I’ve watched a lot of C-span in the last couple of weeks while the Senate was debating their health care bill. I noticed a reoccurring theme from almost every Democrat Senator who spoke on the floor. The theme was that health care is a right. Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) even went as far as saying health care is an unalienable right! When did this happen? When did a service or product become a right? How is it even possible? Health care can not be a right and I will explain why.
Reason 1
First, we must identify what a right is, or more specifically, an unalienable right. Historically, Americans believed an unalienable right is one that is not given to us by our government but is inherent and given to us by our Creator. In other words, we were born with unalienable rights and these rights can not be taken away. This is illustrated in the Declaration of Independence,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s job is to secure (meaning to protect) our rights, not grant them!
So we now know that an unalienable right is not given to us by a government but is something we are born with because it is given to us by our Creator. This begs the question, “Are we born with a right to health care?” No, we are not. People are not born as doctors and nurses with the ability to administer health care. This means health care is not even available to us until someone acquires the education (doctors) and purchases the equipment (hospitals) needed to provide us with medical treatment. Because of this, health care can not be an unalienable right. As I already stated, an unalienable right is one that we are born with and it cannot be taken away. If people aren’t born as doctors, how can we be born with the right to health care? Does someone have to go to school in order to provide us with any other right? Reason 2 builds on this point.
Reason 2
In order for health care to be administered, it requires doctors, nurses, technicians, researchers and pharmacists to spend many years and a lot of hard earned money in school. It also requires millions of dollars to be spent on hospital buildings, research centers, and equipment like MRIs and Ultra Sound machines. Can you think of any other right that requires something similar to this for us to use that right?
What about the right to believe and worship as you please? Does this right require millions of dollars to be spent on church buildings and pastor schooling for us to exercise it? Of course not. You can worship and believe in whatever god you want and no one else has to spend money or time for you to take advantage of that right.
What about the right to free speech? Does someone have to go to school for 8 years so you can have the right to speak your mind or speak out against the government without being thrown in jail? Obviously not.
What about the right to keep and bear arms? Is a multi-million dollar facility required for you to have the means of defending yourself and your family? Again, the answer is no.
Th right to believe and worship as you please, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are 3 of the most recognizable rights. One thing these rights have in common is that they do not put a burden on anyone else. In other words, no one else has to do anything for you to have these rights. This goes along with them being unalienable and inherent.
Health care does not have any similarities with these long established rights. If you claim you have a right to health care, you are actually claiming to have a right over another person along with their abilities and their money . For example, if I claim I have a right to receive a certain surgery, do I also have a right to force a doctor to treat me? Do I have a right to force someone to research the techniques and buy the equipment required to preform my surgery? Do I have a right to force someone to pay for the schooling of the doctors and nurses needed for my surgery? If I have a right to health care and to receive my surgery, who has the right to pay for it? Is it right to force someone else to pay for my surgery? Would it be right for me to force you to pay for my surgery? If not, who will pay for me to have my right? Health care can not be considered a right because it would require others to surrender their rights to their own money, property, and livelihood.
Reason 3
The last reason I wanted to touch on involves our Constitution. If one examines our Bill of Rights, it becomes obvious that every single right has something in common. They all are limiting or saying “no” to some type of government activity. The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The second says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The third states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The fourth ensures that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. The rest of the amendments similarly restrict or bar some type of behavior from the government.
If a right in unalienable, we do not need the government to grant it to us. We only need to the government to secure it and not trample on it. This is what the Bill of Rights attempts to do. If health care is an unalienable right, the government would have to do much more than just securing it and not trampling on it. It would have to force someone to do a certain job, build a certain building, research a certain technology, purchase certain equipment, acquire a certain type of education, and lastly, seize money from one person to give to another. This is not how a “right” is supposed to work. The idea of health care as an unalienable right has no similarity to any existing right that we currently recognize.
In summary, health care can not be an unalienable right because it is not inherent, it would take away the rights of other people if it is mandated by the government, and it has no similarities to the other rights recognized in our Constitution because it would require the government to do something.
Is there something I am missing? Can you think of any other reasons why health care is not a right?
Related posts:
Using your reasoning that preventing people from starving to death is not an inalienable right either. After all it requires other people to grow food, distribute it etc.
Ultimately I for one cannot understand the mind set that looks at the sick and the suffering and believes that care for them is a privilege not a right.
And I have to wonder how many people who espouse such a belief would be able to stick to their guns if they found themselves in dire straits without resources of any kind.
Take care.
Roy F. Tottie
Roy,
Thanks for the comment. I do not believe that food is a right, but I believe it would be morally reprehensible to allow someone to starve to death if you had food available to give to them. The same goes for health care.
Do you really believe that food is a right? If you have a right to food would it be ok to take it without paying for it? If you have to pay for it, is it really a right? Would it be right for a farmer to charge money for the fruit of his labor if we all truly had a right to what he(the farmer) worked hard to grow?
Do I have a right to your paycheck? If not, then we do not have a right to a farmer’s crops, because that is his paycheck.
The same goes for clothing, shelter, and health care. If my neighbor needs food, clothing, shelter or medical treatment, I would gladly help him out. However, I do not think it is right for the government to take money from one person and give it to someone else they think needs it more. And I do not think a person in need has a right to take the fruit of another person’s labor, just as I don’t have a right to take money out of your bank account if I am broke and can’t pay my mortgage.
I know it sounds “bad” to say that we don’t have a right to food or health care, but the alternative is tyranny and a violation of property rights that are one of the pillars of western culture. I would rather help my fellow human being in need out of my own free will instead of having the government confiscate a portion of my property and dispersing it to others that they think need it more.
“I know it sounds “bad” to say that we don’t have a right to food or health care, but the alternative is tyranny and a violation of property rights that are one of the pillars of western culture.”
I think “bad” is a loaded an narrow minded word. What I will say is that this in many ways sums up the essence of the divide between Progressive and Libertarian ideas and ideals perfectly. Because while your foremost concern is for property, mine is for people. Now I’d like to think that neither of us are so narrow minded as to not wish a reasonable balance to be struck. However sadly there are those on the Conservative side who not only have hijacked the more sensible aspects of Libertarianism, but have also enshrined corporate “personhood” to such an extent that the well being of the individual is given last thought if any thought at all by many politicians on both the Right and the Left.
“Do you really believe that food is a right? If you have a right to food would it be ok to take it without paying for it? If you have to pay for it, is it really a right? Would it be right for a farmer to charge money for the fruit of his labor if we all truly had a right to what he(the farmer) worked hard to grow?”
Yes, I really do believe that food is a right. So is water. And air. And artificial structures that are based on creating scarcity do not make it any less of a right. Now having said that I think that it is infinitely preferable for people to work together to find solutions to problems like hunger etc. But if push comes to shove, what right do you or anyone have to insist that someone starve to death?
Part of the fundamental clash between the worldview you espouse and the one that I espouse is that yours sees each of us as autonomous units. Mine sees us as interdependent. It is your view taken to ridiculous extremes by others that has historically led to laws and practices that have allowed a few to create artificial scarcity. Sadly the problem with many who hold my views is a refusal to speak with sufficient rhetorical forcefulness against other points of views they strongly disagree with. It is why Progressives so often fail with “Middle America” because they are looking for strongly articulated beliefs, not a bunch of hand wringing and “Well maybe if…” statements.
Ultimately the elevation to pre-eminence of the individual over the good of the whole is what has led and continues to lead this country down a ruinous path. And if we do not attempt genuinely balanced solutions, if we continue to allow the top one percent to create artificial scarcity I fear there will come a day where the lower classes will give up any hope of bettering their lives save through armed revolt, deciding that since they get no benefit from this society they owe it no duties.
It is my hope that persons of reason and good faith can come together to prevent that from happening.
Take care.
Roy,
I think you have an incorrect view of Libertarianism. This is obvious in your statement, “Because while your foremost concern is for property, mine is for people.” Both of us have people as our primary concern, but we decide to go about it in different ways.
A progressive thinks that government is the best way to help all people and therefore seeks to grow the government and create more programs to “help”.
A Libertarian/Conservative/Classical Liberal believes that the best way to help people is to create an environment that fosters and grows liberty and freedom.
History has shown us that when Libertarian principles are put into effect it benefits everyone, even the poor. But government control of food supplies, housing, and health care has historically preformed much worse.
The Soviet Union, with it’s vast resources and intelligent people, was unable to provide it’s citizens with food, clothing, shelter, and health care that was anywhere near comparable to what we had in the United States. The difference between rich and poor was also more pronounced in the Soviet Union because of an almost non-existent middle class. When the government tries to make all people economically equal, it makes them all equally poor, not equally rich. Then, when everyone eventually is equally poor, there is not enough economic activity to sustain a large socialist state.
Another statement you made shows a misunderstanding of Libertarianism. You said,
“Part of the fundamental clash between the worldview you espouse and the one that I espouse is that yours sees each of us as autonomous units. Mine sees us as interdependent.”
Have you ever read, “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith or “Free to Choose” by Milton Freedman? If so, you would understand the Libertarian view of all of us being connected even when we act in our own self interest.
For example, if I want to start my own business making and selling wool clothing, I will be connected to the sheep farmer, the sheep sheerer, the feed company that sells the sheep farmer feed for his animals, the farmers who grow food for the feed company, the companies that sell tractors to the farmers who grow the food for the feed companies, the companies that sell tractors to the farmers who grow the feed, the factories that build the tractors, the iron refineries that form the iron ore into the metal used by the tractor factories, the iron mines themselves, the companies that provide the heavy equipment for the iron mines, the companies that provide the protective clothing and helmets for the miners in the iron mine… I could go on and on and I haven’t even gotten to the trucks, trains and boats that transport all the supplies and products from one person to another. By making and selling some wool socks or scarfs I would be contributing to thousands upon thousands of people having jobs.
As a Libertarian, I believe that we are all interconnected in everything we do. Because of this, I can act in my own self interest (my own wool clothing business) and at the same time benefit everyone else I’m connected to.
Lets get back to the food is a right line of thinking. If you truly believe that food is a right, how do we take advantage of that right? If I was hungry and didn’t have any money, would I have a right to take food from a grocery store without paying for it? If I have a right to food why should I have to pay for it? I don’t have to pay for any of my other rights so why pay for that one? I am very interested in your answer.
Hey Lib,
“I think you have an incorrect view of Libertarianism. This is obvious in your statement, “Because while your foremost concern is for property, mine is for people.” Both of us have people as our primary concern, but we decide to go about it in different ways.
A Libertarian/Conservative/Classical Liberal believes that the best way to help people is to create an environment that fosters and grows liberty and freedom.
History has shown us that when Libertarian principles are put into effect it benefits everyone, even the poor.
Another statement you made shows a misunderstanding of Libertarianism. You said,
“Part of the fundamental clash between the worldview you espouse and the one that I espouse is that yours sees each of us as autonomous units. Mine sees us as interdependent.”
Have you ever read, “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith or “Free to Choose” by Milton Freedman? If so, you would understand the Libertarian view of all of us being connected even when we act in our own self interest.
For example, if I want to start my own business making and selling wool clothing, I will be connected to the sheep farmer, the sheep sheerer, the feed company that sells the sheep farmer feed for his animals, the farmers who grow food for the feed company, the companies that sell tractors to the farmers who grow the food for the feed companies, the companies that sell tractors to the farmers who grow the feed, the factories that build the tractors, the iron refineries that form the iron ore into the metal used by the tractor factories, the iron mines themselves, the companies that provide the heavy equipment for the iron mines, the companies that provide the protective clothing and helmets for the miners in the iron mine… I could go on and on and I haven’t even gotten to the trucks, trains and boats that transport all the supplies and products from one person to another. By making and selling some wool socks or scarfs I would be contributing to thousands upon thousands of people having jobs.
As a Libertarian, I believe that we are all interconnected in everything we do. Because of this, I can act in my own self interest (my own wool clothing business) and at the same time benefit everyone else I’m connected to.”
Honestly Lib? As theory goes everything you espoused above sounds really great. And as theory I’m not entirely against it. The problem comes about because of the fact that there are people who do not act out of the “Enlightened” self interest of which you speak, but rather out of simple naked greed. And here is where you display a misunderstanding of what Progressivism is…
“A progressive thinks that government is the best way to help all people and therefore seeks to grow the government and create more programs to “help”.
The Soviet Union, with it’s vast resources and intelligent people, was unable to provide it’s citizens with food, clothing, shelter, and health care that was anywhere near comparable to what we had in the United States. The difference between rich and poor was also more pronounced in the Soviet Union because of an almost non-existent middle class. When the government tries to make all people economically equal, it makes them all equally poor, not equally rich. Then, when everyone eventually is equally poor, there is not enough economic activity to sustain a large socialist state.”
You see Progressivism is not Communism, and it is not Socialism. Rather Progressivism is the idea that there are minimum standards below which if people are allowed to fall then they have fallen below the level of simple human dignity. This ideal was best summed up by FDR in his freedom from speech. Most reasonable Progressives appreciate the good that people and corporations can accomplish when they behave responsibly. But Progressives also believe that there must be a means to secure the essentials of human dignity to balance those individuals and entities that will not act responsibly. That means is often government and the rule of law.
As for you statements about the Soviet Union, I would agree with you, but I would also remind you that there is more than one way to get to the same destination. We are seeing this now as the top one percent who hold roughly 35 percent of the nations wealth are and have been in their rapacious greed eroding the middle class, and destroying the portals by which the working class once gained entrance into the middle, if not directly than for their children.
Now as for your final question, “Lets get back to the food is a right line of thinking. If you truly believe that food is a right, how do we take advantage of that right? If I was hungry and didn’t have any money, would I have a right to take food from a grocery store without paying for it? If I have a right to food why should I have to pay for it? I don’t have to pay for any of my other rights so why pay for that one?”
First of all I disagree with your statement that “I don’t have to pay for any of my other rights…” Responsibilities, social duties, these are the debts that we owe for our rights. This is a big part of where this country has veered horribly off course. When during the 80′s the idea of responsibility either individual or collective was eroded by the creation of an atmosphere that poo pooed such notions.
In the case of air, we have a responsibility to try to keep it as clean as possible so that all might breathe it. In the case of water, we not only have a responsibility to keep it clean but also to make certain that individuals have access to it for drinking before corporations get it for industrial processes. Bottom line nothing in this world is truly “free”. In the case of food, perhaps if we promoted the idea that it is each persons responsibility to see to it that those around them are fed.
Personally I’d love to live in a world in which we didn’t need to have this debate, because the idea of a person being allowed to starve would be considered so disgusting, so reprehensible, that no person who considered themselves “decent” could possibly allow it. Sadly though so long as we live in a world where some sleep just fine even knowing that children go to bed starving, we will continue to need to take concrete action to serve as a balance to base, unthinking, unfeeling, unenlightened greed.
Take care.
Roy
Roy,
I think you are closer to a Conservative line of thinking than you realize. You said, “In the case of food, perhaps if we promoted the idea that it is each persons responsibility to see to it that those around them are fed” This is exactly what I believe should be done! People don’t have a right to another persons property (food) but we all have a moral responsibility to help those in need.
Were we probably differ is that I believe we should each make an individual choice whether or not to help another individual or charity organization and I’m guessing you believe the government should take our money via taxes and choose who to help with it.
Are you backing away from the food is a right argument and are now saying that we each have an individual responsibility to feed the hungry? If not, then I will ask again, would it be right for someone who is hungry to go into a grocery store and take food without paying for it because they have a right to that food?
I also believe you are mistaken on the shrinking middle class. Here is a short article from someone much smarter than me on the subject http://stats.org/stories/2008/myth_decline_middle_june9_08.html
Thanks for the comments.
The question that’s bothered me since this whole debate started is: if I willingly decide to leave my job and just live at home, watching TV for the rest of my life with no interest to ever again look for work – the US Government is then going to step in and cover me with health care for the rest of my life, with no questions asked? Is this the obligation of the government? Will the US ever step in and give direction to find work, or provide any system to glean me from governmental dependence? Or could I just quit my job and live off the govt. dole for the rest of my life, including (soon) free health care?
(I have no intention of quitting my job, but I’m curious to know why it’s right to insure those who do NOT want to work but who could)
Ben Franklin hit the nail on the head over 200 years ago when he said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed in all my travels that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion: The power and threat of coercion is the prima facie of Progressive/Socialist/Communist moralizing as a means to an end. Inevitably, this means the chipping away of liberty and the swelling of the State apparatus.
Should health care be considered a right? Look at the evidence from a similar example. Food is not a right. Yet, we have an extraordinary abundance of it in this country to the point where our population is eating itself to diabetes…to the point where we export it to poor nations for FREE. Private property rights and private individuals banding together for their own self interests have made this possible.
As witnessed during the Great Depression, Progressive ideals have brought hunger, long lines, and unemployment. No thank you.
I completely agree. Healthcare is not a right. You do not have a right to be well. You do not have a right to a place to live. You do not have a right to eat. I mean, if you had any rights like these, then our Creator would have sent some long haired hippie to earth to tell us all about these rights and other wacky ideas, like loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and doing unto others.
Thank God that never happened. Praise Jesus.
Blanca,
Jesus commanded us to take care of the poor and sick, but the Bible also commands us not to steal. If someone was hungry and has a right to food, would it be OK for them to go into a grocery store and take food without paying for it? Would that be stealing or would it be using a God given right to food?
What about having a place to live? God commands us to provide for the poor but would it be right for a homeless person to come into your house uninvited because he has a “right” to a place to live?
Can you provide me with any passage of scripture where Jesus said we have a right to food and housing? The Bible I read says that we are personally supposed to take care of the poor and widows, but it never once states that the government should take money from us and give it to the poor. The whole point of the compassion that Jesus spoke about was to willfully give of our personal possessions to the needy. This is the type of charity I believe in. I do not believe if forced charity by way of the government. It encourages waste and fraud. It also takes away the very act of self sacrifice that Jesus spoke about.
This debate is too deep and important to use sarcasm and a misunderstanding of the Bible.
Lib,
Here’s the thing, the reason why many of us believe that it is better that the primary source of aid for people be the government, with NGO’s and individuals chipping in, is consistency. Now I’m the first to admit that it doesn’t always work out the way it’s supposed to, but in theory you see once something like food assistance programs, or health care, etc get passed then those programs are meant to run stably. Even if changes are made the changes are slow enough that you can see them coming. However when it is left up to the largess of a group or individual then it is possible for the assistance to vanish like morning dew in the hot sun.
Therefore a great many of us are less willing to trust corporations, and charities than the government (and many of us don’t exactly “Trust” the government, just consider them the lesser of two evils.)
Now as for your Ben Franklin quote, well I don’t see how it’s applicable. First of all Franklin was speaking in, of, and to what was in many ways a simpler time. I think he would be disgusted and horrified at the ways that corporations have been given almost unlimited autonomy, and at the idea that it would be possible for so many people to be unemployed and destitute even though they were both willing and able to work.
And as to the article you linked, well frankly I’m sorry but color me unimpressed. First of all with very few exceptions I’ve never found the predictions of economists regardless of their politics to be all the accurate. And the authors citing a poll in which people were asked what class they considered themselves part of? Well why don’t you ask the frog in the proverbial pot of gradually heating water whether or not he thinks he’s boiling to death?
As to the commenter who asked essentially why they should work if the government would pay their way, well why don’t you ask women who wanted to work despite having husbands who would pay their way back in the days before gender equality really started to take root as an ideal in this country. Why don’t you ask the people who go to mind numbing back breaking jobs that barely pay above the ebil ebil minimum wage. It boils down to this, some people have personal pride, some do not. Those that do not are not likely to get it no matter how much you may starve them, unhome them, etc. Those who do have it should not be forced to lose it because of hitting a rough patch in life. They should not have to listen to their children cry at night from hunger while they call back on their hundreth job application only to be told that someone else has been given the position.
But hey maybe the real problem is that we need to bring back the debtors prisons. Surely that would be the impetus that the lazy parasites need right?
http://bit.ly/83Ai1y
Now personally while I am in agreement with Progressive aims and means, at the same time I am results oriented.
So how about all of you Conservatives, get Corporate Personhood repealed, end Corporate Welfare, especially for those companies that move fifty percent or more of their operations out of this country, and then get charities established that do no practice discrimination, and I will be happy to vote and campaign against any future government programs that are meant to keep people from starving to death, being homeless, or having to die from easily preventable and treatable diseases.
That sounds fair don’t you think?
Oh and one last thing, there is absolutely nothing and no one in this world so important that it is exempted from satire. It is one of the few rights that neither Kings nor Corporations have managed to abridge or deprive us of.
And as for “misunderstanding” the Bible, well do me a favor and sign me up for the newsletter where I can get the official universally agreed upon interpretation of this thousands year old, cobbled together, translated from a translation of a translation, game of telephone. I had it once but accidentally put it through the wash.
Take care.
Roy
Roy,
The government’s entitlement programs are bankrupting this country. You claim that they are consistent but the only thing they are consistent in is spending more money than they take in. Imagine if the Red Cross and Salvation Army had 1/2 the tax money that we pay for all the entitlement programs out there. Do you think they would do a worse job than the government?
After Katrina it was the private charities that were getting things done and they were doing it with much less money and fraud than FEMA or any of the government programs. Over 1/4 of every tax dollar taken from our paychecks and spent on Katrina was wasted due to fraud. Credit cards that were issued for people to buy food were consistently used at strip clubs and liquor stores!
I also think the Franklin quote is perfectly applicable. Corporations in Franklin’s day had more freedom and less regulation than they do now. Remember the Dutch East Indies Company and the English East India Company? Those corporations had their own private armies and navies! What Franklin would be appalled at today is the hamstringing of the free market and the confiscation of half of our earnings through taxation.
I feel like most of your arguments are based on emotion and not fact. Can you show me proof that the government can effectively help the poor and do it more efficiently than private charities? Did LBJ’s war on poverty actually lower poverty rates and how much tax money did we spend (and continue to spend)?
I am all for helping the poor and needy but I do not think the government is at all suited to do the job. Just take a look at France. Progressives would love to have French style socialism in this country… but there is a big problem with the French system. They are running out of other people’s money! By the year 2014, the French government will be spending about 100% of their GDP. This will lead to a gradual shutdown of the French government and economy, unless some drastic changes are made. When you tax the rich at 80% and consider it evil for a business to earn a profit or to fire a bad employee, you eventually kill the proverbial golden goose that is funding all the social programs. By the way, have you ever been to France? Almost every major city has a large suburban slum surrounding it. It was shocking for me when I took a train out of Paris for the first time. The slums really give the Bronx a run for it’s money. Why do these slums exist if the government provides housing for everyone who needs it? Oh, and the free college system in France only has 2 schools in the top 50 universities world wide. How many does the US have in that same list…34! You get a free college education in France but it won’t be a good one.
I’m also for ending corporate welfare, but you brought up an interesting point. Why do you think so many companies have moved 50% of their operations overseas? Could high tax rates at least be part of the equation? We tax corporations to pay for social programs that are supposed to help people, but we end up taxing the corporations right out of the country and they take their jobs with them. Look at Ireland. They slashed their corporate income tax rates and corporations have been opening up shop there in droves. This means more jobs and a higher standard of living.
My comment about Bible interpretation was in response to a previous commenter who was implying that Jesus said we all have a right to food. The New Testament has no record of Jesus saying that. I was not claiming to have the final say in Bible interpretation and I was not the one who introduced Jesus into the debate.
You still have not answered my “food is a right” question. If food is a right, would it be OK for a hungry person to go into a grocery store and take food without paying for it? Can any progressive out there give me a straight answer to this question based on sound reasoning and logic? My main criticism of the Progressive movement is that it is based on feelings instead of facts. Sure it feels good to say we all have a right to food, clothing, shelter, and health care, but do the facts support it?
I will reply more point by point when I have more time. But I want to make three key responses off the cuff.
First of all I am a big believer in using both emotion and reason.
Second of all, as regards Food as a “right” here is my definitive answer. A: I reject simplistic either/or dualism. B: I believe that right and wrong are often hierarchical. Therefore C: I believe that while stealing is broadly speaking wrong, it is more wrong to expect a person to starve. Therefore the person who has stolen food is less in the wrong than the person or persons who has withheld it from him.
Finally, and I will elaborate on these points when I reply in greater depth later, but in short the fundamental problem started with Congress under Reagan (and perhaps even earlier) essentially robbing Social Security rather than simply leaving it be. Add to that corporations who went from seeking reasonable tax breaks, to breaks so huge that they are paying practically nothing, and then still moving their operations over seas. Finally as far as Katrina goes, well sometimes I wonder if the whole thing with FEMA wasn’t a Conservative plot to try and “prove” that all government programs are bad. I mean if you put an unqualified incompetent in charge of anything it’s not likely to go well. And as a side note, this is a big part of why many of us in Progressive America do not trust Conservatives. They helped one of the most incompetent people ever steal an election and then stood by and cheered while he ran this country into the ground fiscally as well as morally.
Anyway I’ve got to get going, so I will save the more detailed stuff for later when I have some time to more fully formulate my reply.
Take care.
Roy
Excellent post, and excellent debate as well.
My only addition to the debate would be on progressivism. The Progressives, the Communists, and the Fascists all “cross pollinated” each other. The progressives in the 20′s and 30′s were quite enamored with Fascism, and Mussolini and in particular (mind you, the Nazi “brand” of Fascism was the one most affiliated with racial hate-neither Mussolini or Franco sent Jews to camps.). The Fascists tended to view Communism as a competing belief system, not one that was diametrically opposed to them. Lenin was said to lament the loss of Mussolini to the Fascist side of the debate.
That being said, there are elements of both Communism and Fascism in Progressivism, which will eventually lead it to the destructive excesses of it’s contributing ideologies.
We have to remember that governemnt program tend not to solve problems, only subsidize them. We had a “war on poverty.” The taxpayer has spent an estimated 1 trillion dollars on it. The result? More poverty! Essentially, we purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. We see the amounts of corruption in the Medicare and Medicaid programs that are reminiscent of the Soviet system. We see government ownership or control of business and industry, as was done in Fascist states.
We can propose a “minimum,” but what that will do is lock people into that minimum. As taxes increase, and more and more people are made unemployed, more and more people will become dependent on the government for the basics of life. These individuals, unfortunately, will be de-facto slaves to the government. After all, when the government provides your health care, your food, your housing, your job, your transportation, and so on, how free are you. Can not the government threaten to take these away?
Thanks, but no thanks. I choose freedom.
Matt,
You make some interesting points. However I can’t say I precisely agree with them.
As regards “Communism” well while Lenin may have been sincere in the idea of a collectivist state where in the working classes were empowered to act for their own greatest good, Stalin was not. Stalin was a power hungry monster who like most power hungry monsters worked the system for his own benefit at the expense of the good of the people.
I will freely admit that Progressives can sometimes put idealism too far above practicality, however on the flip side Conservatives too often have encouraged this country’s basest instincts and called it pragmatism.
As for Fascism? It is primarily about attempting to compel homogenity of thought and well frankly both Liberals and Conservatives have often over the decades displayed fascistic tendencies. With Liberals you can see it in “sin” taxes, and with Conservatives you can often see it in their anti-choice rhetoric when it comes to birth control, to name just two out of many from both sides.
As for your beliefs on the evil of the minimum, well frankly I think that if there is not a minimum then the only freedom to be had lies in the corporations who are free to go as low as they wish, with the workers having no recourse. And frankly I’m not keen to be the slave to a corporation which is what we would quickly become in a world with no protections of any kind against their rapacious greed. Freedom to starve, is not really a freedom I’m interested in. But if it appeals to you, feel free to take my share of that freedom.
Take care.
Roy
Here’s an interesting thought. If you had to choose between being a slave to a government or being a slave to a business, which one would you choose?
I’d choose to be slave to the business any day over slave to government. At least the business pays me for actual work, unlike the federal government which would potentially pay me for doing absolutely nothing (and potentially pay for my health care, too.)
One of my earliest introductions to the welfare state was my first job working at an ice cream shop in Oklahoma. I remember distinctly working hard at my job, and taking pride in the role I had, while there would be folks who would come in and buy fudgsicles and ice cream quarts (and nothing else) using only their booklets of food stamps. There I was working away, just getting started out as a soda jerk, making my first checks, and here were folks coming in and using free government welfare to load up on junk food.