Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Health Care Is Not An Unalienable Right part 2

My previous post engaged you in a cursory critique of the fallacy of health care as right - as well as the procuratorial positioning the Democrats are trying to institute in order to abrogate our legitimate, unalienable rights. To continue with my exegesis I would like to proceed with the Democratic perversion of moral theory. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham studied the dissimilarities in morality and political ideology as they relate between liberals and conservatives. This is their synopsis;


Liberals: valued care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity.

Conservatives: valued care and fairness less than loyalty, respect and purity.

Collectively: Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest.


Personally, I take issue with certain aspects of this study as I consider Democrats, and their political morality, an ethical paradox. You cannot maintain a position of superior morality and fairness if you perceive the act of redistribution just. Pilfering the disposable income from a higher income bracket to pay for someone else's health care is neither equitable or sound. In fact, it is my position that their actions are principled immorality, therefore by logical recognition conflicts exist in their moral imperatives and their illegitimate prerogative. A realization of my respective standpoint will manifest if, by understanding as a predicate, the Declaration of Independence - formally and quite specifically states what our “sanctioned,” moral rights are. Thus, by rational inference, any violation which seeks to usurp said rights is to be considered morally wrong and malicious. If you cannot consider this as normative, or by some liberal indoctrination persist with the view that this document is outdated, what will follow is moot and beyond your intellectual grasp.


If you do remain obstinately insistent upon health care as a right, why not housing, food or transportation? Shall those in the aforementioned income bracket pay for that as well? Do you not have the right to work (unless your a union)? If you are of the particular mindset that this is true, and thus the fruits of your labor can be utilized to fulfill these needs, why is health care not afforded the same measure of due diligence? If you are a health care proponent where does it state that you have the “right” to turn others into sacrificial lambs laboring to satisfy your baseless and ill fabricated needs? You are not my keeper, and it is only reasonable that in turn I do not obligate an Atlasian burden upon your shoulders. Somewhere along the line of our travels present day society has forgotten what negative liberty is, what it means to every singular individual. And to our detriment, our own government has facilitated this mindset.


Every right implies a responsibility.” John D. Rockefeller Jr.


"....no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." John Locke.


I have said, as well as my blogging friends whom I hold in high regard, that the government is not in the business of production. Our government has no source, other than legalized theft (taxation) and effecting Keynesian methodology, of wealth to draw from to pay for entitlement programs. Their cultivation of money stems from confiscatory arrangement only. To therefore contend that any form of government arrogation serves the public need and is consequently a righteous act, is in my view a criminal and grossly reprehensible position to take. Government health care is not economically sustainable, and its very systemization will provide further evidence that our leviathanistic government is inept. In my next and final post in this series we will delve into this very subject, we hope you come back and give us your opinion.










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 2 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 http://thelibertypen.blogspot.com.

6 comments:

Matt said...

Great analysis as always sir. I tend to view the left as being in tiers. At the lower levels, there are the rent-a-mob, minions, and useful idiots. Undereducated (purposely), these souls beleive the rhetoric and public policy statements of the left. A middle tier consists of trained functionaries, like the community organizers. Their function is to direct the useful idiots. At the top, there are the masters of the whole movement. Their motivation is power, nothing more. Their view of reality is that individuals are irrelevant. They believe that humans are incapable of managing their own affairs, and that an all powerful nanny state is needed to maintain their power.

anticsrocks said...

Matt, that is pretty insightful as I, too see a lot of arrogance in the top tier of the far leftists. Look at Obama and most of the statements he makes attest to this.

Tom, you have penned a thoughtful, and (at the risk of using it twice in one post) an insightful OP. Well done!

the Liberty Pen said...

Thank you for your comments, and I stand by my statement of holding you both in particularly high regard.

Matt, as always your analysis is insightful and to be appreciated.

Don, yours is no less perceptive.

Harrison said...

Matt is on to something but this sort of thing applies to any group... conservatives, liberals, unions, CEOs, etc. Animal Farm was a good example of this with the windmill being the failed idea and the horse being the useful mob.

People should have access to healthcare I think what it comes down to is people who like their healthcare (upwards of 80%) think the government will make THEIR situation worse to "help" a group of people they don't know. Also, the Press has spent decades tearing down "government" with every reporter trying to be the next Woodward and Berstein. Now we are supposed to think government knows what it's doing?

Matt said...

@ Harrison, everyone already has access to basic medical care. It's the law. People cannot be turned away,say, from an ER, based on their ability to pay. Reform is needed, however, a government takeover is not needed, and will only make a bad situation worse.

The press has alternately tried to tear down government, or turn a blind eye, based on who is in office. We didn't need the press to find that Medicare and Medicaid lose 100 billion dollars a year in fraud and waste. We also know that Social Security is going broke next year. We were able to use the internet to discover that the goal of the public option is to implement single payer. No "traditional" news outlets covered these stories to any great degree. They also attempted to ignore Van Jones, ACORN, the Tea Parties, and Mark Lloyd. We know that government solutions fail, because they have. So, we can conclude that the government doesn't know what it is doing because it's observable and measurable.

Harrison said...

Social Security is going broke because BOTH parties have been stealing from it for decades to make the deficit appear smaller than it really is. Gore's "locklbox" idea was mocked but had that money not been spent we'd have no problem today. And if someone goes to the emergency room they have to be treated however emergency room medicine is expensive and usually is treating something that should have been taken care of long before but wasn't. I'm not for Obamacare but both parties have had a hand in emptying the till.