Home > Constitution, Critical Thinking, Culture & Media, Government, Liberalism, Science & Technology > A critical definition the Left doesn’t want you to recognize or know

A critical definition the Left doesn’t want you to recognize or know

One element of the current healthcare debate is brought to the forefront in a recent post by Nathan Sass over on his Dinner Table blog.  It is the fundamental question of whether or not universal healthcare comes under the category of an inalienable right as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It is a well written reality check on the topic and points out some facts of which the Left would like you to be ignorant.  Some key points (all emphases in the following quotes are added):

Health care is not a right. Health care is a service.

It’s important to understand that Constitutional rights are not granted, but enumerated, by the Constitution because the founders acknowledge that these rights were natural, inalienable, and granted by the Creator (their words, not mine). No document, or government, can take them away. Any attempt to do so would be an affront to the Creator, and tyrannical.

This is the key definition around which the controversy swirls, whether the participants in that controversy know it or not.  Mr. Sass clarifies the definition by enunciating the critical difference between rights and services:

Due to this fundamental principle, every right in the Constitution has a single element in common. They are, without exception, non material and have no intrinsic value. No one can buy or sell them, and there is no price to pay for them. Speech, religion, the right to bear arms, the freedom from unreasonable search and the rest have no price tag on their own.

Furthermore, each element of the Bill of Rights protects citizens from the denial of these rights by the government. The Bill of Rights protects us FROM government, and has no relation to interactions between private individuals. I can deny your “right to free speech” in my house, for example.

What are the consequences of the progressive attempt at redefining a “right?”  Here is where the analysis becomes quite the reality check and reveals the underlying philosophy (or perhaps in some cases, to give the benefit of the doubt to our publically edjamacated government employees, unintentional consequences?):

In calling health care a right, the Democrats are declaring that no medical professional can ever deny claim to their services for any reason. Charging someone for health care potentially denies access to health care and is then by definition a violation of an individual’s rights and cannot be allowed. Therefore, doctors must provide their services for free and upon demand.

What are we really talking about here?

We had an institution like this once in our past. We required a certain group of people to provide their services free of any compensation and upon demand. We fought the bloodiest war in our history to eradicate it. Now the Democrats seek to recreate the institution with a new subservient class of individuals compelled to provide their services. This time the individuals subservient to society are not defined by skin color, but by profession.

Think about it (note I did not say, feel about it!).  Yes, this is slavery we are talking about here.  And as late as December, 2010, reports suggest that a huge percentage of doctors are not going to tolerate such involuntary servitude.

And where have we seen this kind of thing before in more recent history?  Again, Mr. Sass connects the dots for us:

Extending this logic to its reasonable conclusion illustrates the absurdity of this reasoning, and reveals its absolute Marxist origins:

Food is even more essential to life than health care, and since health care is a right, food must be also. Therefore all food must be free to anyone who wants it, whenever they want it. Farmers cannot charge for the food they produce, stores cannot charge for the food they sell, and restaurants cannot charge for food they serve. It all MUST be free or it violates the right to life. No wiggle room here. Anything less is a denial of constitutional rights.

Shelter is also far more vital to life than health care. Therefore no one can charge for any dwelling. Apartments must be free to anyone who wants one for as long as they like to live there. Houses cannot be bought or sold, either. If someone wants a vacant house, they can just take it. Charging any money to someone for shelter violates their rights and cannot be allowed. Again, no wiggle room here.

Using the Democrats own “logic” (I use that term very loosely), anything that is essential for life is a right and all rights are guaranteed and therefore delivered free of charge by the government. Food, shelter, clothing, water, and medicine can never have a price tag and the central government must provide them for everyone with perfect equity.

That was, and is, the central tenet of Marxism. The state provides all and owns all.

And this is part of the debate that really isn’t even being debated by most.  Everyone focuses on the people who allegedly “need” health insurance, and most of the opposition focuses on the unconstitutionality of forcing individuals to buy the Obamacare version, etc., etc.

socialists-poster-lg 
But what about the constitutionality of forcing the competent to provide their services for little or no compensation, a common component of many progressive policies.  Do not such men deserve their wages as much as anyone else?  Do they not have families of their own they need to support?  And what will we do if such withdraw their services under these conditions?  If that last question sounds imagelike something you’ve heard somewhere before, perhaps you’ve read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.  The plot of that work revolves around the departure from society of all the competent individuals who refuse to work for the looters of society.  Those looters create an atmosphere in which the incompetent demand their rights, their rights meaning the fruit of the labor of those who produce the tangible goods, regardless of and despite the looters’ own inability to produce for themselves.  It is a weight that eventually the Atlases of the book shrug off by disappearing (read the book for the rest of the story).  The results on society are catastrophic.

Again, I would encourage you to think about it.  We already have too many people on welfare who are not asked to produce (after all, they’ve been so bitterly oppressed) and who fit Rand’s definition of “looters.”  How much closer to fiction must fact become before we awake to the danger of such policies that reinstitutionalize slavery, just on a different part of our population?

Let me close with this thought, for many on the Left feel that such forms of government have a basis in Christianity, specifically, Christian love.  After all, did not the original Christians give all of their goods to each other and live in a socialist commune?  Um, in a word, no.  History shows that didn’t last long and it was entirely voluntary, not government mandated.  In addition, we do not throw out the rest of Scripture.  For one example:

For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

(2Thess 3:10 [NKJV])

Which brings us full circle back to the Founding Fathers and their original intentions, which were biblically based despite what your college professor may have told you, and do not encompass socialist tendencies in any way, shape, or form.  Let us not give up our heritage of freedom on the altar of the enslavement of our fellow countrymen.

Advertisements
  1. 26 Jan 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Well said, IFace.

    Healthcare is a “right” only insofar as everyone has exactly the same right to all the “healthcare” they can personally afford to provide for themselves. That’s exactly the same “right” that applies to food and shelter, cars and IPods. You have the right to all you want to spend your own money on.

    I have a “right” to a Porsche 911 Turbo, too, but I can’t afford one. That sure doesn’t mean the government’s going to step in and give me one.

  2. 6 Apr 2011 at 9:39 PM

    so if you are not rich and your job doesn’t provide you health insurance you should Just die. so being alive is a privellage ,not a right. where is your logic. It’s sad to think that our country is so far behind the rest of the world. Health care is not comparable to a porche. people need to be able to see a doctor when they are sick.

  3. 7 Apr 2011 at 8:59 PM

    Nemo, I approved your comment even though you only reached a DH3 level (contradiction) argument, that is to say, all you did was state the opposite without any logical rationale why the statements made in the post were wrong. You are responding with an emotional argument to a straw man. Noone is saying anything close to the extreme you are proposing. Even those without healthcare are not turned away from the emergency room in this country. Now as for being behind the rest of the world, would that be the part of the world where a former NHS director died after her operation was canceled in her own hospital?
    http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com/2011/04/nhs-where-even-insiders-die-on-waiting.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371861/NHS-director-dies-operation-cancelled-times-hospital.html
    http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2011/04/06/79925.aspx

  4. 7 Apr 2011 at 11:31 PM

    I was asking a question. you not be able to answer the question proves the statement to be wrong. If someone needs a operation for a serious heath condition such as an organ transplant, or heart surgery the county hospital will turn them away if they don’t have insurance or cant pay in cash. I dont understand why you thing that the entire country having access to health care is a bad Idea, as your article, or any other argument against healthcare reform is Clear. Please also explain to me how heath care reform has anything to do with socialism.

  5. 8 Apr 2011 at 6:59 PM

    Ah, where to start? Nemo, your punctuation and poor grammar make for difficult reading, and I hope that is simply because English is not your native language. Your questions are answered in the content of the post above; you are just denying the fundamental point, that healthcare is a service provided by the money and labor of others, specifically, the doctors who spend years of their life and buckets of their own money to master the medical profession that allows them to provide that healthcare. Thus it is not a right or privelege you can demand. You are right that healthcare is not a porsche, your body is the porsche; healthcare is comparable to the porsche mechanic you are supposed to pay to keep your porsche running.

    Noone is saying healthcare insurance to pay for catastrophic events such as you note is bad. Noone is saying our current system is not in need of some kind of reform. What is wrong is making others pay for it, mandating such insurance whether you need it or not, and restricting choices to only the government provided one. Government efficiency in such matters is notoriously pathetic compared to the private sector, as clearly shown in the tragic story to which I linked in my previous comment in this exchange.

    In the long run, your health is a function of a series of choices you make about what you do to and with your body. If you make the wrong choices and destroy one of your vital organs in the process, don’t ask me to pay for your operation to fix it.

    And finally Nemo, you really need to read the post above carefully and thoughtfully, for the logical connection to socialism is clearly spelled out there. I’m not going to repeat it here in the comments section.

  6. 8 Apr 2011 at 11:49 PM

    No one is talking about free helthcare. No one is trying to deny any health care profesional compensatuion. As a matter of fact, the only thing that the reform bill does is regulate the Insurance companies and their Fraudulent buisness practices. Many health Insurance providers will do any thing possible to deny aninsurance claim. the Isurance industry is all about taking your money and not paying out.No, your post does not answer the questions. Niether did your last comment. Your article does not Logicaly connect Health care reform. It also does not logicaly show that you even Know what socialism is.All you are doing is recycling the same paranoid retoric, And rediculous comparisons. One more question. Doy you think everyone should be able to purchase affordable health care if there job does not provide it.

  7. 8 Apr 2011 at 11:52 PM

    Another point, No one is going to pay for someone elses healthcare. Everyone will be paying for thier own insurance, unlike our elected officials

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: