you're talking about, is that I think there's something sacred about sacrifice for someone else. And I do think that it devalues that sacredness when we say that there is a right to this, therefore, we're going to take it from you form of taxes and give it to them. Now, again, I I mean I've I said this in the last in that episode that you were referring to. We might all agree as a society, actually, we're going to get rid of the charity thing and we're going to go ahead and confiscate some part of everyone's resources because we think that on balance, that will create less chaos for everyone if we have if we kind of raise the floor of poverty, right? If everyone has something to eat, then we have less, you know, on the aggregate, we have less people who might commit crimes in order to be able to eat or whatever, you know. So we might make that um that agreement. But I think we've lost something if we do that, you know.

SPEAKER_08: 13:44

Um I also I had a a thought about your jury idea. Because I don't I actually don't think that that's a fundamental right.

SPEAKER_07: 13:55

A uh a trial by jury.

SPEAKER_02: 13:57

Really?

SPEAKER_07: 13:58

Yeah. Okay. So just bear with me for a second.

SPEAKER_02: 14:01

Well, surely you think that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right.

SPEAKER_07: 14:06

So I think the concept of a fair trial is a statist concept. It's a concept that was created from the state. I actually think I actually think the fundamental right that we've given up long, long ago, and I'm not saying we should go back to it, is the right to retribution, just retribution for the harms that are inflicted upon you and yours. I think that it is a it is a connection with another person.

SPEAKER_08: 14:38

So for instance, uh you steal from me, I have the right to deal with that with you.

SPEAKER_07: 14:49

But the problem is that that causes this feedback loop that escalates violence and chaos and blah, blah, blah. So we third party the justice out to a state, to a third, to a to an objective observer and say, We're no longer, we are giving up our my right. I'm giving up my right to retribution, to justice. I think that's actually justice. I don't know if you could ever get actual justice, but I think that's the concept of justice. So we say we're gonna give that up to the state. The state, if the state is a monarch, you know, then then we're giving it up to the monarch's representatives to judge that, right? But we don't have a right to go steal that back or steal something else. I don't have the right to kill your cousin because you killed my cousin, right? Given the fact that we've given up long, long ago this concept of retribution, given that, then yes, I think that we have that. Then then you must have fairness in the trial, right? And I do like our system, but as flawed as it is, I like our system, you know. Um but but I just I I think the maybe the reason that that seems a little sticky is that you know, in my mind, I think we're it's because we've all accepted something and I too have accepted it. That is not actually fundamental. This concept that justice is done by a third party is a I mean that's that's a completely that is a new thing, I think, in the history of humanity. It just keeps going in and out, doesn't it?

SPEAKER_08: 16:40

Is it bugging you? No, um speaker.

SPEAKER_04: 16:45

Okay.

SPEAKER_05: 16:47

I think that rights protect us against each other or from each other, whereas responsibility connects us.

SPEAKER_02: 17:01

And so I'm a big fan of the things that are considered to be rights, and I I vote for policies which I think will sustain said rights.

SPEAKER_04: 17:12

Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_07: 17:15

I just I I get I I find myself that's an interesting thing that you said rights protect us from each other.

SPEAKER_02: 17:23

Yeah, I think that they're put in place to I mean, what else are they for? They're yeah, they're they're to protect us from us. Uh I mean, the even if even public education is is designed in the way that it is designed so so that so that children have access to quality education, regardless of of their economic background or where they they live. Because we all know if we didn't have that in place, then you know, I wouldn't give a rat about your kids and and your family because I'm doing just fine over here. I think I think by and large, rights, especially civil rights and employment rights and all and all these subcategories, yeah, they're absolutely put in place to protect each other or to protect us from us. Um so I just I I mostly just get wor worried with the language because it I it doesn't, it doesn't, there's not a lot of responsibility in line. And so for instance, you know, I'm I'm in early childhood education. My entire life is kids. Um so yeah, I'm a really big fan of public education. And I know we try to stay um neutral here on on this plot. I believe it is it is of I am of the opinion that this administration is actively trying to privatize school uh uh education. And I have a huge problem with that. I think that it is inherently wrong and dangerous.

SPEAKER_07: 19:07

And so I I do my I do my part and when you say this administration, do you mean Lee or do you mean Trump?

SPEAKER_02: 19:16

Yes.

SPEAKER_04: 19:18

Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 19:19

Yes. And so for me, my my responsibility to that is to to to vote on on legislation and and to and to be active and informed in what's in what's happening with that. And of course, I believe that all children deserve access to quality, free public education. But just because it is a right, I this is the other part that seems dangerous. Understand that just because something is a right doesn't mean that it's going to continue to be. And it's not enough to just say this is our right. It's not enough. Because it may not be anymore. You can't if if you just keep saying, well, this is our right, this is our right. Okay, now what? Now, now what when that the secondary order of rights, you know, because our our first order of rights, that's what I was trying to say. Those are what we experience now. But understand there's another layer to that. Second order rights, where the deciders either uphold or change or do away with altogether what you know to be your right. So I think that it disconnects us and doesn't we don't hold ourselves accountable, we don't hold each other accountable. And I also think that it's dangerous. The entitlement of it is dangerous because it may not always be your right.

SPEAKER_06: 20:58

I was gonna say I something that I have found interesting listening so far is that you kept saying quality education, which something that you felt wasn't necessary last time we talked about it. Um quality and quality, I think, is one of those terms.

SPEAKER_02: 21:12

I think that that is morally right.

SPEAKER_06: 21:16

That's it. Okay, now you're making it a moral issue, which is also very interesting. Here's the other thing I was thinking about. Often when we talk about um rights, what we're actually concerned about are our rights. Very rarely when we're talking about when people are c were are crying out for rights, it seems to me that um what we're actually concerned about is our rights. Yeah. Even I would say even people that are engaged in uh activism. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just it's just an observation. So um I think I cut you off, Elena. Go ahead.

unknown: 21:59

No. Okay.

SPEAKER_07: 22:01

Um could you expound on your um uh the statement that uh children that all children deserve? What is what what do you mean when you say they deserve it?

SPEAKER_02: 22:16

I think children are different because I think children almost don't count in in much of this because children aren't they don't have the means physically, mentally, or logistically to to obtain these things. So uh it's hard, it's I think it's different. Um and I I do I think that's what children deserve. Um, but I also feel comfortable in saying this is what children deserve because it's what I do. You know, I'm not just sitting in my living room saying kids deserve better education. I I was an educator, you know, I I actively participated in that. Um but I feel like it is the morally correct thing to do uh to to quality free education. Um I think it's morally correct. I also, just to be completely honest, uh I think it keeps us safer and and more competitive. Uh it's I think it's dangerous to function with crappy, low quality public education um because it makes us vulnerable uh to the rest of the world. I just I don't want to use the word dumb, but I I mean it's vulnerable.

SPEAKER_07: 23:45

So I think that um that's the I and I would separate out because the the um the danger of having uh a lower floor of education, um I think that's a separate issue. And I I think that probably uh we you and I would probably um agree on that. Um that's where you know in that in that episode I said I I feel like um that is someplace where I am willing to compromise on principle, you know. Um where I again I'd want I'd you know, and I send this in an episode, I I'd want everyone to get in a room and say, like, okay, we're gonna give this, but we're this is it, right? With like we're not we're not going beyond this, right? Um which is obviously a silly thing to say. Like that's not that that's not realistic, but um but I think that I would agree that it is it is less dangerous as a society to have a higher floor of some type of education. Um the but I would want to separate that out from exactly what we've been talking about, which is like if it's if it's an actual right.

SPEAKER_02: 25:06

The thing that is difficult for me, and I and I want to sidestep Yeah, some things are not rights, and they're actually just afforded to you because of where you live and the and the work that other people did.

SPEAKER_07: 25:17

Well, that's true. I think that's I think that's probably true for everyone. I mean, everyone has something, you know, some problem, you know, the no matter where you find yourself in life, you you've got um you've got aspects of your life that you don't, you know, you didn't actively work for and you know that you're that you're standing on the shoulders of somebody else. That's true. Um what was I gonna say? Oh, I want to uh a sidestep the issue of what actually is more effective in uh educational policy. Um I think that that's a complete that's like that's a separate um uh that's that's a separate discussion. Because it if we were to agree that we needed to have that it was good as a society to have a higher level of education, then the question is, okay, what is the more effective way of doing it? And can we be honest about the pitfalls of both sides, you know, privatization or public, you know? But again, I think that's a that's probably um a little bit too much in the weeds. I I wonder how this strikes you if I say something like I want every child to have all the food that they need, the education they need, the medical care, you know, all all of the things. I want them to have that. And to me, that's different than they deserve it.

SPEAKER_02: 26:53

Yeah. Again, for children, I I'm different. I think all of those children, in my opinion, do deserve all of those things. Because they are vulnerable, because they they do not have the capability again, emotionally, physically, logistically, they don't they do not have the capability to obtain and sustain those things.

SPEAKER_06: 27:16

Well, by definition, though, that doesn't sound like deserve to me.

SPEAKER_07: 27:20

Can I ask you this? Can I ask you this? Actually is there a difference between deserve and something we have a moral obligation to provide? Is that is it or or or do those because I think I get what you're getting at. I I do think I um the fact of their vulnerability means that in in in the conceptualization that you're you're presenting means that they have uh maybe even that they have a fundamental right to something. The the fact of their vulnerability gives them some sort of precedent. What I'm what I'm getting tripped up on is the word deserve, and maybe that's not fair because it's um it's just a word. And it's like maybe, you know, maybe, maybe I'm just yeah, I'm not a huge fan of deserve.

SPEAKER_02: 28:14

You and I have talked about this before. Like, like there have been times where I'm like, I don't deserve blah, blah, blah, the the love and the whatever from our community. And yes, you I I've told like I generally speaking, as far as excluding children, I for the most part, I really don't think people deserve anything. And that you are you are afforded these things by by love and community alone. Um I mean generally speaking, I I just I feel like if somebody is in need, should I have the capability of filling that void in a big way or a small way? I am going to do that because it is my responsibility, not because you deserve it. What is like, what does deserve have to do with anything? You're hungry. I happen to have 20 extra bucks. This is a real story. Hector's so bad. I mean, we'll have$75 in our bank account. Like one time we were young, and he went and somebody couldn't didn't have enough to pay for all of the things. And Hector was like, Yeah, what else do you need? And went and bought her a bunch, you know, like a handful of groceries. And I'm like, We have like$45. But he had 20 extra bucks. So it's not it's not that it has to me, things have less to do with this person deserves this and I deserve this. And no, no, I have the responsibility to my brethren to Yeah.

SPEAKER_07: 29:57

No, I I think that I think that maybe I'm being um too pedantic with this.

SPEAKER_06: 30:01

I I don't think so. I think that so um I think that it's really important in my mind to think about a right um is something that we determine as a society, that that we have rights. Now, part of the conversation becomes what determines the right. Is the right determined by what's best for us as a society, or is it determined by a morality that we have developed? And then I have friends, and and I don't know, but maybe morality itself is determined by the by the culture and what's best for us as a society, right? As a culture. But I I really struggle with the idea that um that rights are something that we inherently deserve. I think that I think that rights are the byproduct of living in community together. Um, because ultimately, I again, by deserve, that I'm hearing merit. So there's a merit that I have accomplished or that I have done that deserves this.

SPEAKER_07: 31:03

Well, and it's the flip side of entitlement. Yeah. Yes. I'm entitled to this because I deserve it.

SPEAKER_06: 31:08

And I think that that's I think that's actually where we start losing some of our um our perspective on this, is that we start thinking that I deserve this, right? I deserve this because I was what? Right. Like I, so let's just look at me. I is it fair for me to say I deserve this because I was born a white male, middle class, upper middle class. Well, at the time I was lower middle class, but I was born into the in the United States. So therefore, I deserve all of these things. And the people that don't have them, do we say they don't deserve them? Right. I don't think so. I think that they're so for me, I look at maybe humans. I think that I yeah, just and yeah. Um, but so for me, I look at it and I think there are such things as what would probably just basic human rights. Um if if you were born into this world as part of the larger human culture, community, there are certain things. And I can get on board with the idea that um that those rights cannot go beyond or cannot cause the labor of others or however you word it, right? But I I would even argue a little bit with that because I think that if we're gonna live in community together, then it's okay to have rights that do require the labor of others. Well, now if if they're if they have there's a social contract that comes with an agreement to living together.

SPEAKER_07: 32:41

Uh I mean, you are speaking libertarian heresy right now. That is the reason. No, I think that is a really good point. So I want to say a couple things. Number one, yeah, um, I I think that your focus, Elena, on responsibility is great. I mean, honestly, like I think that's the that's the point, is that if you see something that you feel like someone needs, you have a responsibility. The whole point is that what what's my responsibility? Jeff, I think that you're when you're saying, yeah, it could have a right because we live in community, I mean, the entire the the uh all of my philosophical um I don't want to say heroes, but like these people that I that I read, it all does come from an individualistic um uh principle, which is the the concept of a social con uh contract, which has woven its way into our public lexicon itself is a concept that we don't have to agree to. That's not a prima facie position. Um, it's just presented as such. Now, so I think that I just think it's good to be honest about that, that if you take that as a prima facie position, then yeah, I think that the concept of rights requiring the labor of other people is completely legitimate.

SPEAKER_06: 34:17

Yeah, I think if you want to live in society and maybe so maybe the the uh what you're having to do then is give up some rights. Yeah. Right? Uh so here okay, so I this may be silly, but I'm trying to I'm actually trying to figure this out as we talk because I haven't really given it a whole lot of thought. Um I just I just float through my life and don't think about anything. That's what we all know about.

SPEAKER_02: 34:42

But I think what you're saying, I think what you're talking about is is human rights, which is society's attempt at protecting your fundamental rights.

SPEAKER_06: 34:52

I well, I I don't know about that either. So I think, I think so once once we have decided that we're going to live in a community, whether it be the original uh family unit, right, that that then begins to extend to tribe. And then this is once you do that, there is a certain amount of I'm giving up my individual human right, maybe, maybe. And maybe one of my rights is to tell everyone to bugger off and disappear into the woods. Okay. And when I do that, then I'm no longer obligated to acknowledge other people's rights that put a, that put uh a responsibility on me. But if I want to live in that society, then I have to be willing to give up some of my own individual rights for the community rights. And I have some of those same rights as being part of the community. And I think that that then goes back to the children that we're talking about earlier. If these children are in that community, then they have then then they do have rights because we have agreed as a community that they're important to us.

SPEAKER_02: 36:07

Uh and maybe it's just maybe it's just because one day Did you know that animals had rights um like law, like that the that they um that the law actually put made law before children did? That's true. Animals had rights before children did.

SPEAKER_06: 36:25

Aaron Powell In the United States. Oh, I don't doubt that at all. And an animal has a right to uh sit right next to the mashed potatoes on my plate.

SPEAKER_07: 36:35

That is that's an interesting point that I think actually is has something to do with um our continued export of our own responsibility to the state. Because I think that the reason that they had rights probably had something to do with um property. Um there probably were laws passed uh to this is gonna take it in the spirit, which is intended to protect slaves prior to laws protecting children, because there would have been an assumption that well, that's your response, like that the children were your responsibility, and we have to start.

SPEAKER_02: 37:20

I feel like that's kind of what you were just saying.

SPEAKER_06: 37:22

Yeah. So I think so. Um I think this is where we've gotten kind of flipped, not us as individuals, but maybe it's just as society, when it went from uh rights being based on community obligation to the rest of the like um to it becoming a um something that I deserve simply because I'm part of the community. Right?

SPEAKER_02: 37:52

And so it'd be it, I think, I think community obligation as opposed to community responsibility.

SPEAKER_06: 37:57

Yes, exactly. So before, I think in my mind, uh I'm I'm picturing, I don't know, I'm picturing a community of people that are are starting to form. They're like, okay, if we're gonna do this, uh why are we, why do we want to come together? Well, for protection, right? And and and okay, what kind of protection? Well, we want to make sure that the weakest among us, who one day might be me, can still be fed and can still be protected. So if we're gonna come together, then you're gonna have to give up some of your individual rights, um, knowing that you also will benefit from being part of the community, which then gives a different type of right. So that one day, because I did uh pick up my spear and defend our community, then when I'm older, I have the right to be protected by the community. Uh, but what's happened is over time, as we've become more and more um uh what's the word I'm looking for, when it when when things become more intricate. Um there you go. Uh, we have we have started confusing things with like, well, now I have a right to uh access to internet. I have a right to um to uh a cell phone. I have a right to and and maybe those are maybe maybe you do because of the way our society has functioned, or maybe maybe you're just entitled.

SPEAKER_07: 39:32

Or maybe. Well, but who are you demanding the rights from? And I think that's the that's the problem. That that's a big part of the problem is that we've um our our Western society has disintegrated um actual communities like you're talking about, and we have third partied that impulse out to the state. And so who are we demanding that from? We're demanding it from a nameless, faceless, amorphous state. Right. It's the state that that I say I have that that must provide my internet or must provide my healthcare or must provide whatever. It's the state. It's not it, you know, it's not my aunt and uncle. And I think that um that's that's part of the issue that we're talking about. We're like, you know, and that's the reason that I think that it's really good that you're talking about responsibility, because that is the thing that we really don't I mean, we just have less and less of. We have we have outsourced our responsibility and held on to our individual rights, and that's a that's a real problem. Well, and the pro what you find is exactly, I think you would predict exactly what we have. You have a taxation state, because if you're going to third party that out, if you're gonna outsource it, well, it's it's gonna have to provide these things, and the only way it's gonna be able to do that is by taxation and then redistribution.

SPEAKER_06: 41:01

Right? I think we just found our our common ground here. For the three, I know I'm being serious, for the three of us. I think it's this. I think that um rights come with uh not just um what was the word you used? Uh not just um right come yeah, that that rights, the problem the problem, that was my own word. I think that and it may and may and agree you can agree with me or disagree with me, but I do think that our common ground is this that uh for something to be for for the conversation of rights has to go back to a conversation of obligation rather than simply my um why does that word keep popping out of my that just disappears from my head? Entitlement. Entitlement. That that we have to, we have to, it has to be based on um what I what I contribute.

SPEAKER_07: 42:00

Okay. I'm great with that. Here is where I bristle. Um, and this is the reason why I throw my vote away every four years. Um, this is the reason why I call myself a libertarian. I I've I've thrown my vote away a couple of times recently. Um and that's because I refuse to have a responsibility to the state. I I refuse, I refuse to accept that I have any obligation to the state. That is not my community. I do not have a community with that. And so that's the where I think the real problem is that I think that in principle, absolutely, rights must come with responsibility. But I cannot accept that I have a responsibility to an amorphous third-party state which does not know me and will not care about me ever. Absolutely not. I will not subject myself.

SPEAKER_06: 42:58

I don't have a problem with that at all. I think I think that on a but on the base level, I think that the agreement is what you just said. But that's where the right comes from.

SPEAKER_07: 43:07

In our society, the right comes from the case.

SPEAKER_06: 43:08

And what I'm saying is the right needs to come through social contract. Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 43:13

Well, that's Do you think it doesn't come through social contract at all?

SPEAKER_07: 43:17

Time to not in our particular society. Not unless you're gonna move to a commune, which, you know, that's fine.

SPEAKER_06: 43:25

I I don't disagree with you. I think that um I have a real problem. I have a real problem with we have simply made made the all of our rights and and the um have become the responsibility of the state to provide because you have to appeal to the state in order to do that.

SPEAKER_02: 43:43

That is exactly, I just didn't know how to put it that way. But I I I feel like that too. Like if I see somebody, if Hector sees somebody, since Hector's the feed people guy, if you see somebody hungry at the store, I what I am afraid of is letting that first thing be, oh, well, they could just get on food stamps. Yeah, the state has a responsibility to feed them, right? If you if you see somebody's hungry, feed them. That's where I feel like the worry is. My other worry is the entitlement. If you feel so strongly about something that you or others deserve, don't just sit and say, well, it's our right or it's my right, because it may not. I mean, you remember me and how angry I was about the third grade retention law. This is a law that Tennesseans didn't get to vote on. They just decided it was a thing. I think it is inherently wrong. I think it is a political ploy. It's it's horrible. I think that children and families are being punished. It's horrible.

SPEAKER_06: 44:46

What is the law?

SPEAKER_02: 44:47

The third the third grade retention law is in a quick summary. You take a test, your score on that one test determines whether or not you're going to move on to the fourth grade. Um, and there's some gateways. You you go to summer school or you um have to do tutoring the next year.

SPEAKER_07: 45:10

It's holding kids back at third grade if they're not passing the stuff.

SPEAKER_02: 45:12

I'll tell you what it really is. Um third how a child performs, um, how their their literacy skills in the third grade more or less will tell you how the rest of uh of their secondary education is gonna go. How you how you perform in third grade is crucial. And politicians are using that as a buzz, um, not because they actually give a damn, in my opinion, but because it's a good political buzz.

SPEAKER_08: 45:42

Um she said the D word.

SPEAKER_02: 45:44

Sorry. Um, but I I think it's wrong. And what did I do? I emailed every single local politician. And when they emailed me back, I went back and forth with with email. I met one at a Panera bread. I mean, I was livid, but I didn't just sit there and say, this is wrong. I I met and spoke with local politicians, ones who make me cringe when I hear them speak. And and also what I by the way, I no longer have a third grader, so this doesn't affect me anymore. But I told you, Jeff, that I was interested in maybe doing something here at the church to um help families in the community with third graders prepare for this test. Because while I think it is inherently wrong to put this pressure on educators and parents and teachers for this one test score, regardless of how the rest of their year looked, I think it's wrong. It is our reality. And it's not going to change anytime soon. In fact, other states are adopting the pol it's not going to change. So now what? And when you just sit around and say, this is wrong, you're you're jeopardizing, you know, the the lifestyle and the and the rights that you um are comfortable with by just not caring and just being mad. Be mad, I love being mad. It's my favorite. But like you also have to do something. You can't just be mad.

SPEAKER_06: 47:16

I think I think being mad makes you happy. Yes. You can just be mad. Okay. Sure you can. So did we find common ground here? Yeah, I think uh I think absolutely.

SPEAKER_07: 47:28

Um, you know, if you'll if you'll pardon me here, it is uh incumbent on all of us to pick up our own cross and walk with it.

SPEAKER_06: 47:39

There you go. Way to go.

SPEAKER_07: 47:41

Is that good?

SPEAKER_06: 47:41

Yeah, I I love how after two years we've switched, you are now the progressive Christian, and I'm becoming the the conservative atheist. Oh my god. So it's awesome. All right. Hey, thanks for joining us, Elena. Thanks, guys. That's great.

SPEAKER_01: 48:01

Thank you for listening to Living on Common Ground. Please follow wherever you listen to your podcasts and share it with your friends. You can also find a link to our social in the description. The more people we have living on common ground, the better the world will be.