Posted on 02/08/2006 5:43:07 AM PST by .cnI redruM
Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.
Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.
If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.
Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.
Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress."
The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.
That would end class warfare, and about 75% of the other crap Congress foists on us.
For some reason this reminds me of HRC saying "We are going to take things away from you for your own good."
Anything that requires the largess or services of another is not a right.
Excellent article. Do you think it will do any good? This has seemed obvious to hardworking people everywhere, but the slackers just don't seem to get it. Their lack of "rights" are all the fault of those mean conservatives.
>>>but the slackers just don't seem to get it.
Slackers get it really fast after they've been off the dole a month or two. It takes an iron hand to teach self reliance.
If abortion is a 'right' and "we" are forced to pay for people to exercise that 'right' under welfare and Medicaid - which we are and do. How come the gubmint isn't required to buy me, or any one, a firearm I (we) can't afford?I'd send this question to my senators but they're Durbin and Obama. Hey.. maybe I will just because they are ;-)Under the abortion right we pay logic, any poor person should be able to walk into any gun shop, pick out a weapon and say, "send the bill to Uncle Sam".
And just like abortion there should be NO LIMIT on how many rimes we exercise that 'right'.
ping
My favorite was some ditz the other day who I heard ranting about "my right to relax."
There's a Constitutional guarantee for you.
The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why I don't run for office 8 0 ) I believe that most of the federal government should be dismantled as it never should have existed in the first place. I maintain, without fear of contradiction, that it is impossible to be a law-abiding citizen in the United States as it exists today.
Good idea. Personally, I could use another car to help me with my "freedom of travel".
And the Honorable Mr. Williams hits yet another one clean out of the park!
The truly sad thing is that many people (including FReepers) don't understand the system of our laws and wouldn't know the legal meaning of the words 'natural right' if it bit them on the arse.
Imho, W.E.W. is one of the most intelligent and rational people on this planet. And he nails it again.
"My favorite was some ditz the other day who I heard ranting about "my right to relax."
There was a guy on the radio here yesterday talking about the "right" to free housing. He's a member of some hippy group that squats on other peoples property and thinks it's ok. They don't work and dumpster dive for food.
It brought home to me just how different some people are. I've been working since I was 16 and I'm 55 now. These peeps have NEVER worked and don't intend to. I just couldn't get my mind around it. Perhaps it's just my limited intellect.
The way I see it there are two "jobs" in life. The first one is wresting out your slice of the world's pie. The second is defending your slice against those who want "just a little shive off the edge there." You have to learn to loudly and assertively say "NO" to the politicians in the silk suits and the hippies, like the ones you mention, in the ratty blue jeans. If you don't learn how to do this you end up pushing a "Winobago" shopping cart down Broadway, despised by all.
No, but any decent society should give a hand to those in need. The problem is, of course, the mechanism: a bloated federal social system that encourages people to remain in need, or localized systems meant to get people back on their feet.
redrum, redrum, redrum...
That said, we are under no OBLIGATION to do so. Subsistence-level support is a luxury the hard work of its people allows this country to provide, even to those who may not deserve it. The people who do the work are the ones who SHOULD determine who qualifies for their support, and at what level. Those decisions should NOT be made by the recipients of the largesse. And every one of those offerings should be suspendable at will. They are not rights, but favors.
Contrast that with rights granted by God and guaranteed us as a birthright.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.