Rand Paul, Right To Health Care And Slavery


What does it mean to have a Right?  What is Liberty?

The answer to that question is fundamental to our nation; to how we see ourselves not only in this world, but in this creation.

What is it that we have a Right to?  What thing, what state of being, do we own simply by being alive?  What is it that is ours BEFORE the state? What is that thing, or group of things, that belongs to us not because of the state, but in spite of the state?

For me, that answer is simple.  It’s me.  My own self.  THAT is mine before the state.

And who would argue that defending myself, legally or forcefully, is not my right?

I am sovereign to myself.  I belong to me and my labor belongs to me.

Men erect governments not to reduce this natural or divine state of being, but to protect it.  We create relationships to assist in that protection.  We do not enter into a bond to reduce those things, but to enhance those things.  In short, it is the role of the state to maximize my sovereign right to myself; my Liberty.

In that context, I do NOT have a right to running water.  Rather, I have the right to expect water to be provided in the event I enter into a legally binding contract to procure that water for an agreed upon price.

So, know that we know what the state Ought do, does this make better sense?

Rand Paul was speaking about the claims that people often make about the “Right to Free Health Care”.  In his remarks, he makes the comment that such a demand is the embodiment of slavery.  In terms of the above description of the role of the state, how can a government realistically demand that someone give their services to another without consent?

The short answer?

They can not.

Enjoy:

Advertisements
5 comments
  1. From that aspect, I have to agree.

    • pino said:

      From that aspect, I have to agree.

      I hope that sometimes I don’t come aross as kooky and wacky!

      Thanks!

      • Nope, not at all. I enjoy your posts whether I agree or disagree. I enjoy our debates as well, although they seem to be less frequent 🙂 Alan seems to enjoy filling in for you though, in my crazy little leftist universe 😉

  2. dedc79 said:

    A number of State constitutions provide that drinking water is a natural resource to be protected by the State as trustee. Not sure about North Carolina though.

    Also, it seems like you’re talking about your ideal world, not the world/nation we live in, because constitutions (state and federal) assure us additional rights and make additional demands upon us. You seem to be channeling the Leviathan a lot here, which is only one strain of what motivates the establishment of governments/nations.

    • pino said:

      A number of State constitutions provide that drinking water is a natural resource to be protected by the State as trustee. Not sure about North Carolina though.

      Yeah, I agree. Not sure about North Carolina specifically, but I know the practice. In some parts of the world, governments establish rights to things like High Speed Broadband connectivity.

      Also, it seems like you’re talking about your ideal world, not the world/nation we live in, because constitutions (state and federal) assure us additional rights and make additional demands upon us.

      It is my more ideal world, yes. The state making these demands on us reduces that natural liberty and creates a conflict. It’s where that conflict exists that our troubles are born.

      I think that virtually everybody, there are a few people out there that are just weird, would agree that we, we being human beings, ought help people who are sick. We also know that there are people who will or can do more than another person. Think of church, lodge or any other group where 10% of the folks do 90% of the work. Combine all that to the fact that even with our best intentions, some people slip through the cracks and miss out on the assistance they need.

      So we create a law that says you have to help people that are sick.

      I get the genesis. I get the whole concept that the more we can add on to that 10%, we should.

      I guess I’m just saying that more people should consider the laws they’re passing before they pass ’em. Not based on whether or not they are good ideas, feeding the poor is a GREAT idea, but rather based on what restriction of liberty they are foisting on us.

      I try to apply a simple test. If it would be okay to pass laws that empowered the individual in the same way it empowers the state, would that be a good idea?

      I.E. We pass a law requiring all peoples to pay to feed the poor. We do this through food stamps and other means. The state is empowered to take this money by threat of jail if you fail to pay. If that law were passed to empower the individual in the same way, it would allow individual citizens the right to take money to feed the poor by threat of imprisonment.

      I don’t like either version.

      You seem to be channeling the Leviathan a lot here

      I have the book; should read it.

      But what I’m really channeling is The Law by Frederic Bastiat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: