Can it be a ‘right’ if it assaults basic rights?
Some people — call them crazy — believe that human beings have inalienable rights — life, liberty and property. With these rights, these folks go forth in the world and, seeing the necessity, earn a living for themselves and help those whom they choose to help, be it family or friends. Their basic premise of existence is that everyone faces the same challenge, so it is up to each person to meet it. Charity exists to help those who cannot.
Other people believe the concept of “rights” is malleable. For them, rights are not tied to individual responsibility in any way. Rather, rights are what the mob says they are, whatever the mob says it needs today. Hence the mob likes ever-expanding government and all the “rights” it can offer through its power of coercion. Never mind the assault on the actual inalienable rights of human beings.
The “rights” issue of the present day seems to be health care, which is actually a product or service, since someone has to provide it or bear the costs to do so. Those who say health care is a right are arguing that some human beings owe other human beings something. Yet those on the hook did not sign a contract to take on this debt. They did not give their consent. What about their rights?
A federal judge in Texas recently delivered a blow to the health care “rights” crowd. He declared the federal health care takeover — Obamacare — to be unconstitutional, although admittedly on legal and technical grounds. In any case, it’s good news. It would be heartening to see higher courts uphold this decision, and expand it through a defense of inalienable rights.