Published: Tuesday, Aug. 20 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Forced confiscation (i.e. taxes) from some to fund never-ending war and banker
bail-outs is a formula for disaster. It doesn't work.Because
we didn't keep our former misguided administration in check, our republic
and those who have spent their lives contributing to social security may be
headed for fiscal ruin.
These daily rants about the "proper role of governance" and
"government overreach" and socialism do have some merit.However, they have been occurring for years and years, under R and D
leadership.Sure seems to me that the right was unconcerned about all
the govt excess under GOP leadership.One just might conclude that it
is merely partisan politics.
Health insurance isn't a right. But I think basic health care for all
should be something we can provide for ourselves, and it can be a role of proper
Do we excuse "this" President just because there is a long history of
lawbreaking in Washington? It has been said that Obama's intellect is far
above average. If that is true, why can't he figure out the limits placed
on him by the people who control all branches of government? Why can't he
understand that healthcare is not in the Constitution? Why can't he
understand that government cannot "seize" two car companies? Why
can't he see that government cannot loan $500 million to Solyndra? Why
can't he see that transferring wealth is not allowed? Does he think that
he is above the law? Does he think that, because he is so
"intelligent", that he can think for all of us? Can't
he understand that taxes (at least before Wilson) were apportioned among the
states based on population, not on ability to pay and that the top rate was 7%?
It's not all Obama's fault, but he the person whose duty
it is to set things right. It doesn't look like he has any interest in
doing the right thing, including defending the Constitution against the people
"Therefore, things like housing, education, a job, a minimum wage, medical
treatment and, yes, health care insurance are not rights at all. Those are
things that must be earned."So after someone "Earns"
these things only to have them taken away in a single catastrophic event or
health crisis, they can die in the gutter, perhaps in front of your home. Awe another compassionate conservative, shows his appreciation of what
it is like, to live in a society. Where every man built it himself, lifts
himself up by his bootstraps, and carries justice in their holster.
We citizens have almost no understanding of the Constitution or of
Constitutional Government. We have become our ancestors who look to a king to
share the crumbs from his table with us.We are Americans! We, not
the government, are in charge. We hire temp workers to carry out the basics,
but we reserve all freedoms and all responsibilities for ourselves. Health care
is not a right; it is a responsibility. Each of us, individually is responsible
for our own health care. We can, if we wish, help others with their health care
expenses, but government does not have the right to force us to be charitable.
That is part of the agency that our Creator gave us as part of mortality.
Understanding rights vs responsibilities is something that Washington has
backwards. Those politicians have assumed "ownership" of all rights
and, unfortunately, too few Americans know that our "rights" have been
hi-jacked.Most things coming from Washington are not Constitutional.
Lazy people would rather give up freedom than shoulder the responsibilities are
part of being free. That suits those in power just fine. They like whiners.
They fear liberty-loving Americans.
More Americans are killed by microscopic "enemies" than all other
combined.Sickness, disease, cancers, etc. kill people each and every
second.You don't think defending and protecting one's
"Life", liberty and pursuit of happiness against "ALL" enemies
falls into that category?But - no, only boogiemen enemies in
Afghanistan who "might" attack us warrant $Trillion spent defending
"Do we excuse "this" President just because there is a long history
of lawbreaking in Washington?"No Mike, we don't.We call them all out when they do. We don't do it selectively based on
their party affiliation.You attack Obama and the dems daily. You
act as though they are night and day different from the GOP. Can you imagine
your outrage if the Dems had championed NCLB? Or Medicare Part D?You would be LIVID.You rant daily about the unconstitutional
nature of our current leadership. You mention healthcare, Solyndra and the Car
Companies.Do you realize that the GOP has fingerprints all over
those things? Have you bothered to look into that? You might be surprised what
you would find.I have little doubt that had Romney won, he would be
doing very similar things. The difference is that you would be happy and
content.If you held each party equally accountable you would have
quite the quandary in the voting booth.
Could've sworn life was an inalienable right... but apparently making
access to healthcare more affordable for people is improper. Go figure...
Does one have a right to police protection? Fire protection? Do we not all
rely on someone else to help pay for these?What about a right to be
free from invasion of other countries? A right to redress of grievance if
wronged? Who pays for these? The letter writer's definition
of a right is flawed. Rights are what we possess simply by existing. We
don't earn them, nor are they granted. Our fundamental rights, as
described by Jefferson and Locke are Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of
Happiness. It is the role of government, not to grant these, but defend
these.Where we disagree is on the scope of these items, and how to
best fund them. Some would argue health care falls under right to life and
liberty (how free is a man shackled by disease?) Others would argue it deprives
them to the right of their property. Where the disagreement is does ones right
to life trump another's right to property?
Using the definition proposed, "The definition of a true right is one that
when exercised does not violate the right of another. For example, if someone
else has to pay for or provide service for me to exercise my right, it is not a
right." Do we then conclude that children have no "right" to support
from their parents? Does this definition apply to the "right to life" of
the unborn fetus when abortion is at issue? Can we justify police, fire and
ambulance services to protect the "right to life" when they are paid for
by taxes? Are the "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" so
cherished in the Declaration of Independence really rights when we must protect
those rights with the most expensive military in the world or the lives of those
who have died defending our Constitution? There is not one single
"right" guaranteed by the Bill or Rights or derived from it that comes
without the cost of limiting the conduct of another or the expenditure of the
public weal. This definition fails. A "right" is a principle of liberty
so morally compelling that we, as a society, determine suffer the cost.
@JoeBlow,Your rhetoric has gotten in the way of logic. You have
assumed that I think as you do. I do not. I do not excuse lawlessness, no
matter who sits in the Oval Office. You assume that just because you blame
Presidents before Obama for Obama's excesses that I would do the same. I
would not. Each of us, including the President is fully responsible for our own
actions. Bush or Reagan or even Truman cannot be blamed for Obama's
actions. Obama is responsible for every action, for every speech, for every
trip, for every vacation, for every telephone call that he makes. You know
that. I know that. He has been entrusted by the people to execute ALL the laws
of this nation. He has taken an oath to defend the Constitution, yet he rejects
the principles contained in that document. He, as Commander in Chief, is
responsible to see that our military is used to protect us from all enemies who
would destroy our freedoms, yet he leads the charge to have government
distribute liberties to us.You are free to admire Obama. I cannot
admire him. His actions forbid it.
The only rights that a person has is the rights that other people give him.
Usually rights are only given when traded for rights received. There are no God
given rights, no human rights only the rights we give each other. Rights are not
permanent, they come and go as needed. There are no golden rules for rights
that place limits or conditions on what the rights may be. The
definition of rights given by the writer may appear in the dozen or so
definitions in the dictionary but it is not the definition of rights for the
rights of people living together in a society. Yes some rights must be earned
by the labor of workers; it is the greed of people that make it so, not some
commandment. Mostly we give the rights to comfort and care to
those who need it. In our society children do have the right to housing, food,
medical care and even education. The have these unearned rights because our
society says so and will enforce them if necessary.
I've read more than once in this newspaper that there is a "right to
life" and that "all life is sacred." Well, if there is a right to
life, it doesn't end once you leave the womb, and if all life is sacred,
then the life of vagrant is as sacred as the life of a fetus or the life of a
CEO. Or are the lives of the rich more sacred than the lives of the poor, after
all? Is "all life" only "sacred" until we're asked to help
foot the bill?If all life is sacred, then everybody's life is
sacred, independent of their place on the social scale or the state of their
bank account.If the right to life only means that you have the right
to be born, but after you're born you don't have the right to food,
shelter, and health care, then it's no right to life all all, but simply a
"right" to try to survive. Even animals in the wild have that
"right." Should we be a society of "survival of the fittest"?
Trust any article about Pres. Obama to bring out the crazies on both sides.
Mike said: Each of us, including the President is fully responsible for our own
actions. Bush or Reagan or even Truman cannot be blamed for Obama's
actions. Your argument has no merit in reality, when a president
takes office, there is not a clean slate and a zeroing out of the books, the
sins of the former will alway become the problems of the new guy, to believe
otherwise is partisan nonsense.I realize these truths, and therefore
do not blame Obama for every blade of grass that has died on the white house
lawn while he has been president. I also don't agree with your
armchair constitutional blather, neither does the supreme court, that's the
funny thing about opinions mine is just as valid as yours.
The author's definition of rights is, to put it mildly, somewhat eccentric.
Rights are generally understood to mean something owed to or
allowed of people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery,
torture, arbitrary arrest detention and exile,depriving persons of property and
privacy and family. It also declares that "Everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his
family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control."These are not arbitrary or random statements
and values. They were drafed and adopted for a reason. As a signatory to the
UDHR, the US agreed with these statements. Health care is a human right.
HVH,So after you have earned all these things, is it fair for BO to
confiscate them to pay for someone’s else’s health insurance?LDS? LibAfghan boogeymen who MIGHT attack us? I guess you forgot
that they did. (9/11)And not worth the money to hunt them down?
What did Jefferson say, “millions for defense, but not a penny for
tribute”? JoeBlow,Yes, you DO excuse this POTUS, and
libs accuse any who disagree with him of racism.alt134,life
and access to health insurance are not synonymous. Sorry to burst your
bubbleUltrabob,The only rights a man has are what other people
give him? I guess you are joining LDS? lib in disagreeing with Jefferson.
Nope, the rights do not come from others, and especially not from the
government.Lightbearer,MA’s version of Obamacare did NOT
increase access to healthcare. You analogy is therefore flawed.HVH,No, there is no clean slate, but each man IS responsible for his
actions. He cannot dictate his circumstances, but he CAN dictate his reactions.
Unless he’s a dem, then there is NO personal responsibility.
I don't think insurance is a right. I think everyone has the right to
purchase it though and that's all that "Obamacare" does.What I do think people have the right to is to be healed with available cures.
Laws make us go to the current medical system so we DO have a right to the
extent that those laws make it more difficult to obtain remedies for illness.A hundred years ago people didn't have to go to a government
licensed, controlled, medical professional. The system has been made safer only
for those that can afford access to it. Those that are left out, see it as much
more dangerous and less helpful medical system the law has provided.You can either make all drugs legal and completely deregulate the medical
system or find fixes to re include the rest of the population that have been
left out in the cold.
It’s not remarkable when someone from the perch of his high horse goes on
about rights. Anyone can do it. Most of us do it at one time or another. Some
don’t seem to know when to stop. What’s rare is when the narrative
is driven by responsibility. That’s the R word that seems to get lost in
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments