Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Stephen Kruiser


August 27, 2013 - 6:35 pm

As I said on Twitter, this Salon piece is predictably awful.

President Obama’s insistence that Americans have a right to healthcare has drawn predictable criticism from American conservatives, who insist that good health should be a private luxury reserved for those who can pay, or perhaps something provided by charity, rather than an entitlement to a public utility service that should be provided to all citizens of a modern society. Indeed, one of the major indictments in the conservative case against modern American progressive-liberalism is the charge that center-left Americans believe that new natural rights can be discovered or that new positive rights should be created by legislation.

But the conservative theory of rights does not do justice to the pragmatism and flexibility of the Lockean natural rights theory held by America’s Founders. According to that theory, natural rights are either inalienable, such as the rights to life and liberty (you cannot legitimately sell yourself into slavery), or alienable (individuals may alienate part or all of their natural right to self-defense, by forming a community and pooling the coercive power to enforce laws). In addition to these few, broad natural rights, there are potentially an infinite number of subsidiary rights that can be created by laws or constitutions. While natural rights are universal, the subsidiary or instrumental rights needed to promote them necessarily vary, in different times and places. For example, the right to life is universal, but the right to a free press is a subsidiary right that would be pointless in a preliterate tribal society.

Like almost every other Salon post, it begins with a false statement. There’s so much wrong with the notion that opposing an extraordinarily flawed and inefficient taxpayer funded health insurance system equates to feeling “good health should be a private luxury” that I almost want pity this poor slob for being so stupid. Almost. This topic of health care as a right comes up a lot these days, however, so mock I must.

Here’s the overview: in a discussion of positive (the “right to”, generally subsidized by taxpayers) versus negative (“freedom from”, which conservatives like) rights, it’s game on for the positive rights crowd solely because the Bill of Rights provides for a taxpayer funded court system.

Also plus FDR.

The negative/positive rights debate is brilliantly explored by Richard A. Epstein in his book Mortal Peril. He begins with a general discussion but his focus is on American health care. He points out that the positive rights frenzy contains “certain remnants of a discredited socialism” and that “…the protection of these newly minted positive rights invests government at all levels with vast powers to tax, to regulate, and to hire and fire the very individuals whose rights it is duty-bound to protect.”

The story, of course, is one we’ve seen over and over. The government continues to bloat itself as the social welfare state grows and in the process more rights are trampled upon than created.

The list of subsidiary rights quoted from an FDR speech in this post reads like a sad grown-up’s letter to Santa Claus.

These subsidiary rights are all justified under the “pursuit of happiness” umbrella. So we’re back to the old hippie, “If it feels good, do it” mantra and they want us stuck with the bill for the bongs and the penicillin shots.

As Epstein notes, the naive notion that we have a right to “all the good things in the world” only leads to programs that “…expand with time beyond our worst fears until they devour resources that by any sane reckoning are better spent on other human needs.”

But, hey, free stuff!

Stephen Kruiser is a professional comedian and writer who has also been a conservative political activist for over two decades. A co-founder of the first Los Angeles Tea Party, Kruiser often speaks to grassroots groups around America and has had the great honor of traveling around the world entertaining U.S. troops.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Without food, healthcare is unnecessary. Therefore food is a human right. Without clothing, I cannot leave my house to get healthcare, so clothing is a human right. And I cannot leave my house if I don't have a house, so housing is a human right. Basically, everything I could ever want or need is a human right, so somebody better pony up the cash to support me or my rights are being trampled.

What I love about liberal logic is that everything is a human right...except actual rights. Things like the right to life, self defense, freedom of religion and thought and speech...well, those a just luxuries we can no longer afford.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If OBoehnerCare drives people out of practicing medicine, how would health care being a "right" ensure that anyone receives it?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Very important to note the use of the word "luxury" to describe health care.

Why, exactly, use that word instead of "good" or "service", like you would for any other action or thing people produce?

The reason is that it then becomes a desirable trinket that the left can dispense in exchange for votes and power. Controlling health care by the apparatus of state has always been the golden ring for the left.

I ca pretty much guarantee that the author would not have described food, or legal services, or any of a number of things, as luxuries.

The truth of the matter is that anybody who wants the government to take over health care does it not because the value it so much, but because they take it for granted.

Boy, are they going to be in for a surprise......
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"who insist that good health should be a private luxury reserved for those who can pay"

I am constantly amazed that "liberals"* can get out of bed successfully. The point that they fail to grasp is that if we got government OUT of the way, it wouldn't be such a luxury.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Control the language, control the people. Get them all lost in the connotations of the word "positive" vs. "negative", and without really being familiar with the context, they'll decide that "positive" sounds nicer to them.

It's the same as schoolchildren being bombarded with the phrase "We're a democracy" over and over again so that their brain conditions to gravitate towards "Democrat"s.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You have to expect that sort of thing from the Left. Most Left writers are smart enough to know that what they're demanding is morally wrong, so they have to confuse their audiences by mangling the meanings of words. You could flabbergast any of them with a simple question:

"What is the definition of a right, and how does it differ from a permission or a privilege?"

Sadly, a lot of conservatives couldn't answer that question either.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “The Childlike Progressive View Of “Rights””