Barack Obama is nothing if not audacious. It takes a bold liar to assert a falsehood with such vigorous certitude before such a large audience. It may be that he gets away with it because most of his audiences are hand-picked and vetted to eliminate rational people, relying instead on mobs of ignoramuses wherever he goes. One could hope that so many Americans would not be so chillingly vapid in their thinking, but then again, they have elected and re-elected a man who has lied to them repeatedly and fearlessly. Such a spectacle is only possible because so many people refuse to bother themselves with logic, and instead operate entirely on the basis of their wishes, projected into the political sphere. Ayn Rand [at least] once characterized such primitive atavism by comparing these politicians to cavemen. It’s true. In order to believe health-care is a right, never mind “affordable” health-care, one must arrive at the presupposition that the lives of other men and women exist at the disposal of any taker. It is to regard one’s fellow persons as slaves, so while Obama prattles on in contrived, dismissive sarcasm over the question, berating the Obama-care’s critics for calling the program the most dangerous law ever passed, somebody somewhere should take the time to explain to Americans why this law is worse even than the fugitive slave act, over the din of the chuckling drones. Health-care cannot be a right while men and women are free.
The first question we must ask is: “What is a right?” Some time ago, I answered that question when prompted by a font of Obamtastic ignorance on the subject of Internet access. Here was my answer:
“A right is a natural entitlement of liberty that requires the consent of no others for its exercise, and imposes no positive obligation upon any other. If what you propose requires the actions, property, or consent of others, it cannot be a “right.”
Let us consider some rights as contemplated by our founders and the philosophical understanding of the enlightened age, arising from such men as John Locke, among others. Our founders codified several such rights, and those rights are under assault by government. Free speech. Free exercise of religion. The right to keep and bear arms. The right to one’s life and liberty. The right to self-determination. The right to be secure in one’s property, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to obtain legal representation. The right to a speedy trial. The right to equal protection under law, that is, equitable treatment by government. One has a right to one’s income, one’s life and all the things one’s labor(physical or intellectual) produce.
Let us now consider the President’s oafish, dictatorial claim: That others must be held to provide medical services to any who may come to want or need them. After all, as Mark Levin pointed out recently, if Health-care is truly a right, then government must not be permitted to create any death panels, or limit any sort of care you might want or need. Of course, Obama hadn’t meant it when he said it, but he wanted those poor befuddled and bedazzled wishers in his audience to believe it. Instead, what Obama-care creates is dependency, misery, and slavery.
If Obama and the Democrats(and not a few dastardly Republicans) have their way, they will take over health-care in the United States in its entirety. Doctors will be fewer, and government will control them. Since no honest or competent practitioner will long subsist in such an environment, only the incompetent and the dangerously sloppy will remain. No decent person will choose to remain a slave to a government system if they have other options, and the caliber of people who comprise the average medical school student historically suggests that these are capable people who have nearly unlimited career choices before them. There will be a few great doctors who hang on until retirement, or until they can take it no longer, committed and devoted to their patients, but within a generation, most of the competent doctors will be gone, replaced by incompetents who one wouldn’t voluntarily permit to lance a boil on one’s buttock. They will be inept and sloppy. They will be attitudinally-corrupted. Having chosen to live as a slave, wouldn’t you be resentful after a time?
How can it be a right for one man to dictate the life of another? How can it be the right of some claimant to reach into the pocket or purse of another and extract cash at will, or make demands of another person’s time and labor? Only in a system in which slavery or indentured servitude is permissible can one find such a circumstance, and yet this is precisely what the President laughs-off as less than dangerous. Of course, it’s far worse than this implies, because if he has his way, the government will become the sole source(single-payer) and possess a monopoly over the entire medical field. Only then will the chuckling morons discover how little like a right health-care really is, as they are denied life-saving surgeries and treatments, and they are compelled to pay whatever price the government demands. They will discover that theirs is a claim without standing, and they will find no recourse anywhere within the borders of the United States. Since this country is among the few into which you can travel to obtain services on the open market(at present,) once it becomes another victim of the global socialization of health-care, one will find one’s options have run out, excepting perhaps only the super-rich, who will always be able to get their care somewhere, at some price.
This president is a shoddy creature, with a narrow ideological focus and an even narrower mind. To claim as a right that which others must provide is an infamous attack on the lives and rights of people everywhere. To do so laughingly expresses a contempt for human life and liberty so thoroughly inculcated as to be dangerously maniacal. Such master-minds always begin by making such claims, but in the end, they finish by leaving a trail of destruction in their wakes. Obama is no worse (so far) than his philosophical predecessors, but such a man bears watching, because at any given moment, he may decide to unleash himself from semi-civil, quasi-rational conduct. Proof of this thesis exists each time one tunes a television to see the latest rant of Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews or Lawrence O’Donnell. These men offer an insight into the sheer insanity that exists behind the relatively calm demeanor of Barack Obama, and it is precisely that sort of vile creature who can imagine his fellow-man as involuntary servants by claiming a right to their labor, their time, and indeed, their lives. What may be worse is that for all their pretense and feigned opposition, at least twenty-five Republican senators do not see fit to object.
One cannot have a right to the lives, labors or properties of others, but with a stunted intellect, too many of our countrymen now suppose that because laws may be enacted that would claim otherwise, they are immune from its reach, and therefore safe from its grasp. Only a people with nothing to offer, fulfilling the exact definition of worthlessness, could imagine their own safety in such a paradigm. This is what we must fight, and it is in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness that we must fight it. So long as men like Barack Obama imagine other men as their slaves, and servants to their personal whims, there can be no safety in any place or condition on Earth. It is time for conservatives to demand of their alleged leaders such behavior as would signify their awareness of this mortal threat. There can be no peace with this, so long as men and women claim to be free.