fantastic_jackie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fantastic_jackie) wrote2009-11-13 10:17 am
fantastic_jackie) wrote2009-11-13 10:17 am
Entry tags:
Rights vs Entitlements
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. Partly it stems from the healthcare debate, but I’ve also found myself swaying libertarian on economic and scope-of-government issues as I continue on a personal quest to truly examine my actual beliefs and ask the question why.
In the healthcare debate, I’ve found myself faced with the contention that healthcare is a right, and I had to ask myself, “Is it?” My gut always told me no, but I had to stop and really ponder why that was and whether it was really true. If it wasn’t right, then what is a right and what defines one? These are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
The rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are not our only rights. To assert such not only limits our freedom, but demonstrates a belief that our rights as free men and women begin only at recognition from a government rather than an intrinsic state of being granted us by our Creator. – And whether that Creator is God or just your parents by your non-religious beliefs is beside the point; it is self evident that we are endowed with them by creation. – The rights listed within the Bill of Rights are comparable to guidelines, thus the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. These two essentially say that just because all rights are not listed does not mean they do not exist, and that they are retained by the states and the people.
Now this particular line of thought brought about a tangent I continue to ponder, but ask here anyway: Do rights actually exist? Better phrased, are rights the limiting concept or even function of a governing body, or are they simply a means by which we can recognize, categorize, and define what liberty is? Is compartmentalizing our freedoms into little boxes a means by which governments can limit our Freedom even as the 9th Amendment was meant to prevent that? Even if that’s so, aren’t limits to freedom necessary to a government’s existence? But that’s a digression I won’t get into here.
The initial rights listed in the first few amendments are speech, religion, free press, assembly, to petition, arms (aka guns or otherwise stated protection), due process, trial by jury, etc. We are also protected from things such as eminent domain (Well… we were….), undue search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Of course, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the three basic rights we have in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (The last which was originally Property but changed so as not to give the South a reason to keep slavery forever.) The question here, examining these stated rights, is why did the Founders specifically mention these? What made them choose these rights and not others, such as healthcare, housing, or jobs? What makes a right a right?
Freedom is the prism through which this should be answered. I do not get my free speech from the government. I need no permission from the government to think, speak, write, or petition. I would never accept a religious handout from Congress. I didn’t expect to receive a gun with my voter’s registration card when I turned 18. As an independent society, we believe that our freedoms end when they infringe upon someone else’s freedom. So then, my rights are my own to provide for, experience, and take advantage of. They are things that speak to my individuality and define, enhance, and even protect it.
Furthermore, my right to a gun does not supersede my neighbor’s right to his property. In other words, how would anyone feel if the NRA and conservatives en masse determined that the government should use tax dollars to ensure that every American citizen was afforded their right to a gun? Would that be considered wrong? I would assert, using the premise of the healthcare debate, that it would not be. To claim such would be the equivalent of denying a man the ability to protect his very life. After all, is not every person entitled to the ability to defend himself against enemies and a tyrannical government? How heartless of you to believe such! It must be your intention to rob that man, rape his wife, and kill his children!! Child killer!!
Of course, I don’t believe this. No conservative does – not that I’ve met, and anyone who does couldn’t possibly claim to be such. It comes down to not a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but a firm set of principles and values which shape our beliefs.
My right to a gun is not an entitlement. None of my rights are entitlements. It is simply a protection, a safeguard, a sacred claim I have to not be prevented from doing such. My rights are dependent upon no one else except me and my ability to utilize, attain, and maintain them. They are endowed, intrinsic, and self-evident. The very idea that I would be dependent upon someone to express my rights in and of itself limits Freedom and one’s ability to experience it. I am free as you are free, and we do not need each other for such to be the case.
The only rights listed that impose upon others are those regarding your right to a fair trial by jury. Why is that? Do these set a precedent for other rights that impose upon others, such as healthcare? Truthfully, you could follow a path that would conclude an affirmative answer. I believe the case to the negative is the superior argument, though.
The need for a jury, attorney, and trial come down to the necessity for society to have and maintain blind justice. Justice is a facet not only of individuality, but also of society as a whole. I cannot judge myself to be innocent or guilty of a crime I have been charged with; among other things, I could be lying. Yes, I could plead to myself my guilt, but on what grounds would I determine a punishment, if any? A transgression of the law, an imposition upon someone else’s freedom, goes beyond the individual. It involves not only the defendant, but also a victim who also has rights. By its very nature, guilty or innocent, the charge of a crime requires the People to investigate, judge, and fairly determine the truth not only for the victim and defendant, but for the very fabric of the nation. If we do not protect each other’s rights to life and liberty on both sides of the courtroom, then we cannot function as a society.
So, what is a right? Dictionary.com had a decent definition:
It’s not an entitlement; it’s a guarantee. There is a wealth of difference between entitlements and rights – no pun intended. Entitlements require the acquisition of funds from one group of people and the redistribution of those funds to a different set of people. Rights require nothing but the guarantee that you have the protected ability to do them. – Protected in the sense that you cannot be prevented. – Rights are not provided to you; they sit ready for you to take advantage of.
Is healthcare a right? Sure it is, as surely as you have the right to dance and sing on the street about the evils of the federal government. There are no grounds upon which any governing body can (practically should) stand to deny you care for the purpose of saving your very life. That is abhorrently wrong and should never be defended. In actuality, I’ve never heard such a stance defended. But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution.
Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I decided to share this line of thought for a couple of reasons, one of which was to answer the implied questions that all start at the contention that healthcare is a right, as well as to answer that specific question. I also wanted to stress how much thought I put into my political beliefs.
For anyone who has been convinced and even asserted that I simply take my marching orders from talk radio, right wing blogs, Fox News, and a measure of paranoid fears and delusions with no consideration or thought for myself, I hope this post can serve as a measure of proof that such is not the case. These thoughts and all others I’ve made the case for are my own and are not some plagiarized, talking point inspired, half-baked assumptions I’ve stolen for myself with no deliberation.
I put a lot of thought into what I believe, state, and defend; it’s sad I even have to say this. My assumption therefore is and always has been that every person does the same, and I would hope that by choosing to believe such repeatedly, eventually I’ll be paid the same respect and courtesy for my beliefs.
In the healthcare debate, I’ve found myself faced with the contention that healthcare is a right, and I had to ask myself, “Is it?” My gut always told me no, but I had to stop and really ponder why that was and whether it was really true. If it wasn’t right, then what is a right and what defines one? These are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
The rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are not our only rights. To assert such not only limits our freedom, but demonstrates a belief that our rights as free men and women begin only at recognition from a government rather than an intrinsic state of being granted us by our Creator. – And whether that Creator is God or just your parents by your non-religious beliefs is beside the point; it is self evident that we are endowed with them by creation. – The rights listed within the Bill of Rights are comparable to guidelines, thus the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. These two essentially say that just because all rights are not listed does not mean they do not exist, and that they are retained by the states and the people.
Now this particular line of thought brought about a tangent I continue to ponder, but ask here anyway: Do rights actually exist? Better phrased, are rights the limiting concept or even function of a governing body, or are they simply a means by which we can recognize, categorize, and define what liberty is? Is compartmentalizing our freedoms into little boxes a means by which governments can limit our Freedom even as the 9th Amendment was meant to prevent that? Even if that’s so, aren’t limits to freedom necessary to a government’s existence? But that’s a digression I won’t get into here.
The initial rights listed in the first few amendments are speech, religion, free press, assembly, to petition, arms (aka guns or otherwise stated protection), due process, trial by jury, etc. We are also protected from things such as eminent domain (Well… we were….), undue search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Of course, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the three basic rights we have in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (The last which was originally Property but changed so as not to give the South a reason to keep slavery forever.) The question here, examining these stated rights, is why did the Founders specifically mention these? What made them choose these rights and not others, such as healthcare, housing, or jobs? What makes a right a right?
Freedom is the prism through which this should be answered. I do not get my free speech from the government. I need no permission from the government to think, speak, write, or petition. I would never accept a religious handout from Congress. I didn’t expect to receive a gun with my voter’s registration card when I turned 18. As an independent society, we believe that our freedoms end when they infringe upon someone else’s freedom. So then, my rights are my own to provide for, experience, and take advantage of. They are things that speak to my individuality and define, enhance, and even protect it.
Furthermore, my right to a gun does not supersede my neighbor’s right to his property. In other words, how would anyone feel if the NRA and conservatives en masse determined that the government should use tax dollars to ensure that every American citizen was afforded their right to a gun? Would that be considered wrong? I would assert, using the premise of the healthcare debate, that it would not be. To claim such would be the equivalent of denying a man the ability to protect his very life. After all, is not every person entitled to the ability to defend himself against enemies and a tyrannical government? How heartless of you to believe such! It must be your intention to rob that man, rape his wife, and kill his children!! Child killer!!
Of course, I don’t believe this. No conservative does – not that I’ve met, and anyone who does couldn’t possibly claim to be such. It comes down to not a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but a firm set of principles and values which shape our beliefs.
My right to a gun is not an entitlement. None of my rights are entitlements. It is simply a protection, a safeguard, a sacred claim I have to not be prevented from doing such. My rights are dependent upon no one else except me and my ability to utilize, attain, and maintain them. They are endowed, intrinsic, and self-evident. The very idea that I would be dependent upon someone to express my rights in and of itself limits Freedom and one’s ability to experience it. I am free as you are free, and we do not need each other for such to be the case.
The only rights listed that impose upon others are those regarding your right to a fair trial by jury. Why is that? Do these set a precedent for other rights that impose upon others, such as healthcare? Truthfully, you could follow a path that would conclude an affirmative answer. I believe the case to the negative is the superior argument, though.
The need for a jury, attorney, and trial come down to the necessity for society to have and maintain blind justice. Justice is a facet not only of individuality, but also of society as a whole. I cannot judge myself to be innocent or guilty of a crime I have been charged with; among other things, I could be lying. Yes, I could plead to myself my guilt, but on what grounds would I determine a punishment, if any? A transgression of the law, an imposition upon someone else’s freedom, goes beyond the individual. It involves not only the defendant, but also a victim who also has rights. By its very nature, guilty or innocent, the charge of a crime requires the People to investigate, judge, and fairly determine the truth not only for the victim and defendant, but for the very fabric of the nation. If we do not protect each other’s rights to life and liberty on both sides of the courtroom, then we cannot function as a society.
So, what is a right? Dictionary.com had a decent definition:
Right (n) - A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
It’s not an entitlement; it’s a guarantee. There is a wealth of difference between entitlements and rights – no pun intended. Entitlements require the acquisition of funds from one group of people and the redistribution of those funds to a different set of people. Rights require nothing but the guarantee that you have the protected ability to do them. – Protected in the sense that you cannot be prevented. – Rights are not provided to you; they sit ready for you to take advantage of.
Is healthcare a right? Sure it is, as surely as you have the right to dance and sing on the street about the evils of the federal government. There are no grounds upon which any governing body can (practically should) stand to deny you care for the purpose of saving your very life. That is abhorrently wrong and should never be defended. In actuality, I’ve never heard such a stance defended. But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution.
Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I decided to share this line of thought for a couple of reasons, one of which was to answer the implied questions that all start at the contention that healthcare is a right, as well as to answer that specific question. I also wanted to stress how much thought I put into my political beliefs.
For anyone who has been convinced and even asserted that I simply take my marching orders from talk radio, right wing blogs, Fox News, and a measure of paranoid fears and delusions with no consideration or thought for myself, I hope this post can serve as a measure of proof that such is not the case. These thoughts and all others I’ve made the case for are my own and are not some plagiarized, talking point inspired, half-baked assumptions I’ve stolen for myself with no deliberation.
I put a lot of thought into what I believe, state, and defend; it’s sad I even have to say this. My assumption therefore is and always has been that every person does the same, and I would hope that by choosing to believe such repeatedly, eventually I’ll be paid the same respect and courtesy for my beliefs.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
But just because it is a right, much like our right to bear arms, it does not translate to an entitlement system of wealth redistribution. Are healthcare entitlements a guarantee – not right – that need to be offered by governing bodies to protect that right? Well now, there’s a whole new question. ;)
I'm not sure I entirely agree with a direct comparison between guns and healthcare...I mean, the firearms debate is a loaded issue (pun intended, sorry) in itself... But in any case, this post still made me think and helped me form a lot of my own half-baked thoughts and beliefs into an actual stance.
Up till now I've never taken much of a stance in the healthcare debate, because I do believe that access to affordable healthcare is the right to all people. I don't believe that it's right to look at fellow man and take an Ebenezer Scrooge attitude: "If they'd rather die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population." We're human beings, not animals; we have the capacity to rise above social Darwinism and assist each other without detriment to ourselves. And I also believe that, much as it's to a nation's best advantage that its population be educated, it's also to a nation's best advantage that its population be healthy. The question, I've realized, is not should we have a healthcare system that is more readily available to our poorer citizens, but should the government be the one to provide it? Or rather, is our government even capable of providing quality healthcare to all of our citizens?
We have a government that is, by design, inefficient. When I step back from the emotional side of the debate -- that there are hard-working families who either can't get the care they need, or go into massive debt to get it -- I see that there are ways for those who don't have good insurance, or who have no insurance at all, to get medical care. We have St. Jude's Research Hospital. We have Shriner's Hospitals. I'm sure there are others. They provide world-class medical care absolutely free of charge to families, funded entirely by the charitable donations of Americans. I think that such charities exist and function speaks volumes about the generosity of Americans, the willingness of our people to reach out to those of us in need. We give without coercion, and look what we can achieve.
Could we do more? Absolutely. But could our Federal government, by taxing us, provide that same level of care achieved by charitable organizations? Honestly, I don't know. I doubt it, given the inefficiency of our government -- and the scale of our population. And I also wonder, if a national healthcare system is instituted and funded by taxpayer dollars, if private healthcare providers like St. Jude and the Shriners will be crippled because donors suddenly have less money to give charitably. Would other such charitable organizations even be able to get off the ground?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)