Rand Paul Was Right; You Don’t Have A “Right” To Anything Another Human Being Has To Produce.
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. (There is) an implied use of force. If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be. — Rand Paul
How dare Rand Paul compare the government giving people the right to force other people to unwillingly labor for free to slavery….oh, wait.
If you have a “right” to healthcare, then why not a “right” to an education, food, housing, clothing, and a great job? Liberals would certainly be fine with that. That’s because liberals love the idea of declaring that people have an almost unlimited number of “rights.” Why? Because it takes us farther away from capitalism towards socialism, from freedom towards government control, and from independence to dependence.
As a society, we may choose to provide people in need with healthcare, education, food, housing, and clothing because we’re compassionate people. But, there’s a world of moral, legal, and logical differences between our choice to do that and declaring it to be a “right.” A right implies that whether you like it or not, whether you’re compensated or not, you have no choice other than to provide another human being with goods and services.
Calling it a “right” instead of slavery may make it sound better, but it doesn’t make it okay.
PS: I’ve heard some people say that Paul’s analogy is off because the Constitution says people “enjoy the right” to have “the assistance of counsel.” Those people are incorrect. That’s a requirement placed on the government by the Founding Fathers. In other words, if the government wants to put someone on trial, it has to make sure that person can afford a lawyer or has one provided for him. So, either the government pays a lawyer to help an indigent client or there’s no trial.
Put another way, the Founding Fathers were protecting the people from the government’s power. On the other hand, what liberals want to do is give the government more power over the people. That’s why one could fairly be called a right and the other could fairly be compared to slavery.
FacebookTwitterEmail As many of you may have heard, Will Folks, who supposedly runs the most popular political blog in South
FacebookTwitterEmail Alright, OK, he didn’t say that last part, but, for good or bad, President Bush 43 shows exactly why
FacebookTwitterEmail Congressman Phil Hare (IL, 17th District) is the perfect example of the sort of congressman no one should want.