I'd like to preface this discussion first by saying that I sincerely wish happiness and peace to everyone, especially my gay friends and fellow citizens. My thoughts here were provoked by a concern over the fact that rights-based arguments that fail to draw a distinction between inalienable rights and vested rights are endangering our freedom. The LGBT community (hereafter just "gay") should be equally concerned about the direction this country is taking with regard to inalienable rights. Neither gays nor natural family advocates should have to worry that government will infringe on their inalienable rights. What follows is my attempt to revive a proper view of rights and see how we can best meet everyone's needs fairly.
I'm amazed that people can get away with the rights-based argument for gay marriage. It is an astounding misunderstanding of individual rights. Gays have the inalienable right to do what they want with other like minded adults. But marriage is an institution that implies the blessing of others. You cannot demand that other people give you their blessing. It is their individual right to give it or withhold it.
The judge who overruled California's Prop 8 today relied on the argument that "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment" and "[it] was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples".
In 1983, Martin Luther King Jr. Day became a national holiday. This was a great honor for a great man. The creation of this holiday cost the federal government an extra day of holiday pay to every federal worker. Doesn't MLK Day discriminate against all other great Americans who were denied the honor of having a day named for them? I guess all these other Americans "aren't as good" as Mr. King. That is a glass-half-empty argument that should be rejected.
When people democratically decide to bestow an honor on someone or a group of people (such as 9/11 workers) it is not a disparagement of the rights of anyone else. And honors such as these are not rights! You cannot demand that somebody else think well of you.
Gay marriage which is forced onto a people undemocratically is a violation of their right to honor whom they will. Take away the economic benefits (which shouldn't be that much anyway in a limited government society) and marriage is nothing but a blessing of your peers. You cannot demand that blessing, it has to be given freely. I have the right to band together with like-minded individuals to give my blessings to whom I may. Government is one way in which people band together.
The fact is, there is only one pairing of human beings that has a perpetual risk of bringing new people into the world: heterosexual unions. Gay unions might have kids from prior marriages or from adoption, but they never have to run the risk of pregnancy planned or otherwise. This special character of heterosexual union makes it fundamentally different than gay union no matter what activist judges may believe. We can give the emperor a new set of clothes, but nobody will be fooled. If some people want to give their blessing to couples who will be creating new members of society, that is their right. Gays can ask for a similar blessing, but it is not an inalienable right to receive it.
If Gays really believed in inalienable rights they would demand that the government stop giving preferential treatment to anyone. Asking that they receive preferential treatment on par with heterosexuals still leaves huge unfairness gaps. What about single parents? What about Catholic Nuns? Shouldn't they have a life partner that can make decisions for them when they are incapacitated? How about two celibate males who live together as friends and are soul-buddies? Why are they "singled out" for discriminatory exclusion from marriage and all the appertaining benefits? You know I'm right. If there is anything that needs to be fixed it is first, we shouldn't be doling out benefits at tax payer expense to any special groups. Second, if we need to fix the law to enable significant-other visitation rights, power of attorney rights, etc. all we need is a "life partner" law. It wouldn't be marriage, it would just be a special legal instrument to fulfill a broad need. Third, marriage should be left to the private sector.
Life partner laws, private marriage, inalienable rights. Problem solved.
Showing posts with label inalienable rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inalienable rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Right to Health Care: When Freedom is Slavery by Another Name
Health Care a Right?
"Health care should be a right", says Representative John Dingle. I've heard this same impassioned comment from dozens of others. The language of rights is powerful in American history, so the assertion has a compelling feel to it. Isn't the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" our most sacred principle of freedom? Without good medicine your life and happiness are in great jeopardy. So obviously,the logic goes, health care should be guaranteed to all freedom loving citizens. In fact, we should also be free from want and...and from fear itself! But not so fast...
Let me show you the sleight of hand. It's quite simple. The triumvirate of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) refers to what in Natural Law is known as inalienable rights. These are rights that, in the rawest state of nature (say if you were alone on a tropical island) you would be guaranteed to have. These are God-given innate qualities of the human condition. They exist without a social contract. We are designed to assert these rights even as Nature challenges them with hunger, disease, and the elements.
Then comes society. With society comes the ability to exchange rights with others. These are "vested" rights. Vested rights occur as the result of exercising inalienable rights. You can use your free will to voluntarily trade your right to property for a right to someone else's property. The key word is voluntary. Successful societies have learned how to create law which promotes the inalienable rights of everyone. Because everyone has different talents, true protections of inalienable rights will always lead to unequal outcomes.
The concept of a right to health care descends directly from the notion of "freedom from want". Franklin Roosevelt first articulated this progressive ideal in his "Four Freedom's Speech". This "freedom" refers to the guarantee of receiving goods and services. In the rawest state of nature, goods and services don't exist. They are created through the application of labor. Nature bestows no absolute right to the fruit of of someone else's labor except through brute force. It is one thing for you to say "I have a right to pick that apple" and quite another to say "I have the right to force you to pick that apple for me". Having the "freedom" to take the produce of another used to be called plunder and slavery.
The guy who says that health care should be a right is saying "I have a right to force people to serve me". 16% of U.S. GDP is devoted to creating the good s and services of medical care. It represents millions of people working hard each day. Should we have a right to their labor (or the labor of the tax payers funding them) for little or no cost? The real kicker is this: that mentality is equivalent to the thinking of southern slave owners two hundred years ago. The slave had no rights to the fruit of his own labor. They belonged to somebody else. He was compelled to provide goods and services to somebody else at no cost. In addition, the slave could not live his life freely. His owners told him how to live his life (being healthy was definitely a requirement). Current health care proposals in Washington contain both these aspects of slavery.
Elements of coercion, to some extent are necessary evils of any society. We have had a military draft. We have had eminent domain seizures. We have had quarantines. But aren't these the exceptions to the rule? The principles of freedom require that we always try to minimize such coercion.
A note about taxes. Taxation is an example of a necessary evil. You can never get unanimous consent from all citizens about whether to be taxed and by how much and for what purpose. Since this subject deserved a full exploration, I wrote about it at length here: Freedom Based Taxation. In short, we can balance the freedom of collective action with that of individual action. The evils of taxation can be minimized by observing the locality principle and by ensuring that the benefits are shared equally by all.
Partial Slavery
I probably won't have many people argue with my view that outright human bondage is a bad idea. I think most would agree that we'd rather suffer a reduced quality of life than live directly on slave labor. Examine the condition of a slave. Would it make it better if we gave the slave Saturday off? On Saturday he can keep all his earnings and do as he pleases. Does that make it better? Okay, let's give him 3 days off. Now he's 42% free. Probably not good enough, so how about he only has to work for his master one day of the week and we'll let him pick which day. Now he's a fractional slave only 14% of the time. Lastly, let's let the slave be free to leave the plantation entirely but he must remit 14% off his earnings back to his master. Are we good now? I think it is obvious that nothing short of 100% free will do, don't you agree? But today, some taxpayers are fractional slaves to others. 4 in 10 tax filers pay no federal income tax at all and the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. Clearly, an unduly large class of Americans receive benefits paid for by others without their consent.
"Freedom from want" entails large scale widespread coercion. No people in history has ever enjoyed freedom from want. It is part of Nature's Law. "Want" is what drives people to action. The current drive to nationalize health care is just one more attempt so solve social problems at the expense of individual freedom. It cannot but increase the level of fractional slavery we already have.
Take a look at some of the popular arguments for slavery and compare them to arguments for nationalized health care. In each case the speaker illustrates a supposed tangible benefit. Does material comfort trump principle?
It is ironic that the practice of partial slavery is more advanced today in what are known as "the blue states". These states were once the liberators who sacrificed life and limb to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Progressives in these states still see themselves as liberators. These political cartoons were published during the 2004 election in an attempt to link southern conservatives with slavery. Oh the irony:
(Click on image)
Also see this one
"Health care should be a right", says Representative John Dingle. I've heard this same impassioned comment from dozens of others. The language of rights is powerful in American history, so the assertion has a compelling feel to it. Isn't the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" our most sacred principle of freedom? Without good medicine your life and happiness are in great jeopardy. So obviously,the logic goes, health care should be guaranteed to all freedom loving citizens. In fact, we should also be free from want and...and from fear itself! But not so fast...
Let me show you the sleight of hand. It's quite simple. The triumvirate of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) refers to what in Natural Law is known as inalienable rights. These are rights that, in the rawest state of nature (say if you were alone on a tropical island) you would be guaranteed to have. These are God-given innate qualities of the human condition. They exist without a social contract. We are designed to assert these rights even as Nature challenges them with hunger, disease, and the elements.
The concept of a right to health care descends directly from the notion of "freedom from want". Franklin Roosevelt first articulated this progressive ideal in his "Four Freedom's Speech". This "freedom" refers to the guarantee of receiving goods and services. In the rawest state of nature, goods and services don't exist. They are created through the application of labor. Nature bestows no absolute right to the fruit of of someone else's labor except through brute force. It is one thing for you to say "I have a right to pick that apple" and quite another to say "I have the right to force you to pick that apple for me". Having the "freedom" to take the produce of another used to be called plunder and slavery.
Photo of Benkos Bioho by who is that with rachel
The guy who says that health care should be a right is saying "I have a right to force people to serve me". 16% of U.S. GDP is devoted to creating the good s and services of medical care. It represents millions of people working hard each day. Should we have a right to their labor (or the labor of the tax payers funding them) for little or no cost? The real kicker is this: that mentality is equivalent to the thinking of southern slave owners two hundred years ago. The slave had no rights to the fruit of his own labor. They belonged to somebody else. He was compelled to provide goods and services to somebody else at no cost. In addition, the slave could not live his life freely. His owners told him how to live his life (being healthy was definitely a requirement). Current health care proposals in Washington contain both these aspects of slavery.Elements of coercion, to some extent are necessary evils of any society. We have had a military draft. We have had eminent domain seizures. We have had quarantines. But aren't these the exceptions to the rule? The principles of freedom require that we always try to minimize such coercion.
A note about taxes. Taxation is an example of a necessary evil. You can never get unanimous consent from all citizens about whether to be taxed and by how much and for what purpose. Since this subject deserved a full exploration, I wrote about it at length here: Freedom Based Taxation. In short, we can balance the freedom of collective action with that of individual action. The evils of taxation can be minimized by observing the locality principle and by ensuring that the benefits are shared equally by all.
Partial Slavery
I probably won't have many people argue with my view that outright human bondage is a bad idea. I think most would agree that we'd rather suffer a reduced quality of life than live directly on slave labor. Examine the condition of a slave. Would it make it better if we gave the slave Saturday off? On Saturday he can keep all his earnings and do as he pleases. Does that make it better? Okay, let's give him 3 days off. Now he's 42% free. Probably not good enough, so how about he only has to work for his master one day of the week and we'll let him pick which day. Now he's a fractional slave only 14% of the time. Lastly, let's let the slave be free to leave the plantation entirely but he must remit 14% off his earnings back to his master. Are we good now? I think it is obvious that nothing short of 100% free will do, don't you agree? But today, some taxpayers are fractional slaves to others. 4 in 10 tax filers pay no federal income tax at all and the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. Clearly, an unduly large class of Americans receive benefits paid for by others without their consent.
"Freedom from want" entails large scale widespread coercion. No people in history has ever enjoyed freedom from want. It is part of Nature's Law. "Want" is what drives people to action. The current drive to nationalize health care is just one more attempt so solve social problems at the expense of individual freedom. It cannot but increase the level of fractional slavery we already have.
Take a look at some of the popular arguments for slavery and compare them to arguments for nationalized health care. In each case the speaker illustrates a supposed tangible benefit. Does material comfort trump principle?
| Argument Type | Slavery | Nationalized Health Care |
|---|---|---|
| Because others do it | John Calhoun: | Paul Krugman: |
| Paternalism | Calhoun: | Barrack Obama: |
| Stability
| Calhoun: | Obama: |
| Economic | Chancellor Harper: | Max Baucus: |
It is ironic that the practice of partial slavery is more advanced today in what are known as "the blue states". These states were once the liberators who sacrificed life and limb to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Progressives in these states still see themselves as liberators. These political cartoons were published during the 2004 election in an attempt to link southern conservatives with slavery. Oh the irony:
(Click on image)
Also see this one
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)