« Identifying why Perpetually Angry Handmaidens of the Left (aka "Feminists") seeth at Sarah | Main | United Democrat Government »

October 10, 2008

OMG!!! You said 'slaves'? RACIST!!

Eric has the scoop. It appears Bill Whittle wrote an article pointing out, as I have previously, that declaring healthcare as a "right" comes with the logical conclusion to secure such a positive obligation on others means, ultimately, the enslavement of those others.

Koskiddie objects in a spectacularly craven way:

Barack Obama is the first African-American presidential candidate of a major American political party in the history of the United States. Bill Whittle knows this, unless he really is as dumb as he sounds. To indirectly call him a defender of slavery is despicable. For National Review Online to publish this incendiary garbage is, well, not surprising.
Barak is not a descendent of slaves. I am. So I do have the "moral authority" (according to the Left's own rule book) in this regard. There IS NO "right" to healthcare, food, homes, french-door refrigerators, x-boxes, computers, razor scooters. To demand such a right is to declare the labor of those that would voluntarily produce such as forfeit to the State.

The Left wants a person's primary relationship to be with the State, regardless of their bleeting about "freedom". Liberty is anathema to the Left.

Posted by Darleen at October 10, 2008 06:30 AM

Comments

I've already explained to you why this argument makes absolutely no sense. You were unable to rebut it, yet you repeat it. Doesn't reflect well on your honesty.

Posted by: Josh at October 10, 2008 08:28 AM

I don't think it makes much difference Josh. Darleen here doesn't strike me as a reasonable individual. She's just an angry woman who needs to vent her rage and apparently rigid ideology gives her some kind of comfort.

Pssst...Darleen. It's "bleating", not "bleeting".

Posted by: leah at October 10, 2008 03:32 PM

Josh

A "right" that imposes a positive obligation -- IE a "right" to healthcare, or a car -- is not the same as a natural right to life or liberty or even pursuit of happiness. Citizens form voluntary bounds, compact with government, to protect those rights. Not grant them, PROTECT them. So each citizen can exercise his/her natural right to life the way THEY choose as long as it doesn't interfere with the same life rights as others. There is NO positive obligation on another. Individuals contract for protection or they protect themselves.

The right to a flatscreen television creates a positive obligation for the government to give a flatscreen television to every citizen; which in turn means getting those televisions by any means necessary, even if someone doesn't want to volunteer to make the flatscreen.

This is why liberty is anathema to the Left. The Left posits that citizens must be provided their basic needs (as defined by the Left)... shelter, clothing, food, education, medical care, a job, yadda yadda yadda. Of course, if some people are not willing to just cough those up voluntarily, then government will use force to provide them.

Welcome to serfdom. Your needs (as we your rulers define them) will be met, just sign away your rights as an autonomous individual here.

Posted by: Darleen at October 10, 2008 07:28 PM

I explained this before Darleen. The government protects your rights to property and life. Protection of those rights imposes a positive obligation on the government to provide security. The government induces individuals skilled in providing security to do so by paying them with public funds. It would be no different with healthcare or anything else - those with the ability to guarantee that right would be compensated by the state.

The distinction you're trying to draw falls to pieces under the lightest scrutiny.

Posted by: Josh at October 10, 2008 08:21 PM

To indirectly call him a defender of slavery is despicable.

Not nearly as despicable as the strained connection this Kos-Kritter is trying to make.

Amazing.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 14, 2008 02:58 AM

...and Josh, as Whittle argues in the article (which you almost certainly have not read)--you are confusing rights with entitlements.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 14, 2008 03:00 AM