Monday, September 21, 2009

Health Care Is Not An Unalienable Right - part 1

I have written in two previous posts regarding the failure of social justice, so in this post I would like to add a supplemental which will be divided into three parts. In this post I would like to explicate how health care is not an unalienable right, while illustrating those who predicate their position in the affirmative are intellectually dislodged from reason. Remember, nobility of action has no place within the broad spectrum of legislative processes, but before we can dive into this facet of understanding we must determine what our rights are.

The Founding Fathers were very clear in their delineation of our unalienable rights, and they are explicitly affixed to the individual – not a progressive, socialistic hive construct. These rights are succinctly stated and void of ambiguity; the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. For one to ascribe the nature of these rights one must first acknowledge that these are rights to individual action. It is the derivation of all that follows. It should be noted that rights to individual action are distinct in that moral requirement or social control are not to be imposed in order to facilitate the procurement of said rights. If an incumbency does exist, it would be a negative imperative - which simply means that any individual, in the pursuit of their rights, should be left unmolested while effecting his or her desired result.

If you feel inclined to disagree let us regress to one of the rights to individual action; the pursuit of happiness. The word pursuit is the effectuality I will specifically reference, it is the actionable word that cites with precise brevity the road one must travel. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness – a course of action enacted by the individual with the intent of producing a desired outcome. What is conspicuously absent is any reference to an obligation that others can be afflicted with in order to bring about your happiness. It was not written "the pursuit of happiness at the detriment of another" for a reason. And why is this you may ask? It is because your happiness, at the expense of another human being, connotes a servitude and abdication of the property of self (and the rights contained therein). To the Founding Fathers this was the antithesis of true liberty.

This is, with great sadness, incisively what the Democrats, leftist, statists, and progressives are not understanding - their imperceptibility precludes them from seeing beyond their socialistic agenda. It is also exactly the reason why they have no compunction to assert the Pandora's Box of health care as an American right. Furthermore, technocrats within the current administration have perverted forms of modal logic (deontic and alethic modalities for example) to drive the language of the debate and create an atmosphere of justification for their cause. The phrase say what you mean and mean what you say is displaced with misdirection and disorientation. You cannot have an intellectual debate, much less a conversation, with those who are psychologically detached from reality and lay claim to a prerogative that does not exist in the Constitution (or clarified in the F.F.'s separate works).

You have seen many posters stating that health care is a moral human right, and perhaps that statement has an element of truth. However, it is beyond the scope of logic and reason to predicate a position of morality while stripping the rights and liberties from others. Simply because the government maintains that you are entitled to something should not mean that such a supposition should be cemented as fact or verity. Have you ever asked yourself this question?

What will the government have to do, take away, or replace in order to effect an illegitimate right?”

Private citizens will have to relinquish their genuine rights via governmental coercion in order to expedite the programs or services that are fallaciously seen as “free” or “expected” of a government construct. Tax the rich! That is the answer for everything, isn't it? After all, they are all evil people who step on the necks of poor people and drink the blood of little children. How trite. I guess everyone within the Democrat sphere have rights except those who are affluent or stand in disagreement. God forbid one would have to actually toil in order to pursue and fulfill one's needs – I know, it's a travesty.

In the next post I will continue into the moral theory of government health care and then onto the economic impact that lies ahead. Until then, let us wave our own vexillum and reclaim our original, legitimate rights.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read
some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Creative Commons License
Health Care Is Not An Unalienable Right part 1 by Thomas Proulx is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at


Matt said...

Welcome back, and well said. You do hit at one of the core issues facing us. The fact that the left is divorced from reality guarantees that we will have an eternal struggle to maintain our freedoms.

anticsrocks said...

I completely agree. Let me quote Edmund Burke who would also be in agreement with you...

"What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics." - Edmund Burke from Reflections on the Revolution in France

the Liberty Pen said...

Thank you for your comments gentlemen. An excellent quote Don, thank you for posting it. As always Matt, great minds think alike. Liberty, by its very nature, requires vigilance.

Anonymous said...

Hold let me read the Constitution.....nope didn't find it any where in there.

Yet for some odd reason the dummies up in DC and many of our fellow sheep for citizens believe that it is a right.

Forgotten Liberty said...

All of the rights that we have traditionally considered to be God given-unalienable rights do not legally bind someone else to give of their time and money for us us use those rights. For instance, we have the right to worship as we please but the tax payer is not required to pay for the building of churches for us to use that right.

Matt said...

Ironically, or not, the left seems to think that the rights guaranteed by our Constitution are somehow arbitrary and changing, hence, they can ignore them whenever possible. On the same token, they create rights that do not exist, and then treat them as unalienable.

anticsrocks said...

Reagan said it best in 1961 -

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this."

We need someone this articulate to lead America out from under Obama's socialist shadow. This might be a bit off topic, but any ideas on who it might be?




JoyceJunior said...

You nailed it. If "redistribution" was a plausible argument (which it most certainly is not), there would not be enough money to redistribute.
Great post, Thanks.

the Liberty Pen said...

Thank you for all of your intelligent comments. It is truly nice to hear from you all.