Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs are Not Rights

http://heartlandpatriot.townhall.com/g/5759fb1a-c10f-4ec6-a d49-99a62dfc8e6c

I'd also like to touch on the “right” to health care. I know several newly minted physicians. One of my best friend’s kids is getting ready to start her residency requirements. I’ve met her roommates and classmates, aspiring doctors all. They are all superlative people. I’ve never met a better group of people. By what “right” do we propose to take the fruits of their long years of sacrifice and dedication to education? Don’t they have a right to the well deserved benefits accruing to their astronomical investment of time, effort and money? Do we really think these intelligent people will not respond to having their services hijacked in the name of manufactured “Rights” by those unwilling and unable to do what they do? Anyone capable of becoming a doctor is capable of becoming just about anything else they might choose. Creating a powerful disincentive can only be counterproductive in the long run.

Good post rights and privileges, young people often mistake the two. Proof that libs are immature.

I can think of a right that goes against your argument. That is the right to be represented by a lawyer when charged with a crime. If you can not not pay for it, there is a lawyer that has to do it anyway. Where does that money come from and how is it that the lawyer must do the work? Do you think we should do away with that right because people are getting something without paying for it? Here is a model that does model does work, there are people are willing to work as a government paid defense lawyer (my brother-in-law is one). You can use that model to create a health care right, and it will work just as a right to a lawyer works.

Ralphy, thanks for making a point that made me think.

However, when someone is taken into the court system for prosecution, they are having something done to them against their will (either that, or they are guilty and brought it upon themselves). This is why a lawyer is provided. "True rights do not obligate others without their consent". If we the people *consent* to prosecute, then we are consenting to providing counsel as well.

That we the people should not obligated to provide medical care to someone unless we the people (through our law enforcement personnel, for example) caused injury to that person, or took a sick person into custody.

Hey, Playful Walrus:
Great thoughts on the true role of government. And thanks for your comments on my post (Simple Guy).
You write a lot about the same topics I included in my new book. I'd be honored if you would check it out at http://www.just2simpleguys.com.

Thanks

The simplicity of one's life can be understood:

Accountability - own your choices

Responsibility - ability to respond to your choices

Consent - make no choice that is at a cost to another without his consent

The byproduct of this is integrity.

CONSENT upholds the idea of contract - rights that cannot be taken, I agree, you are born with - everything else is consent.

What cost is another's choice to me in so much as it does not cost me unless I gave consent?

This is a great article that more undecided people trying to figure it all out, could benefit from.