Basic Human Rights.........

During the final healthcare debates, Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina repeated a typical progressive argument that healthcare is a fundamental human right. This is a ridiculous statement that is constantly repeated by liberal ideologues. Let me be clear, any object or activity that requires the wealth (or work) of other people to produce it, cannot be considered a human right. Only by force can another guarantee a right to anything that is produced by others. We all have a right to buy it, but we are not entitled to it. If we were all entitled to free healthcare, then why should the wealthy have to pay? Don’t they deserve the basic Human rights of all people?

Here is what Clyburn said:
“I said earlier, during my talk on the floor, that I consider this to be the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century – because I do believe that this is the one fundamental right that this country had been wrestling with now for almost a hundred years. I think tonight, we took a giant step toward the establishment of a more perfect union”

This statement is incredibly insulting to the people involved in the 60’s civil rights movement. Take a minute and compare the two. The civil rights movement of the late 60’s changed the way Americans think about people. It drove home the fact that our core constitutional rights are endowed too every man woman and child; regardless of their appearance or ethnicity They led a group of people to new heights while being directly persecuted by the government and its citisenry. They fought discrimination in the streets, abused and hated all the way, while remaining peaceful and insistent to their cause. They didn’t ask for anything from anyone else, except that they be given the freedoms promised them in the constitution. They wanted the freedom to live as equals, not priviledged. The civil rights movement was directly supporting and promoting the core beliefs of freedom and equality that started propelled this country forward.

The healthcare movement was done with lies and deception; behind closed doors and against the will of the public. It could not be more different from the civil rights movement. Americans in the 60’s were rallying against oppresive government and hatefull slander. They faught government segregation, voting laws, and more. The Government is now expanding it’s grasp on the American people, and in so doing, making nearly every minority more dependant then they previously were. They are trapping them back into a confortable slavery. How can anything they have done be viewed as a move that gives power back to the people? The bribing, lying and constitutional shredding that liberals took part in to pass this reform, is in direct contrdiction to the intent of the founding fathers and the civil rights movement. This bill grows government and mandates monopolized force upon its citizens. It regulates out lives.

It is nothing more than a giant re-distribution project. They are very openly taking $2 trillion dollars from the people who worked for that money, and using it to subsidize health insurance for those who don’t. The cost of healthcare is not even addressed. It is a government power grab.

Walter Scott Hudson at fightingwords wrote a great post on this, accurately detailing the diference between rights and priviledges:

In many countries, [civil rights] are constitutional rights and are included in a bill of rights or similar document. They are also defined in international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.



Civil rights are often considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1774 A Summary View of the Rights of British America that “a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”


As an example, consider the right to vote. Voting is a civil right, a product of government. One is not born with the inalienable right to cast a vote in an election. Elections and votes, and the entire process surrounding them, only come into existence as a result of government, which defines the eligibility requirements for voter registration. Citizenship is likewise a civil right which would not exist without a state to be a citizen of.


Inalienable rights are another matter altogether. There is no state-run rights depository from which one must obtain their ration of life, liberty, and an unhindered capacity to pursue happiness. These are characteristics intrinsic to the individual, a product of our nature, not any state. Civil rights are appropriate only to the extent they bolster and do no damage to inalienable rights.

Compare that to something like a healthcare entitlement. When you grant an individual a “civil right” to a product or service which must be produced by another individual, the application of that right requires imposition upon the producer. The inalienable right of the producer to liberty, the capacity to act upon his own judgment, is adversely effected. Such a “right” is not a universal protection. It is redistributive thuggery. Obamacare degrades liberty, impedes the pursuit of happiness, and may ultimately affect the capacity of many to freely act upon their own judgment toward the sustenance of their life.

The argument an individual is entitled to healthcare is fundamentally no different than the argument a plantation owner is entitled to have his field worked. Both premises require one individual to produce for another. Both justify slavery. In their support of government-run healthcare, Obama and Clyburn have acted to impose that dreadful condition, not upon a single race, but the entire nation.