Oh, they will never say it is is such – directly. They’ll use other words to mask it, hoping (knowing) that the Low Information Voter (who knows more about Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy with “Daddy Babby” Kanye or what’s with American Idol / The Voice / America’s Got Talent than who their Senators or Congressmen are) will only “hear” the words and never ponder them. Heck, answer me this – how many of these same folks remember from school how our government even works? And with the current state of our Educational system, how many of them truly understand the difference between a Right, an “earned privilege” and an entitlement? Words have meanings and these are all different.
Obama (and most Progressives are, too), however, is BANKING on the fact that most people don’t and that he can use a word outside of its definition to cement in a fundamental change to a word – and going backward, our Founding Documents. As Grokster Susan pointed out (she beat me to it!), Obama had the temerity to say:
““Quality, affordable care is not some earned privilege – it’s a right
No, it has never been nor should a Right be ever be defined as something that is simply given or afforded to someone:
- Right – an attribute associated to someone simply for being a human; in the US, our Rights are enumerated in the Constitution (mostly).
- Earned Privilege – status obtained through work or via meritocrisy; not something that accrues simply for the act of being alive
- Entitlement – a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
And that is where Obama wishes for the Masses to delude themselves in thinking that there exists a “Right” to healthcare. Hey, if someone wants to go and purchase healthcare supplies and give themselves “health care”, but my guest. Please note that it costs no other person anything for you to exercise that Right . If you wish to speak, I am not obligated to pay anything for you to speak (including paying attention) – ditto for the other Rights accorded to us as being US Citizens. However, to believe Obama is correct that healthcare is a Right for you to independently exercise is to also believe that you have the Right to place someone else into servitude to provide that care – commonly called slavery.
Oh, there will be those unhappy with that comparison with slavery; most of them will hold up that canard of “taxes is the price we pay for government” and that healthcare is just one aspect of what Government simply must pay for. And they’d be wrong. Frankly, government does too much and has distorted this marketplace (and make no mistake, this is not a “special” marketplace that should be nationalized vs. a part of the overall Marketplace). Healthcare is not a Right – it is an Entitlement in which a majority of politicians, at some past time, decided that Government should take over and now pay for, subsuming what used to be a function of Civil society and social charities.
Obama has made it quite clear – he, that “Constitutional Scholar”, despises the Founders Bill of Rights which advocated for “negative” liberties which were supposed to keep Government at bay from meddling in citizens’ lives. Instead, he wishes to fundamentally transform the US to being an activist government by implementing the “postive” liberties outlined by that great Socialist FDR as outlined in his Second Bill of Rights in which one clause gave rise to Obama’s above statement:
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
It is only important that the action is able to be given Government – there is NO thought to the “other side of the equation that “for someone to receive, it must first be taken from – by force”. Individual freedom, individual liberty, the Right to Private Property is of no concern. Back when Occupy NH was a going movement, I had a bit of a discussion with someone of the Occupy persuasion” on this topic of “negative” vs “positive” Rights:
One of the forum members at Occupy NH had this to say:
Unfortunately our constitutional rights are based on the concept of negative liberty and thus the ideal is “equality of opportunity – not results”,
My response?
And they were done for a purpose. If you read the Federalist papers and the other works of that time explaining what the underlying philosophy of our founding, there was one important and overriding function of government: to protect our individual liberties and our Rights.
That is why the “negative liberties” as some have called them – the limiting of what government can do to you to wall the government from encroaching on the Rights the founders believed stemmed from God – were done that way. As I said before, the exercise of those Rights requires nothing from anyone, or from Government. The exercise of my Rights costs you nothing – not even the favor of your attention.
For if those Rights remain inviolate, they reasoned, we the people would take care of everything else. And in fact, Alexis de Toqueville in his seminal treatise on how democracy was functioning in America, was utterly amazed at how little government did “for the people” but how much “the people did for themselves and for those around them”. He correctly recognized that the strength of the American people came from their willingness to be first non-reliant on government / the State in their lives (as was more the norm in Europe) and their willingness to assist those around them in need (family, friends, & neighbors).
To me, that is a Feature and part of the brilliance of the founders’ work, as for over a century, it kept Government in the background and Society at large (the two not being the same) preeminent. It allows people to follow “the pursuit of happiness” on their own terms and in their own way. Doesn’t mean that they (you or I) will obtain it, but it also means Government should not be in our way of doing so.
With FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, the “positive” Rights (to which Obama heartily ascribes), that whole philosophy goes out the window. In fact, for you to exercise one of these “Rights” (putting Rights into quotes on purpose), it necessarily demands that someone do something for you. In essence, you now have the Right to make an absolute claim on another to provide for you (or your demand for someone to provide for a third person).
This changes the entire dynamic of the relationship that was originally intended from the beginning which was our Government derives its legitimacy from sovereign, independent individuals and flips that on its head. Instead, people derive their sense of being based on what Government gives or provides for them.
That would mean that Government now has the right to take from your labors. Even as some of this thread has morphed into discussing the Rights for Workers, you cannot get away from the obvious, in demanding that Workers be supreme over capital, you must necessarily make Government supreme over Society.
So much for “the land of the Free and the home of the Brave”, eh?
I will ask you the same question asked of Matthew, but in a different fashion – how is it “fair” to require equal results (or equal outcomes) in light of the founding negative rights, and in light of the inherent differences between individuals? After all, I cannot act as well as a George Clooney to receive $50 million for a movie (even though I have a FAR better moustache!), nor could he write better software than I for, well, far less, right?
Changing the philosophy from people being in charge to Government in charge, I have another large concern – how does one prevent “equal results” from becoming simply a political process, and ANYthing that then involves a Government policy or decision becomes rife with rent-seeking from all sides (corporations, wealthy people, unions, advocacy group, social services organization – the list goes on and on)?
They did, as one might suppose, cotton to me much….
Either do most Progressives…
