Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Law Enforcement vs. Health Care

By: Bastiatarian

I don't listen to the radio often, but sometimes I surf through a few talk radio stations and a couple of sports stations on my drive to and from campus, if I neglect to bring a CD along. Today I heard a man trying to equate tax-funded health care services with tax-funded law enforcement, saying both "serve the public good" in essentially the same manner and at the same level. His intention, of course, was to spin coercive taxpayer funding of "universal health care" as something constitutional and moral. The host of the program made an effort to show the man his thinking error, but unfortunately missed the main difference between the two. It's very simple, so it's surprising that so many people should have so much trouble comprehending it. On the other hand, considering the distinct lack of intellectual sophistication (or even fundamental logical thinking skills) shown by the typical so-called liberal, it shouldn't be any surprise at all.

The only legitimate role of government is to protect from violation by others the rights of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property. This is also the purpose and only legitimate role of law enforcement (and the military). Any law that extends beyond protecting these three rights is illegitimate and immoral.

Health care, on the other hand, is not intended, nor does it have the ability, to protect my rights from encroachment by others. At that most fundamental level, then, it is unrelated to law enforcement. The only connection between the two is that law enforcement is intended to protect my right to enter into free-will exchanges with others for health care services if I am unable or unwilling to provide them for myself.

Assuming that the members of law enforcement are honest men and women, law enforcement works directly to protect the true rights of every individual. Health care does not. The rights to one's life, liberty, and property are perfectly egalitarian. Health care needs, desires, and effectiveness vary greatly by individual. Every individual can enjoy his or her right to his or her life, liberty, and property equally and without violating the same rights of others. Coercive health care cannot. In fact, it requires the violation of fundamental rights.

As a reminder, here is a quote from Joel Skousen that I included previously in a post about the true nature of rights.

Fundamental rights are those rights to act, or to be, which all persons can do or possess simultaneously without compelling any other person to provide a service or tangible asset.

Legitimate government protects those rights, and leaves all else alone. That is the only "public good" government can or should serve. Doing anything else requires that the government force individuals, under threat of violence, to give up their own property. In other words, it requires the government to steal.

32 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You know what bothers so many is the vagueness of how this is "supposed" to work.
    Mr Power Point should get in front of the camera and speak to Americans,directly and lay it out for the people and the businesses. This is the problem with Washington arrogance. They feel that people should just comply regardless.
    Where in the Constitution are people required to pay for health care for everyone?

    This admin is shredding the Constitution piece by piece and all these so called "constitutional" liberals don't seem in the least bit concerned like they were crying about during the Bush admin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Uno Mas-
    It seems this admin is more concerned about applying the Constitution to terrorists and illegals.
    And then for Nasty Pelosi to call Tea Party People Terrorists maybe they should all look in the mirror before they speak their "holier than thou" minds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The only legitimate role of government is to protect from violation by others the rights of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property. This is also the purpose and only legitimate role of law enforcement (and the military). Any law that extends beyond protecting these three rights is illegitimate and immoral."

    This is your OPINION, not backed up by the facts.

    The facts that the Supreme Court has not found anything unconstitutional about social programs, the health care bill, or other programs you describe as none of governments business and therefore immoral.

    "On the other hand, considering the distinct lack of intellectual sophistication (or even fundamental logical thinking skills) shown by the typical so-called liberal, it shouldn't be any surprise at all."

    I'll trust in the competence of 234 years of Supreme Court decisions, decisions of the Congress, and the decisions of the American people, before I simply swallow your suggestion that you are smarter than all of that History.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom - The point really is that nowhere in the Constitution is the authority granted the federal governemnt the to mandate any individual purchase a commodity. Health car and insurance is a commodity.

    The Constitution as designed by our founders explicitly granted limited power to the federal government and broad powers to the individual states.

    The issue is one rightly to be challenged, as many states are doing. The issue is where does the authority rightly belong.

    As one who holds with Jeffersonian principals I applaud Virginia's court challenge and the many other States who will strengthen the challenge.

    The issue to be decided is whether we will remain a true democratic republic in which the people are sovereign and masters of their government, or whether we will finally be totally Europeanized and the government will become our master.

    I know where I stand, and I am hoping Thomas Jefferson's, and the rest of our founders intellect still resides in a majority of Americans, if it does they still have our backs.

    This is a valid and honest disagreement over governmental authority with respect to the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

    Ultimately it looks like the High Court may get the opportunity to decide the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have nothing to add. I can only agree that "HE" the inept one is a complete failure!

    ReplyDelete
  7. >not backed up by the facts.

    Other than the logical conclusion that no individual, and therefore no group of individuals (such as a government) has a right to my own life, liberty, or property.

    >the Supreme Court has not found anything unconstitutional about social programs, the health care bill, or other programs

    Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has frequently disregarded the Constitution over the past century (with the current nominee having stated explicitly her opposition to the document), I'm talking about something that takes priority over any constitution, that comes before any law or government. Regardless of what any law says, my right to my life, my liberty, and my property are absolute.

    >I'll trust in the competence of 234 years of Supreme Court decisions, decisions of the Congress, and the decisions of the American people

    Good luck with that. I'll trust in truth and reason.

    Of course, being the great student of history that you are, you obviously realize that around the beginning of the previous century there was a significant shift of the courts and Congress away from interpreting the Constitution as the framers intended. For many decades, their decisions and legislation have had little relation to a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

    As for the decisions of the American people, the argument ad populum is a well-known logical fallacy, so you should know that the number of people accepting a falsehood does not change its nature as a falsehood.

    But hey, if you want to choose slavery, go ahead. Just stop trying to force it on others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >They feel that people should just comply regardless.

    "We have to pass the bill before we can know what's in it."
    The arrogance of those people truly is amazing. They really do seem to think that they are have been somehow divinely anointed to be the overlords of a lesser people. In reality, the federal government is filled with our worst and our least capable. It's the fault of the voters that put them there, but that doesn't change the fact that they are of a distinctly low quality.

    >Where in the Constitution are people required to pay for health care for everyone?

    Nowhere, of course, but that hasn't stopped the overlords for many decades. The Constitution was established to prevent government from such thuggery, but when you ignore the principles of a document, the document is of no effect, except maybe in further condemning the violators on Judgment Day.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The founding fathers intended their should be slavery. they intended women should not have the vote. They intended all sorts of things that are no longer legal,and rightly so.
    It's your opinion that the Supreme Court has not followed the Constitution. Historians do not agree with you.
    Your wrong opinion that all Justices, Representatives, and the American people have all been wrong for over 234 years.
    Quite an egotistical statement on your part.
    I have every confidence to say again, you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >The founding fathers intended their should be slavery.

    That statement right there removes any legitimacy whatsoever from anything you say about the Founding Fathers. The three-fifths compromise, for example, was specifically to prevent the slave states from gaining more power and preventing the move away from slavery.

    >Historians do not agree with you.

    Many historians do. Marxists and other anti-liberty historians don't, but competent historians do.

    >Your wrong opinion that all Justices, Representatives, and the American people have all been wrong for over 234 years.

    That's not a complete sentence.
    Anyway, you need to work on your reading comprehension (and your understanding of American history, of course). Did I not explicitly state that the movement away from the Constitution has happened over the past century? Why are you so obsessed with "234 years?"

    >Quite an egotistical statement on your part.

    Reason has nothing to do with ego. Please try again.

    >I have every confidence to say again, you are wrong.

    Ah, confidence based on...well, nothing at all. Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are Corporations persons

    no they are empty buildings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom, Tom, Tom... Read the founding documents. Read supoporting historical supporting documents. Pull your head out of the progressive collectivist clouds for just a moment.

    Compromised were made to insure our replublic would succeed. It did. The founders did not all beleve as you say.

    They were revolutionaries that turned pragmatists to insure the formation of the union of thirteen seoerate sovereign states.

    History has proven their experiment to be a resounding succes.

    So sister, go read, understand, and become a bit more versed in reality. You have been drinking the progressive line far too long without considering objective reality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your delusion stems from your cultist following of Rand, and also your intellectual shortcomings. Pull your head out of her hole and see the light.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tom - Okay laser light of darkness and intellectual bankruptcy. I'll certainly rush to take your empty headed advise.

    Good day sister.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, I'm overwhelmed by Tom's skill in argumentation and addressing the issues that have been brought up...

    (/sarc, just in case it wasn't clear.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Conservatives are not cultists. It's the progressives who follow their dear leader unconditionally. How Che' of them.
    It wasn't us chanting "OBAMA-OBAMA-OBAMA"like some mindless drones and having school children singing praises to an empty suit no one ever heard of before.

    ReplyDelete
  17. At least I'm not a lyinng bastard like RN

    ReplyDelete
  18. >At least I'm not a lyinng bastard like RN

    And you have indicated that both of those labels apply to him how? The only evidence available indicates that he is neither of those things, and is actually a gentleman of integrity.

    Tom, you really are getting more bizarre and disconnected with each post. I would suggest professional help. Soon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are a lying fuck also

    You guys like throwing insults

    I can do that also

    I like getting down to your animal level once ina while

    ReplyDelete
  20. Besides no use having an intellectual conversation with illmannered, lying apes like you

    ReplyDelete
  21. >Besides no use having an intellectual conversation with illmannered, lying apes like you

    Ah, I see. That's why you have so thoroughly refrained from including even a tiny bit of intelligence in any of your comments, from first to last. I was wondering about that. Thanks for the clarification.

    Tom, maybe you would get a better response if you actually did include something like, oh, facts and logic, and if you actually addressed the issues that were brought up, with those same tools, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fuck you liars
    Facts is what you did not use
    cannot have a conversation with liars and idiots like you

    ReplyDelete
  23. Little Tommy doesn't have anything to back up his (her?) empty assertion of lying (or anything at all, for that matter), so all he can do is have a temper tantrum.

    It's also pretty clear that he's projecting as well.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tom - Any further vulgar, filthy, or uncouth remarks by you will be summarily deleted. This applies to any further intentional mis-representations or untruths uttered by you on this site.

    Understand Simpleton?

    ReplyDelete
  25. It certainly has been a long while since I have encountered such an unhingd unstable individual at dear Tom.

    Perhaps he will return to his lair and lick his wounds.

    We can only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You have already deleted (censored) me. You post vulgar comments on my blog. You won't stop. I have reported you to blogger. What an ass you are. Seems I meet all the asshole off Pam's blog. You are now the 4th person off Pam's blog that has attacked my blog FUCK OFF.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tom's temper tantrum continues, and now he runs to mommy as well.

    All of that, and still not a single citation of fact or utilization of rational argumentation.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tom - I advise you that material at Rational Nation USA is backed up regularly. Therefor I shall have ample evidence as to the display of our unbalanced mind, and you propensity for extreme and offensive vulgarity.

    The records will show that it is I who supports my opinions with factual documentation, and of not it is still just an opinion like 100% of your statements.

    So in closing, please chill, find a counselor that can help you control your violent vulgar outbursts so hopefully you don't go postal.

    Good day Tom

    ReplyDelete
  29. Then your reaserch is as bad as your manners. LIES!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tom - You are just a frustrated unhinged progressive.

    God Day

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.