Representative John Lewis (D-GA) continues to claim that health care is a “right”…

See the video here…

Continuing on the 2008 theme from James Clyburn (D-SC)…

See it here:

Is the Right right about rights?

Given the results of the recent mid-term elections and the fact that the new Republican majority triumphed at least partially because of the Democrat votes for highly unpopular and arguably socialistic national policies, it is a lead pipe cinch that one of them, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – aka ObamaCare, will be revisited. Do the Republicans have the correct answer? Democrats and “progressives” assert that health care is a right. Is it?

What is a “right”? A right can generally be defined as an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition or nature.  Where do they come from? Our Declaration of Independence gives this clue, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Conservatives typically divide rights into these categories:

• Natural rights: These are rights that are supposedly universal in scope and binding on human behavior, much like the physical laws of nature. One of the most famous expositions of this belief came from the 17th century philosopher John Locke. According to Locke, natural rights were those rights enjoyed by prehistoric humans in their original “state of nature,” before humans began forming complex societies. This was an idyllic world of freedom, equality and consideration of other people’s rights. He wrote that the “state of nature” is governed by a “law of nature,” which humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning, Locke concluded that humans were “by nature free, equal and independent.” Furthermore, natural law obligated that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”
• Inalienable rights: These are rights that cannot be taken away. In other words, individuals intrinsically possess rights, and no one else can alienate or revoke them. Attorney General Ramsey Clark once defined inalienable rights this way: “A right is not what someone gives you; it’s what no one can take from you.”
• God-given rights: These are rights that originate from God. For example, in the Bible, God spells out what rights Israel may enjoy, from birthrights to a right to life to a right to a fair trial before judges.
• Self-evident rights: These are rights that are supposedly so obvious that their nature and origin do not need to be defended by analysis. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Even if true, these claims are extremely difficult to prove with logic and evidence, so Jefferson sidestepped this swamp by simply claiming these rights were self-evident.

Most people, when quizzed, would probably assume that their rights stem from the government – that is far from the case. Read that again – “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments are instituted to protect rights, not to create them. Make a law, create a “right” is wrong. Doing it that way is building a social construct, not delegating a right.

Social constructs are the territory of modern Liberals and “progressives”. Evidence over the past 40 years indicate that the American Liberal believes in concepts of a malleable, “living” Constitution, that rights should change to meet changing survival needs and the government has the authority and responsibility to delegate these “rights”. The important distinction of having rights delegated by God is that God is perfect and as such the rights flowing from Him are as well. Conversely, “rights” (social constructs) delegated by an imperfect entity, namely government (man), are by definition, imperfect.

I think that it can be argued that a test for a true right is that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are prime examples of rights than can be executed without harm or interference of the same rights in others. They are perfect. A social construct created by a government cannot be defined that way. Let’s take ObamaCare as an example. In order to make it function, one group of citizens must be penalized and constrained in order to extend the “right” of “affordable” health care to them. Its very function abrogates the basic rules of risk mitigation through insurance and becomes a program of involuntary wealth transfer from one group to another, therefore, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a social construct and not a right.

Liberals will argue that the concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are impossible without being healthy and the Constitution’s admonition for the government to “provide for the common welfare” lays the groundwork for their intervention. This is simply not the case. Our founding documents provide for the freedom of the individual to exercise those rights and only mandate the government to protect the environment in which those rights can be realized by that individual. There is no basis for creating a mandatory, intrusive system that citizens must be part of under force of law. Under this law, a segment of society has the “right” to take from another. It fails the “true right” test. Again, just further proof that it is a social construct.

Social constructs by definition are subject to change based on changing preferences and political motives, where rights are not. That is the reason for us to be highly critical when someone claims that a certain thing is a “right”.

Republicans are correct in their quest to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. It is a social construct that infringes on the rights of our citizens; it is bad policy and worse law. There are alternative social constructs that can achieve the same ends without infringing on our rights. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor both have workable ideas that can meet the need to provide for the less fortunate without infringing on our rights.

Be careful when someone claims a “right”. This is a very important word.