I am so sick of these socialists setting aside actual rights and trying to create a whole new set of rights which are actually privileges.
Update: Walter Williams give a pretty clear and concise explanation of why this is wrong:
Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.
1 comment:
Why do you expect the argument to be moral? It has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with providing a healthy and prosperous economy and environment for ones citizenry. Using health care as an example, it is in all of our best interests to not have children of lower economic standing living with medical concerns. It is through centralized action that the citizenry pays modest sums of money for national healthcare to achieve that preference of healthy neighbors and an attractive place to live.
Post a Comment