Comments on: Health Care and the Fallacy of Positive Rights

By: Rand Paul Reads TenthAmendmentCenter.com – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Rand Paul Reads TenthAmendmentCenter.com – Tenth Amendment Center Blog — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:07:32 +0000

[...] right of course. As I pointed outÂ nearly two years ago, it is impossible for governmentÂ to grant a positive right, like health [...]

By: The Score Radio Network » Rand Paul on the “right” to enslave doctors

Sun, 15 May 2011 21:32:45 +0000

[...] is true. I made the same point nearly two years ago: It is impossible for governmentÂ to grant a positive right, like health [...]

By: Does ObamaCare violate the 13th Amendment? | Tertium Quids

Does ObamaCare violate the 13th Amendment? | Tertium Quids — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:01:12 +0000

[...] I argued in a piece last year, it is physically impossible for anyone, including the government, to grant positive rights, such [...]

By: Mandy

Mandy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:11:14 +0000

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.

By: JoshEboch

JoshEboch — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:23:59 +0000

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.

By: russellcole38

russellcole38 — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:23:19 +0000

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

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:08 +0000

"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.

By: Dale Suslick

Dale Suslick — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:08:15 +0000

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.

By: Russell Cole

Russell Cole — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:25:18 +0000

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.

By: Positive vs Negative Rights :: Heath C. Ice

Positive vs Negative Rights :: Heath C. Ice — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:59:02 +0000

[...] found the following article at the Tenth Ammendment Center’s website: Health Care and the Fallacy of Positive Rights. It gives a good brief description of Positive vs Negative rights. Tags: Constitution, government, [...]