On Neil Cavuto's Your World today Imogene Lloyd Webber said in England they believe healthcare is a right. I cannot believe she understands what she's saying. If she did she would realize she's talking nonsense.
A right is something we're born with––it is God given and intrinsic to your being––you don't have to inquire of another for it, resubscribe or send for more through mail order.
A good is something we require or need that demands the service, labor or cooperation of another. We must seek outside of ourselves to get the goods we need, and this may involve resubscribing, sending for a item thorough mail order or showing up on time for an appointment. And for those things we or someone else must pay.
There's more. Imogene seems to be unaware that when muddleheaded modern thinking confuses goods we need with rights, and social policies are implemented accordingly, a slave society is the, de facto, result.
I say this because when a service or a product is wrongly declared to be a right it means, in effect, that we can demand the labor or production of a certain class or group of citizens and expect to get it as an entitlement without the strict necessity of remuneration, because the good they labor to produce or provide has been made our RIGHT to possess regardless of our ability to pay.
If claiming a right to the fruit of another's labor is not slavery I don't know what is? If funds are taken by force from my neighbor to pay for an item the state has declared as my right to posses, the time it took my neighbor to earn the money forcibly taken from him was time he labored as a slave.
There's more. Once government begins can anyone say just where government will stop in creating rights from thin air? What will be next? The right to food? If so then can I expect some glad day to walk into super markets and take what I please to feed me and my family? What about shelter? Will there be a time I can demand a house from a contractor without compensating him?
How are the services and products of a nurse, a doctor or a pharmaceutical company any different from those of the grocer, the farmer or building contractor? We need all those goods to live––we are certainly not born with them. We exercise our natural rights to labor to earn the funds to procure those goods we need. Why should healthcare and medicines be free but food and shelter must be paid for?
Whether she is aware of it or not, Imogene cannot be saying that healthcare is a right like, for instance, our free will, or liberty. That is absurd. She is simply talking nonsense and gibberish unless a distinction is made between natural and positive rights.
Natural rights, as we've said, are given by God and intrinsic to our nature. Jefferson, in the Declaration, says such rights are given to us by "the God of Nature."
In contrast, Positive rights are those a group or a government declares to be made rights arbitrarily, for their own particular (or peculiar) reasons.
So, what Imogene is really saying is the British Government has decided to create a positive right out of thin air based upon the subjective ideology of some in England who have seized enough political and legislative power to make said invented "right" the law of their land and confiscate funds from British subjects through taxation to cover the expense.
What the powerful in England seem not to see, along with Imogene, is that in their desire to actualize the good of healthcare for all they have resurrected an age old evil which had only recently been vilified and expunged from their society: slavery.
Through nationalized healthcare slavery has sneaked back into England through the backdoor held open by the Fabian socialists.
They might protest saying that what they are doing is far from chattel slavery. But the truth of the matter is there is no different in principle, but only in degree, between chattel and political slavery. Past ages blessed with better thinkers saw that truth with crystal clarity.
If rights come to be regarded as state created rather than God given I have the following questions:
If the state, not God, is the giver of rights can the state also take rights away---even the ones we previously understood to be natural rights from God?
If the state usurps the place of God and becomes the sole Giver of rights can it also justly ask its citizens or subjects to commit atrocities like those the Nazis committed and not have them held personally responsible for crimes against humanity?
As more and more rights are created will we all be required to become the full time slaves of an all-powerful state in order to actualize the utopian dreams of some?
As we come ever nearer to actualizing the utopian dream of the powerful elite is it possible the dream of those few might become a nightmare from which the rest of us cannot awaken and from which we have no recourse, alternative or escape––except, perhaps, that of state administered euthanasia?