Over and over again, we see politicians, academics, activists, pop artists, and media propagandists proclaiming that we have a "right" to things such as health care, education, retirement pay, mass transit, housing, a job with a "living" wage, food, abortion, and doctor-assisted suicide, all funded and/or arranged for by the government.
This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.
They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from "nature's God", and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.
Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want. But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.
Take the right to free speech.
Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you. They can walk way, and it wouldn't be a violation of your right to free speech. Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, high speed Internet line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out. You can pay them to provide those things.
You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate. If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered. You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit. You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).
You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do. You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you. Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.
The government is not "someone else". It is us. It is funded by us. Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all. That is possible. But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.
If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves. Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right. It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.
Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose. Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity). Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is. Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there. That is liberty. That is freedom. That protects rights.
If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn't want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people. People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care. Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?
What most people mean when they call for "universal health care" is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them. There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system. When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage. It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.
Health care is not a right. It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.
If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you. Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right. Exercise those rights, instead of counting on "someone else" to take care you simply because you are alive.
This is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.
They saw rights as something we naturally had, something coming from "nature's God", and that it was the government’s role to protect, not grant, rights.
Living as we do in a bountiful, wealthy society of hundreds of million of people, it is tempting to look around and think you deserve - and therefore have a right - to something you see around you and that you want. But again, that is not how the people who created and adopted our Constitution saw rights.
Take the right to free speech.
Your right to free speech does not mean anyone should be forced to listen to you. They can walk way, and it wouldn't be a violation of your right to free speech. Nor does your right to free speech mean someone else has to provide you with their billboard, printer, telephone, satellite, high speed Internet line, cable, or broadcasting system for you to get your message out. You can pay them to provide those things.
You have a right to free speech because God gave you the means of communication – the physical abilities to communicate. If you found yourself on an island where there was no government employees, no politicians, no telephone, no radio – you would still be able to talk with or sign to or write to anyone you encountered. You could believe and worship (freedom of religion) as you saw fit. You could use a rock or anything else you could get your hands on to defend yourself (right to bear arms).
You could take care of yourself, you could learn, you could store up for the future, you could build a cart or raft, you could build a hut, you could decide to make things or do things for other people in exchange for what they had to offer you, you could eat what you had access to, you could fling yourself against a boulder to kill the life within you, you could jump off of a cliff to kill yourself... HOWEVER, you could not FORCE someone else to perform surgery on you, or teach you something new, or take care of you just because you are old, or haul you around in their cart or raft, or build a hut for you, or to give you something to do and pay you whatever you want, or to go get food for you, or to perform an abortion on you, or to kill you gently – not without violating THEIR rights to choose what they want to do. You could make VOLUNTARY exchanges and arrangements with them, if they chose to be near you. Maybe they would even CHOOSE to do some of those things for you for free.
The government is not "someone else". It is us. It is funded by us. Now, we can collectively use force (via laws, backed up by the military, law enforcement, etc.) to FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on someone, and then pay them what we decide is fair or not pay them at all. That is possible. But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it a right.
If you look at what the founders of the U.S. put in place, you’ll find a system where our natural rights are recognized and protected, and where everything else is based on a voluntary exchange in which force need not be involved, except to expose and counter theft and other denials of natural rights - crimes which involve force or deception themselves. Health care provided by someone else is NOT a right. It is something provided on a voluntary basis by doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. who have put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting to the point where they can provide those services and products.
Everyone should be able to offer their services and their property to whomever they choose, for the compensation they choose. Sometimes that compensation will simply be a warm heart (that’s called charity). Whoever is offered those goods, services, and property should have the choice to refuse, or make a counter offer on the compensation, or to agree to it as-is. Likewise, if you are seeking goods, services, and property, you should be able to approach whomever you want and offer whatever you want as compensation, and go from there. That is liberty. That is freedom. That protects rights.
If you opened up a shoe store, you wouldn't want government force to be used to set your prices, determine what kinds of shoes you will sell, or to force you to sell shoes to someone, even if that person will immediately take that shoe and throw it at other people. People need shoes in the same way they need specialized health care. Why should the doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, insurance company worker, or pharmaceutical researchers be treated that way?
What most people mean when they call for "universal health care" is that they want someone wealthier than they are to be forced to provide something to them. There are wealthier people who call for such schemes, too, but almost invariably they do so because they think it will get them some personal advantage such as being able to use their connections in the government to be able to gain a monopoly or to skim money somewhere in the system. When a company that manufactures medical equipment endorses increased government involvement in medical care, you can be sure it is because they are confident that they can manipulate the system to their advantage. It is far easier to manipulate something when the power is centralized in Washington D.C. or Sacramento than when the power is with multiple organizations consisting of voluntary membership or spread among millions of families and individuals making their own choices.
Health care is not a right. It costs money, and while it certainly is a wonderful thing when a medical professional chooses to take care of someone who will not be able to provide material compensation, that professional should not be forced to work for free or less than his or her worth.
If you make voluntary plans and arrangements that provide you with what you need and want in the areas of health care, education, retirement income, transportation, housing, work/wages, and food, then good for you. Voluntary agreements (which don’t include any conspiracies to steal from, assault, or murder someone because they victim is not a volunteer) ARE something to which we have a right. Exercise those rights, instead of counting on "someone else" to take care you simply because you are alive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.