Dear right to health care advocate

From Bill Holmes:

"If you have the right to take from some to pay the medical bills of others, then you forfeit your rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The dialogue at the time involved Locke and the right to own and protect property, and have the liberty to use it as the necessity for the sustenance of life. "The pursuit of happiness" was substituted for "property" in the Declaration of Independence to eliminate the possibility that some would presume government was to provide property.

A government instituted to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of property as the means to happiness would work if it is limited to that purpose, which the Constitution and is "balance of powers" sought to establish. Unfortunately, the supreme court became politicized, and its "living constitution" premise unleashed government to do the inverse of its original intent. Government now extorts property, constrains your liberty to use it, and enslaves some people to others, e.g. emergency medical personnel to anyone. See naturalorder.info with regard to property as the natural order of all things.

If people don't pay for their own health, vehicle, home, investment, etc. care, then they will not learn from their mistakes, and will continue to engage in bad behavior. Why self-educate and be careful when government will force someone else to pay for fraud as well as your mistakes?

You will soon run out of other peoples money, because those not in a privileged government group will flee or decrease their income to become a member of a privileged government group to survive.

As costs escalate and income decreases, government will enact more laws controlling behavior to reduce cost, like regulating what you can swallow, inhale, inject or wear (helmets) and how long you can live. Soon no one will be happy except the political class with all the exceptions, like CONgress persons and their special health care and retirement.

Myopia can be dangerous."

Well said Bill.

Rights versus Entitlements

Something that has been bothering me for quite some time now is the definition of a 'right', as opposed to the definition of an 'entitlement'.

What exactly is a right? A right, simply put, is that which cannot be denied to the individual by others without due process of the law (some would argue the last part of this sentence). In other words, a right is nothing more than the freedom to pursue something without interference from others.

What then is an entitlement? Merriam-Webster defines an entitlement as: "belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges". In other words, an entitlement is something owed to you without you having to pursue it.

The definition of a right, over time, seems to have morphed to have the same definition as an entitlement.

Just because you have a right to something does not mean you are entitled to that something. The right to keep and bear arms does not mean that others must provide you with a gun, it just ensures your ability to pursue the means to acquire a gun.

Bill Whittle stated in an opinion that;
Entire text of article here

"But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin."

Since when does it mean that to have a right means you must be 'given stuff'? Using the above logic, everyone must be given guns because to keep and bear arms is a right. We must be given paper and pen, and a TV show because we have a right to free speech. The government better build churches because we have the freedom of religion. I may be wrong, but I have never heard anyone argue that we must be given guns, pens, or have churches built for us because they are rights.

Until recently, it was understood that it was up to the individual to provide the necessary means to exercise a right. If you wanted a gun you had to buy it. You wanted food, you had to acquire it, same thing with health care and an education. To have rights, is simply to recognize that a pursuit cannot be denied by others. No one can tell you that you cannot pursue the acquisition of food, health care, or an education, but it is up to you to provide the means. In other words, to work for it.

So why now do we argue that to have a right means that we must be given the 'stuff' necessary to exercise that right? Why, because what was once a right is now an entitlement - Nothing more than priviledges that can be taken away by others.