Comments on: Health Care and the Fallacy of Positive Rights

By: Mandy

Mandy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:11:14 +0000

I think what everyone is failing to understand here is that this is not thrust upon you. You have the "choice," yes I emphasize the word "choice" to opt out of government health insurance, as those do in most countries which have some form of national health care. But many in those countries do not opt out because they found it to be financially responsible to opt in. And I would like to mention that the Constitution is not a restrictive ceiling but instead a floor of broad fundamental rights which allows generations to build upon. Why not give people access to affordable health care like most states have done with affordable public education??? Furthermore, I find any mention of the word "slavery" in the discussion of national health care reform absolutely idiotic because any argument that health care providers will become slaves is such an irrational conclusion I really do not know how to respond it except to say that doctors will still be able to bargain for their salaries like they do now.

By: JoshEboch

JoshEboch — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:23:59 +0000

Chris and Russell,

It might surprise both of you to learn that America is not a Democracy. We are a Republic. That means we follow the rule of law, and the Constitution is the highest law in our land.

If Congress doesn't have power it wants, then whatever Congress wants must be so popular that the people will choose to amend their own Constitution. Barring that, Congress has no authority to meddle in the personal health decisions of individuals.

If they usurp the authority anyway, taking by force the product of some people's labor to satisfy the whims of a slim majority of their peers, that is illegal, immoral, and as much slavery as anything else.

By: russellcole38

russellcole38 — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:23:19 +0000

Chris, thanks for articulating in the simplist of terms why this guy's argument is so profoundly ill thought out and just plain stupid.
r cole

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:08 +0000

"But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?"

That's the fundamental principle behind Democracy. People elect people to run a government, and a government requires funds to operate, so taxes are levied. This is not a complicated principle.

Is that not the very essence of slavery?"

No. You have the right to vote. Slaves do not. Note, simply because your candidate did not win does not mean you're a slave.

By: Dale Suslick

Dale Suslick — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:08:15 +0000

Would a “right” be something that we have a right to do, or too get? Or is a “right” something that others have an obligation to provide for me? The debate on health care, state school budgets, student loan programs, mortgage and car bailouts as well as anything from what we would call the “entitlement mindset” isn’t about helping those truly in need. We, as people, are commanded to help those truly in need. Help the widows. Help the orphans. Mentor and provide for the fatherless. Give and care for the poor. The debates are really about one group of socialists dickering with another group of socialists about who will receive what piece of the pie that was wrongly stolen from others. All because we’re so wrong about rights.

By: Russell Cole

Russell Cole — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:25:18 +0000

I am in full agreement. However, that is not what the author of this argument is contending.

Serftom was administered at the manorial level of midieval civilization. There might have been some edicts issued at the monarchial level that provided for some serf rights that were to be respected by local lords, such as freedom for the serf if he had successfully lived as a berger for at least two years. However, the work arrangements and taxation systems were devised and administered at these local, manorial levels of these federated systems. Therefore, I am compelled to interpret the author as critical of all forms of collectivism no matter on what level of polity that they happen to occur.

Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with you. I just think you are lending the author of the piece far too much intellectual credit.

By: Positive vs Negative Rights :: Heath C. Ice

Positive vs Negative Rights :: Heath C. Ice — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:59:02 +0000

[...] found the following article at the Tenth Ammendment Center’s website: Health Care and the Fallacy of Positive Rights. It gives a good brief description of Positive vs Negative rights. Tags: Constitution, government, [...]

By: hcice

hcice — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:53:22 +0000

It is a very good idea to not let the overall federal government mandate positive rights. As your governing unit becomes smaller; such as the state, county, or community level; it becomes safer to allow some positive rights to be mandated. At more local levels, you have much more of a voice as to what positive rights are mandated. You also have a greater ability to find a state or community that better fits the role you believe government should have.

By: Russell Cole

Russell Cole — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:19:57 +0000

This is a rather stupid article. While we are at it, why do we not get rid of fire departments, police departments, and other forms of collectivism, because I surely do not want to suffer the plight of a serf who has people come to put his house out of fire or to recitative him if he suffers a heart attack. These forms of servitude are simply intolerable incursions upon my liberties.
r cole

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:32:07 +0000

Then let us be judged as a society that protected their individual right to self-determination, not forced collectivization.

Let us be a Society that let them live their own life rather then make them live the life we as a collective would choose to impose upon them.

Thomas Jefferson was right in 1774 when he said:
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

Life and liberty are very much interdependent, for it is by our judgment that life as a slave either to a direct master or to a "society" strict control and management to the execution of our own choices is not really life at all.

If you wish to surrender your liberty and control over your own life to someone else in exchange for the promised of the security of servitude to them, then go ahead and do it privately. DO NOT try to impose that choice upon us or anyone else.