Rights vs Entitlements
Nov. 13th, 2009 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fantastic_jackieI’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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-15 06:22 pm (UTC)And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? My husband and I, for example, just signed up for new insurance for the coming year, and we're committing a lot to it to ensure that we have the kind of coverage we might need should I have a complication with my pregnancy, or our baby be born prematurely and require time in ICU or long-term treatment for some birth defect or illness. It's important to us to be able to provide the best care possible for our family, without ruining us financially, and we're confident that with this plan we've chosen, we will both be protected financially and receive the best medical care we can get. Now, I would also like to think that if we couldn't afford this, we could get the help we need, but we don't expect other people to bail us out -- that's why we worked to go to college, worked to get through college, and worked after college to pay off debts and not accrue more debts. We live frugally, we save, we plan, and it's paid off for us. And I do understand that we've been very lucky, while other people just seem to get struck by disaster after disaster and can never get their feet under them...But this is how it is for us, and we can't apologize for that. Nor am I willing to sacrifice the level of care we're able to afford for some system that might or might not provide quality healthcare to everyone. When you come right down to it, my family is more important to me than anyone, and if I have a choice between what I have now and a system that could, potentially, screw us over, leaving us barely, or unable, to provide the care we would wish for ourselves, nevermind giving charitably to those less fortunate...Well, can you really blame me for being hesitant to support that kind of uncertain change?
I don't claim to be an economic expert by any stretch, but I do understand that we benefit from the insurance industry being a competitive industry operating within a free market. If suddenly the government is regulating that market, offering some alternative that takes away that competitive edge, people who worked to afford a certain level of care may well find themselves unable to afford that, and forced to settle for something inferior. And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 03:01 pm (UTC)so I'm not entirely against such a system.
Obviously both systems work to accomplish the basic goals of healthcare and keeping the population healthy. I wish people would acknowledge this instead of rushing to tear down any good things about the other system, as if it simply can't be acknowledged. There's no one solution to any problem. - Just better solutions to problems. Like ones that don't involve giving up all our freedoms...
Why is it single-payer proponents spend so much time and energy building a case that denies even the integrity and honesty of private healthcare only to rush to a first defense that the choice will still exist? Shouldn't such a system be outlawed altogether if their arguments have any merit? Shouldn't they support it being outlawed altogether if they really believe doctors without government will take your feet and your child's tonsils for profit?
Of course, I still support a safety net, because I don't believe a utopia, left or right, will ever exist. But it should still be charitable contributions, not an appropriation of public funds. I'd say some program run by the private sector with oversight by the government. Reason: The private sector engages in profit, not revenue, so they sort of tend to place more value on a dollar than the government. You read the amounts of money the government will spend on things like turtle bridges (Yes. Bridges for turtles. Complete with little lit pathways. Millons.) and toilet seats and come to one of two conclusions: Either the government is engaging in frauding the American public and these dollars aren't going to these projects, OR Congress has absolutely no concept of money because they know they can just ask the Treasury and the Fed (*twitch*) to print more or buy the debt.
And what about those of us who currently do have good healthcare, who are in positions to pay for the privilege? [...] And then you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do: denied people's right to have access to healthcare.
Exactly! We worry about healthcare specifically for Terri, and by extension of empathy, all chronic patients. There's a provision in the bill, for instance, for having too many tests run. Doctors get charged a fine. She has to have periodic blood tests among other things, and needs to be able to see a doctor on a regular basis as well as at any given moment, so we're talking about patients being punished -because the doctors will have to pass along the costs, and when you shove X million into the system with no new doctors, there are going to be waits- for maintaining their health! As diseases progress in people with chronic conditions, their medication needs become more defined and extreme: Will the government be willing to pay for state-of-the-art treatments to help them? Or will that care be rationed?
It sounds so altruistic to say everyone should be covered, especially when no one they know is really sick, but at what cost? Is that cost even sustainable? Is that goal even achievable? None of the bills in Congress can even accomplish that goal and look how much it costs already --in government estimates which are ALWAYS wrong!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 08:06 pm (UTC)Hm. Wonder if that has anything to do with this (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/mammogram-guidelines-spur-debate-early-detection/story?id=9099145)? (If you're short on time, basically, it's that the US Preventive Services Task Force (a panel that has no oncologists on it) is recommending that women under the age of 50 should not get mammograms, and women over 50 should only get them every other year. They also recommend that women not perform self-breast exams. I thought this was bizarre when I read it, but in light of what you say, it could potentially be downright alarming...
Will comment more on the rest later.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 11:01 pm (UTC)