by Josh Eboch
Before government can guarantee provision of a specific good or service to any one individual, thus creating a so-called “positive right,” it must first take by force the means of producing that very good or service from someone else.
Health care is no different. Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right†to health care.
But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?
Is that not the very essence of slavery?
The truth is that the only rights actually guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution are those that protect freedom of action.
They are “negative rights,†which do exactly the opposite of their positive counterparts. Rather than initiate and rely on the use of force to produce a specific reward or outcome, negative rights allow individuals to act or not act in the absence of coercion, so long as they do not hinder the freedom of others to do the same.
For instance, it is the right of people in this country to vocalize unpopular opinions, associate with unpopular people, practice unpopular religions, and even carry unpopular weapons. Thanks to our negative rights the government cannot, without due process, take the life, liberty, or property of any American.
But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that, in order to exercise their rights, each citizen must at birth be given a microphone, a bible, or a gun.
That was no accident. For more than two hundred years, the freedom and responsibility to determine one’s own future has been the foundation of America’s unparalleled success. But the critical role played by our negative rights has become less and less clearly understood over time.
Many of this country’s most celebrated leaders have manipulated that ignorance, redefining rights as unearned rewards for politically favored groups; payoffs thinly veiled in the pious rhetoric of social justice.
FDR himself was among the worst. The abject failure of the New Deal notwithstanding, FDR proposed to codify his authoritarian progressive agenda in a constitutional amendment, known as the “Economic Bill of Rights.â€
It reads like a list that could just as easily have flowed from the pen of Karl Marx:
The right to a useful and remunerative job…
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition…
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care…
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Besides being, as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest, economically disastrous and utterly impossible to define or achieve, the biggest problem with FDR’s list was that it sought to make America into a nation of serfs.
The logic is inescapable. Once something has been deemed a right by those in government, the ability of every person who produces or consumes that good or service to engage in voluntary transactions with the fruit of their own labor is stolen. Their labor is then owned and administered by agents of the collective.
Again, I ask: Is that not the very essence of slavery?
There is no doubt that freedom entails risk, and America has not always lived up to the promise of her founding. But when certain people or groups pervert the notion of rights, harnessing the power of government to take by force what they desire but have not earned, then negative freedom becomes a positive tyranny.
Let us hope that more Americans, before it is too late, learn how to tell the difference.
Josh is a proud “tenther”, freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area.
Very good point and article Josh! This basic matter of what they call "positive rights" is at the heart of our troubles. As you correctly pointed out such "rights" are at War with the Concept of liberty, and the actual natural rights of all other men.
It is as Samuel Adams in a letter to James Warren, 1775 wrote:
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
Our people have become universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners over the last 233 years, and the fall of liberty approaches for them and all who remain within their realm of power. We can either Educate them in hopes of restoring their Virtues and diffusing the knowledge of liberty or if at last when that effort fails, we must separate ourselves from them to save ourselves from the tyranny(Big government) of their own creation that would uses their hand against us.
This is the sad solum duty we have remaining as the portion of a people who have the strongest desire and determination to remain free.
As Samuel Adams said:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
In any-case it must be remembered that while we hope that history will forget that such people were our countrymen, we cannot control their choices and if we cannot preswade them to not so causticity throw away this essential liberty. We must at last preform our final and principle duty and protect ourselves, from them who would not.
"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Monorprise,
That is a great collection of quotes you assembled there. Indeed, it would be a mistake for blame to be placed anywhere other than the American people for our decent into tyranny and likewise, it is the American people who must be regarded as the solution.
Thank you for describing the difference between positive and negative rights. I have been unable to understand the difference as people throw around the two terms. I now understand what they are and realize that the term "positive rights" is a kind of oxymoron because freedom is simply the right to do as you want without any coercion so how can there be such a thing as "positive rights"?
Let's face it, the Constitution is dead letter and it will never be resurrected or restored short of extraordinary and extreme measures. All the talk and complaining that have gone on for the last 60 years or so have accomplished a grand total of ZERO in terms of reducing or limiting federal power. The democrats won't reduce government. The republicans will not reduce government. We either need to be prepared to live with a federal behemoth, or we need to prepare to break away from it. There really is no third possibility.
PHL I disagree that there is not a third way. In 2010 we face a new election. What we have to do to recapture our Constitutional Republic is wake up enough voters to get rid of both the Democrats and Republicans with “big Government” records in favor of Democrats, Republicans AND independents who run on a downsizing government platform. Once we have to elected hold their feet to the fire and remind them every day that 2012 is not far away.
There is an option besides living with the infringements on our liberties or breaking away from it. That is to imitate the Founding Fathers in deed, rather than simply in philosophy, word, and thought. Take back our Liberties, by force. The Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots and of Tyrants. It is worth it.
Elijah – your call for violence is not a solution that’s welcome here. No thank you. Please take it elsewhere.
Going to need pacemen people, this is going to take a decade and thats if it goes by the speed of the first American Revolution!
The wheels of government move SLOWLY! That's a good thing in the grand Scheme of things so be thankful we still have that. Our game here is to educate our people thats the key to our ultimate victory!
It is infact just as Samuel Adams said in 1775:
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
All we really have to do is restore them values and cure that ignorance. thats not as hard as you think, it simply takes education and thus of course time for people to learn and get the message.
Violence is NOT yet necessary, and if it ever is necessary it will be thou the State Governments NOT indiviual actions, as individuals can not control territory and thus win anything at all!
Such violence will furthermore not be necessary until after a secession, which itself will only be necessary after we have first educated our people and excused all our other options.
Remember this is and necessarily must be a very long term plain, because we got a HECK of a lot of things that need doing before we will be ready.
We simply can't do them all in any short amount of time! there are too many people to educate, too many State and local offices to win, and too many minds to sway.
We can do it, but we need time a lot of time, i know this is something modern americans are not too good at, but its absolutely critical in this matter above all matters, as this was NOT meant to work quickly!
We cannot lay down the foundation for freedom over the next 150+ years in a signal year.
If you want to help protect Our Rights, go to http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org or http://www.cc2009.us
The 1st Continental Congress met in 1774. The next one is meeting NOW in St. Charles, Illinois.
For LIVE webstream proceedings go to http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org or http://www.CC2009.us
Citizen-Delegates from 49 of the 50 states are repsenting the People to exercise the 1st amendment – "right to petition Government for a redress of Grievances".
(continued on next post)…
Barbara
continued from above…
I'm sorry if you're just now hearing of us. The media won't cover us (wonder why?) so it has been an 11 month volunteer effort at the most basic grassroots level to spread the word. All 50 states (except No Dakota) held elections state wide on Oct 10th to elect up to 3 citizen-delegates to represent them. CC2009 convened on Nov 11th and will conclude Nov 21st (Saturday).
(continued below……)
(continued…)
It is being broadcast on the web LIVE each day and archives can be found at the above websites also. If the People are to take back Our Republic, we need your help!!! A Constitutional Republic is the responsibility of the people. If the People want to be the master of the servant government – then the People will have to take the responsibility. That is exactly what CC2009 is doing. BUT – we need YOUR help. No matter how perfect the petitions that are produced from CC2009 – it won't amount to a hill of beans if the People don't sign the petitions and get behind this incredible movement. We will continue to be roughshod by our "elected" leaders in Washington, and at the state level. It is our responsibility to keep the house in order. Please consider doing your part. Thanks!
A "Right" is intrinsic, you are born with it – no one can truly take it from you but government can attempt to limit your rights.
No one can take your right to free speech, you have the ability to say, write, express as you wish – irrespective of whatever a government attempts to do. What we have a right to is the pursuit of happiness which Ben Franklin aptly noted is "an action of the self". It is up to you. You have the right to pursue a job, access to such pursuit is equality (the opportunity) not to the job itself. You have a right to purchase health care with the dollars you earn from that job, not demand it, as the article accurately points out, through the slavery of others.
Your life is predicated on each choice you've made. You are where you are in life forged by a series of choices you personally made. If health care were important to you then you would have made choices by which to afford such or get your government out of regulations & controls which limit competition and drive up prices.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/110288#comment-1202…
I read your post johnf. and can only say you are woefully ignorant of what capitalism is as a theory or how it functions. I suggest you spend some tie reading Milton Friedman as you are in serious need of a proper understanding of the that which has given you the freedom and prosperity you enjoy. Without American exceptionalism and capitalism there would be no computer for your to use or Internet to give voice to your stunted education.
Excellent articulation of the basic principals that the constitution was founded upon. As the declaration of independence clearly states, that one of the unaliable rights granted to men from the creator is “the pursuit of happiness” not the guaranty.
To take one mans property without his consent to benefit another is not liberty, it is theft. By the legislators in congress passing a bill to confiscate peoples property whether goods or labor to redistribute for a select groups benefit is clear usurpation of the peoples liberty, and those who voted for, oractively supported this legislation are in breech of not only the constitution but their oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend” the constitution.
The president who sits as the leader of the executive branch also has the same obligation to preserve, protect and defend the constitution which he actively promotes the blatant transgression of the constitution.
Now we have the last check on these transgressions, the supreme court, which as yet has chimed in, and either to rule that the federal government is in violation or most likely, will not rule by abstaining and allowing the perversion of the constitutional restrictions to proceed unchecked.
What needs to occur, is for the states to stand up and contest the federal exercise of powers not granted to it by the constitution and explicitly reserved to the states to deal with if they wish or to the people respectively as defined in, yes the “Tenth Amendment”. States over the past century the states have slowly capitulated their rights and power in managing the federal goverment, by allowing simple majority vote to emplace state senators, they were originally selected by state legislators, an example why this is bad is in New York state where the state assembly and senate have been historically conservative as members were elected in districts a few very populous and leaned left, and many not so populous that were conservative as a result a conservative state legislature, which would appoint a conservative senator the the federal senate to represent the “state” a check against the federal represenatives elected by simple majority in numerous districts base on population. This upset the check and balace between the house and the senate and began the forfit of state rights, now allowing bills to pass that violate the constitution, reduce states rights. This also allowed supreme court justices to pass senate approval that might have otherwise have faild maintaining a conservative check on bothe the legislative and executive branches of the federal goverment.
Congresses only involvement in the health care issue that could be exercised to help reduce health care cost (if that was their true end purpose) would be to enact legislation under the power granted in artical one (1)section eight (8)of the constitution, congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes”;under that clause congress could remove state restrictions on portability of insurance carriers and to allow interstate free markert competition across state lines, allowing free competition would reduce consumer cost. But this simple solution to help which is well within the federal goverments power to enact, “making commerce regular”doesn’t even pop up on its own merits, only burried in the 2,000 page bill as infestestmal part of the unprecidented grab for power that congress is now attempting.
The founders and many political patriots who followed warned on socilism and the redistribution of wealth, Benjamin Franklin in his famous “(he price of corn” artical speaking out to British Parliment about confiscation to benifit others, James Madison vetoing comon sense legislation because it violated poers granted in the constitution, Col David Crockett speaking out against and defeating a vote to “donate” federal treasury money to the widow of a naval officer and instead proposed for all members of congress to donate a weeks salary, which was within their power to do with their personal pay, which of course did not happen when their own money was at stake!
What Americans must remember is the federal goverment has no “rights”, only people have rights, the federal goverment has specific powers granted to it by “We the people”, the federal goverment exist to protect man’s rights, men don’t exist to serve the goverment. Has the servant now become the master?
Excellent articulation of the basic principals that the constitution was founded upon. As the declaration of independence clearly states, that one of the unaliable rights granted to men from the creator is “the pursuit of happiness” not the guaranty.
To take one mans property without his consent to benefit another is not liberty, it is theft. By the legislators in congress passing a bill to confiscate peoples property whether goods or labor to redistribute for a select groups benefit is clear usurpation of the peoples liberty, and those who voted for, or actively supported this legislation are in breech of not only the constitution but their oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend” the constitution.
The president who sits as the leader of the executive branch also has the same obligation to preserve, protect and defend the constitution which he actively promotes the blatant transgression of the constitution.
Now we have the last check on these transgressions, the supreme court, which as yet has chimed in, and either to rule that the federal government is in violation or most likely, will not rule by abstaining and allowing the perversion of the constitutional restrictions to proceed unchecked.
What needs to occur, is for the states to stand up and contest the federal exercise of powers not granted to it by the constitution and explicitly reserved to the states to deal with if they wish or to the people respectively as defined in, yes the “Tenth Amendment”. States over the past century the states have slowly capitulated their rights and power in managing the federal government, by allowing simple majority vote to emplace state senators, they were originally selected by state legislators, an example why this is bad is in New York state where the state assembly and senate have been historically conservative as members were elected in districts a few very populous and leaned left, and many not so populous that were conservative as a result a conservative state legislature, which would appoint a conservative senator the federal senate to represent the “state” a check against the federal representatives elected by simple majority in numerous districts base on population. This upset the check and balance between the house and the senate and began the forfeit of state rights, now allowing bills to pass that violate the constitution, reduce states rights. This also allowed supreme court justices to pass senate approval that might have otherwise have failed maintaining a conservative check on both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
Congresses only involvement in the health care issue that could be exercised to help reduce health care cost (if that was their true end purpose) would be to enact legislation under the power granted in article one (1)section eight (8)of the constitution, congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes”;under that clause congress could remove state restrictions on portability of insurance carriers and to allow interstate free market competition across state lines, allowing free competition would reduce consumer cost. But this simple solution to help which is well within the federal governments power to enact, “making commerce regular” doesn’t even pop up on its own merits, only buried in the 2,000 page bill as infestestimal part of the unprecedented grab for power that congress is now attempting.
The founders and many political patriots who followed warned on socialism and the redistribution of wealth, Benjamin Franklin in his famous “(he price of corn” article speaking out to British Parliament about confiscation to benefit others, James Madison vetoing common sense legislation because it violated powers granted in the constitution, Col David Crockett speaking out against and defeating a vote to “donate” federal treasury money to the widow of a naval officer and instead proposed for all members of congress to donate a weeks salary, which was within their power to do with their personal pay, which of course did not happen when their own money was at stake!
What Americans must remember is the federal government has no “rights”, only people have rights, the federal government has specific powers granted to it by “We the people”, the federal government exist to protect man’s rights, men don’t exist to serve the government. Has the servant now become the master?
A working definition of Liberty is a state of being where a person can choose to engage in any activity, harmless to others, that pleases him or her within the natural limitations placed on all creatures by the physical universe. You cannot flap your arms and fly to the moon but you can certainly try as hard as you want (might be considered good exercise) and you can even choose to feel obligated to do so as a religious duty to the deity of your choice.
Progressives with their "Positive Rights" try to surpass the natural limitations by just the power of their will. They "will" that you should be free to visit the moon so you will visit the moon and the government, having greater power than the Creator of the universe (in their minds), will see that you get there. Of course the government has to steal from your neighbors and enslave the rocket scientists to build you your mode of transportation but that's okay because the Progressives will "will" that as necessary for you to truly be free to be you…
"Some are more equal than others."
Turn this list around and people can get what they want!
1) "The right to a useful and remunerative job…" If we got rid of licensing, OSHA, unions, and regulations disguised as good things, many COULD find a "useful job"!
2) "The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation". If we did away with payroll taxes, and the hundreds of others, we could know what we are actually spending and have adequate money for food and clothing. Recreation is not something one buys but time away from work that one enjoys; at the rate today most people spend better than 4 months of their year working for someone else and there is no time for recreation.
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
3) "The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition…" Again regulation and trade laws under the guise of regulating commerce hurts all. Let the free market be resurrected! It has been dead for far too long, strangled by our own government.
4) The right of every family to a decent home; " Take away all regulation, permit processes and other govt. "protections" and the people will create their own living space. What is acceptable to one is not a one size fits all for others. Get govt out of the lending business as well as renting their land to them via property taxes in perpetuity.
5) "The right to adequate medical care…" Get rid of regulation of medicine, doctors, and other providers. Stop pandering to the AMA. Let insurance companies issue catastrophic healthcare plans across state lines without govt. interference. Do away with laws that prevent doctors from owning hospitals and the hundreds of other regulations that tie the hands of everyone in the medical field. Institute tort reform in the states.
6) "The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;" Let people opt out of Social Security and create their own nest egg free from any restriction on how, when, and where they can use these funds. Eliminate estate and death taxes so these funds can be transferred to the next generation.
7) "The right to a good education." Do away with the department of education and let the people of the states do what they do best. Do away with any notion that children belong to the states or the fed or that parents are in any way less able to properly educate their children. Get all govt. out of mandatory "educayshun"!
Haven't had my second cup of coffe yet so I am certain my list is quite thin but certainly anyone can see that what Reagan said is true: "Government is NOT the solution, government IS the problem."
See, I told you I hadn't had enough coffee to start my day! I missed this one!
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;"
Do away with ALL regulations, price supports, and other disincentives that seek to control supply and demand. The farmer will grow what gives him the greatest return and what the market wants and needs. Let supply and demand work!
Nice re-hash of the Objectivist critique by Leonard Peikoff. http://snipr.com/taq9c
Excellent article as always, Josh!
Excerpt from:
http://wstfrederick.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthca…
…when we understand (as the founders did) that rights came from our Creator (i.e. Unalienable Rights). Once we explore their writings and speeches as well as the historical figures that they studied, we begin to develop an understanding and appreciation of what they believed at their core. One such example is that the government could not force an individual to provide for another individuals needs. Providing for another’s needs is an example of Unalienable Duties, however this is outside the realm of government intervention. An individual does not have the right to Healthcare at another individuals expense, period. An individual does have the right to not have a third party interfere with someone providing healthcare to the individual. One might ask how such statements can be made or that we already provide for the welfare of the downtrodden. They would probably be the first to call someone a monster who says that the government has no place doing such things. However, I would wager that those “monsters” on average provide more assistance to the downtrodden and hurting.
It is a little known fact that under the guise of health care in, Nazi Germany, many who were old, ill (including mentally disabled) and/or dwarfs were slaughtered. Sound familiar? (Maybe we could have BO declared mentally disabled??) We must prevent this at all costs.
The taking of one property against their will irrespective of the Constitution is a crime. But what we are also taking about is the concept of scarcity. . and in this case the falsely created scarcity of the current economic system controled by big government and warped corporate greed. The current economic system pits one person against the other while they try to get as much spending power(funny money) as they can while violating all common sense of fairness,ethics,the realities of basic math , the environment and connection to other. Are we REALLY United states of America?? Or are we the ' everyone for themselves states of the Profit whores of the west…country'?? Our rights and our freedoms don't really come a piece of parchment WITNESSED (never signed) over 200 years ago. Our rights and sovereignty where believed to be from a divine source above and beyond the scope and say of any government. So, while I support the tenth ammenment people and the awareness that they are building- and we should support the original intent of this country.- countries eventually do exactly what there're doing right now -as in the case of the USA. It will attempt to survive even against the original intent(questionable) and to the determent of it's people and their rights and property. The very word Government comes from Latin root -gover mente- 'mind control' . Maybe we need to look at a new way of being…. check it out:
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/
A society will be judged on how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life, and those in the shadow of life.
Then let us be judged as a society that protected their individual right to self-determination, not forced collectivization.
Let us be a Society that let them live their own life rather then make them live the life we as a collective would choose to impose upon them.
Thomas Jefferson was right in 1774 when he said:
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
Life and liberty are very much interdependent, for it is by our judgment that life as a slave either to a direct master or to a "society" strict control and management to the execution of our own choices is not really life at all.
If you wish to surrender your liberty and control over your own life to someone else in exchange for the promised of the security of servitude to them, then go ahead and do it privately. DO NOT try to impose that choice upon us or anyone else.
This is a rather stupid article. While we are at it, why do we not get rid of fire departments, police departments, and other forms of collectivism, because I surely do not want to suffer the plight of a serf who has people come to put his house out of fire or to recitative him if he suffers a heart attack. These forms of servitude are simply intolerable incursions upon my liberties.
r cole
It is a very good idea to not let the overall federal government mandate positive rights. As your governing unit becomes smaller; such as the state, county, or community level; it becomes safer to allow some positive rights to be mandated. At more local levels, you have much more of a voice as to what positive rights are mandated. You also have a greater ability to find a state or community that better fits the role you believe government should have.
I am in full agreement. However, that is not what the author of this argument is contending.
Serftom was administered at the manorial level of midieval civilization. There might have been some edicts issued at the monarchial level that provided for some serf rights that were to be respected by local lords, such as freedom for the serf if he had successfully lived as a berger for at least two years. However, the work arrangements and taxation systems were devised and administered at these local, manorial levels of these federated systems. Therefore, I am compelled to interpret the author as critical of all forms of collectivism no matter on what level of polity that they happen to occur.
Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with you. I just think you are lending the author of the piece far too much intellectual credit.
Would a “right” be something that we have a right to do, or too get? Or is a “right” something that others have an obligation to provide for me? The debate on health care, state school budgets, student loan programs, mortgage and car bailouts as well as anything from what we would call the “entitlement mindset” isn’t about helping those truly in need. We, as people, are commanded to help those truly in need. Help the widows. Help the orphans. Mentor and provide for the fatherless. Give and care for the poor. The debates are really about one group of socialists dickering with another group of socialists about who will receive what piece of the pie that was wrongly stolen from others. All because we’re so wrong about rights.
"But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?"
That's the fundamental principle behind Democracy. People elect people to run a government, and a government requires funds to operate, so taxes are levied. This is not a complicated principle.
Is that not the very essence of slavery?"
No. You have the right to vote. Slaves do not. Note, simply because your candidate did not win does not mean you're a slave.
Chris, thanks for articulating in the simplist of terms why this guy's argument is so profoundly ill thought out and just plain stupid.
r cole
Chris and Russell,
It might surprise both of you to learn that America is not a Democracy. We are a Republic. That means we follow the rule of law, and the Constitution is the highest law in our land.
If Congress doesn't have power it wants, then whatever Congress wants must be so popular that the people will choose to amend their own Constitution. Barring that, Congress has no authority to meddle in the personal health decisions of individuals.
If they usurp the authority anyway, taking by force the product of some people's labor to satisfy the whims of a slim majority of their peers, that is illegal, immoral, and as much slavery as anything else.
I think what everyone is failing to understand here is that this is not thrust upon you. You have the "choice," yes I emphasize the word "choice" to opt out of government health insurance, as those do in most countries which have some form of national health care. But many in those countries do not opt out because they found it to be financially responsible to opt in. And I would like to mention that the Constitution is not a restrictive ceiling but instead a floor of broad fundamental rights which allows generations to build upon. Why not give people access to affordable health care like most states have done with affordable public education??? Furthermore, I find any mention of the word "slavery" in the discussion of national health care reform absolutely idiotic because any argument that health care providers will become slaves is such an irrational conclusion I really do not know how to respond it except to say that doctors will still be able to bargain for their salaries like they do now.