Analysis for Critical Thinkers

If you reflect upon the rights that you have as a citizen of a free country such as ours, they include the rights listed in the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. Do not make the mistake that many textbooks – as well as the teachers that keep the myth alive – make. The Constitution does not “grant” us these rights. It is not because of the great benevolence of our generous government that we have these rights. Our founding fathers were not trying to simply be nice when they thought up these rights. We do not enjoy them at the whim of politicians who believe that they have some sort of power over us to abridge these rights as they deem politically necessary.

So why list these rights as part of our Constitution then? If one studies the history of the time and reads the writings of the founding fathers, one can see that there are certain “inalienable” rights that are fundamental to free people everywhere. Some of these rights were the ones listed in our Constitution – but not because the founding fathers came up with them – they existed for as long as mankind has existed. It is just that the unfortunate natural order of things is for rulers and governments to evolve toward the abridgement of the rights of their “subjects” to the point of tyranny. Our founding fathers realized from their history studies that rights tend to be taken away by governments that become too big and too powerful. They listed what became known as the Bill of Rights not as an all-inclusive list of what a free society must enjoy, but as a safeguard to prevent Big Government from evolving into what it is becoming today. The Bill of Rights was a contract between the new Federal government and the free states that were asked to ratify its formation. It was a promise that the Federal government cannot and will not abridge the inalienable rights of free citizens. It is a contract that lets a free society preserve the “limited self-government” as described in the Constitution.

But if you notice, none of the rights of a free society and none of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights involve a monetary cost. None of the rights listed make one citizen pay another citizen for these rights. What has become fashionable though is for people – and politicians today – to suggest that one segment of society must pay another segment of society so that they may enjoy some new “right” that people seek.

The “right to health care” is one such absurdity. Those that wish for socialism in this country are trying to suggest that health care is a right. But as stated above,  no right involves person A paying person B. People nowadays are being very loose with the term “right” to gain either political favor or to seek more of something while paying less for it. The dream is apparently to wish that some court somewhere will grant a free gift certificate for the new “right” under the guise of it actually being some new right.

Take the freedom of speech listed in the First Amendment. This was included not as a way to protect an “artist” who places a crucifix in a jar of urine and calls it “art.” It was included to protect the right of free citizens to prevent Big Government from becoming too powerful by speaking out against perceived tyranny.

“But what if I cannot afford a soapbox to stand on or I can’t afford to take a day off from work to go to a protest? Someone should pay me – provide for me – this is a Constitutional right!” Ridiculous.

The Second Amendment was included not as a way to protect the sport of hunting, as many running for office seem to think. “I support the Second Amendment, I am a hunter. My father used to take me hunting when I was a kid,” and all that blather from ignorant candidates. In fact, there are no rights listed in the Constitution that protect any sports, hobbies or other pastimes. The Second Amendment was included to protect the right of free citizens to prevent Big Government from becoming too powerful as well. You can see a common theme in the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

“But what if I can’t afford a gun. Those things are expensive! Someone must buy me one since it is a right in the Constitution!” Absurd.

And so it goes.

“I have the right to health care – someone else should pay.”
“I have the right to cheap gasoline – let’s seize the profits of rich oil companies.”
“I have the right to an abortion – require my insurance company to pay for it.”
“I have the right to a cell phone – establish a Big Government program.”
“I have the right to own a house – force banks to give me a loan.”
“I have the right to keep my house – make someone else pay my mortgage.”

True rights only cost the lives of those who have fought so hard to protect freedom. Trying to expand the definition of a “right” in order to get something from somebody else is tyranny.

In watching various recent news accounts of press conferences, town hall style meetings and political rallies, the issue of socialism in health care often comes up. It is not uncommon to see a politician tell the crowd that he or she is in favor of Big Government health care. This often leads to a rousing round of applause from some of the spectators.

What exactly are they cheering for?

As I am never at a rally in support of Big Government Socialism I can only try to deduce what it is these people are cheering for. Is it that they do not have a health insurance plan of their own? Do they not have one because they could not afford it, could not be approved for one or perhaps chose to spend that money on something else? Are they unemployed or – if they are employed – perhaps their employer does not offer them health insurance. Are they retired or elderly and live on a fixed income at the same time that they are needing more and more medical care? Is medical care currently unavailable to them because they cannot afford it?

Without going into a discussion on the actual quality that a Big Government run medical system would likely have, what exactly is missing in our current system now that these people are hoping to get with this new soicialism?

Apparently, it must be that these cheering crowds are simply hoping to somehow get something more without having to pay any more than they are currently willing or able to pay. Well, as long as it is someone else who has to pay more money – or make less money – then I suppose that could make some people cheer. Somehow, it seems, they believe that Big Government can pass a law, levy a tax, force the medical industry to make less money, seize someone’s assets or devise some new regulation – maybe a new czar or something – that will make these crowds cheer.

It is easy to see why politicians who promise to give you more without you paying more would get a standing ovation.