Sunday, March 28, 2010

A simple definition

People don't seem to understand the nature of Rights.

It's fairly simple, really.  A great litmus test is this:  Does this right have to be provided by someone or something?
If the answer is yes, then it isn't a right.
No one provides you with freedom to speak--you can write, say, or otherwise express yourself without anyone's intervention of the government's acquiescence.

No one provides with a firearm to keep and bear.

Get it?

If you agree with the government providing healthcare to all, then you obviously don't.  Healthcare, by this definition, is not a right.  The government cannot guarantee something as inalienable, if it requires a good or service form someone else.  Follow the logic:  If we used the same rubric for healthcare that we do for the 2nd amendment, then everyone's employer would have to provide them, and their families, with firearms and ammunition.  (Time out, whilst I ruminate, thinking how totally awesome that would be.)  If someone were unemployed, then the government would provide them with firearms and ammo.  Of course, in that instance, it'd look like this:

If the government mandates that everyone will be covered, and then fixes the prices at which someone can charge for treatment, the logical progression will be that fewer and fewer people will opt to work in an industry where there is no reward for exceptional performance.  Being an extremely gifted and brilliant lumbar surgeon will net you the same salary as Dr. Bobby, the mall chiropractor.  Okay, maybe, that's unfair.  Being an extremely gifted orthopedic surgeon like DR COL (R) Alan Smith, or Dr. James Andrews will net you the same remuneration as Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Kervorkian.

Even if the comparison borders on the ridiculous, it defaults to this:   If the government has to take a good, service, or product from another person, to provide it to you, THEN IT IS NOT A RIGHT.  The gummint does not provide rights.  The constitution does not provide rights.  The constitution guarantees that the government may not infringe on rights which naturally exist.

Of course, they didn't make healthcare a right, adding it to the constitution.  Instead, the passed a law, which dictates what employers must provide for their employees (even outside the workplace.)  Could behavior outside of work, which places someone at greater risk for injury, now be grounds to terminate employment?  (As it could cost the company higher premiums or payouts.)  Could obesity, or lethargy, or any "unhealthy" behavior be grounds for a business to fire an employee, citing their unnecessary expense-generating behavior?  What if a small business owner has to insure a family with predisposition to heart disease, diabetes, and lupus--could the employer opt to fire/not hire based on your parents medical history?

You cannot have it both ways.  Either you are free, or the government provides for you.


No comments: