Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Andrew Napolitano
In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right.
In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.
What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies.
So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.
What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good.
Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.
A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.
Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.
When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.
They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare.
When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
First of all it's easy to argue against the government providing people with healthcare when you can afford it.
Second, the corporatism of our government puts profits, (including those of the healthcare industry), above all - including our human rights, and this was not able to be addressed in our Constitution.
It's hard for me to agree with your premise that in a nation with an abundance of health care....that it isn't a right.
Shouldn't we say the same about food then and discontinue food stamps, wellfare and everything else? What does that say about society that we're unwilling, not unable, to help those in our country when they need it the most?
Judge Napolitano,
The notion that we have human rights is a myth. The concept emerged from “natural law” in the seventeenth century and became the imprimatur for the “social contract,” which, in turn, begat consideration of Natural Rights, and then Unalienable Rights, and then Human Rights, among other designations. This new worldview was the Zeitgeist of the Enlightenment philosophers – John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and others – and led to the almost universal conclusion (the exception being Thomas Hobbes) that power should flow from the people, not from the governing authority. But, the intervening 200 years have shown that human rights cannot stand alone. Consider all the wars, the concentration camps, the gulags, slavery, torture, etc., etc.
UNFORTUNATELY, like so many things in this world, especially religion and spirituality, this basic premise is wrong. Healthcare IS a right for everyone. Therefore, everything after that statement in this article is a waste of time.
Anything which requires effort on someone else's part to produce cannot be considered a natural right. Thus, food, clothing, shelter, health care, cannot be rights unless the government decides to simply decree it.
Ditto. It is comforting to know there are others who value freedom. I want my freedom and I want you to have yours,
As an individual, I go to the store and I shop. I look at the prices and decide to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. When I go to the checkout, I purchase the items and leave. If instead, when I go to the checkout, they take my purse, take most of my money, and hand me a bag of potato chips, soda pop, bread, milk and a bunch of other unwanted items, I have been robbed.
As a society and as a resident of a state, we have a written contract called the constitution with our federal government. We agreed to pay reasonable taxes for very specfic benefits such as national defense. When the federal government exceeds it's job description without our consent, we have been robbed and cheated. Limited goverment is of enormous value and protects individuals. Enormous goverment is of limited value and crushes individuals and freedom.
O.k., let's just pay as we go, and be totally independent. We can start with police protection, if you are a victim of crime, go to the police station, and bring your credit card. Then, if the police catch the criminal, pay for his incarceration. When you stop paying the criminal's room and board, they let him go, free to find and kill you, because nobody is paying the police to watch him. Then your heirs can decide whether to spend money to catch your killer, or just keep it all. Good luck with that.
Local communities can and should levy taxes for police, firemen, schools, libraries, and other issues that have received the vote and approval of the community. Respecting the 10th amendment is not intended to eliminate these services. Respecting the 10th amendment will take the power away from federal agents and return the taxing and spending choices to local communities.
This posting of Mr. Napolitano has a hundred flaws of logic, reasoning and common sense, but I will narrow it down to this assertion to demonstrate. He says, "So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights."
I hope the embedded self-contradiction at the end is obvious to any reader. First he asserts our rights are God given, natural, and not subject to any government oversight. In the very next breath a "jury" is given permission to make determinations (overrides) about those same rights. Whence the jury? What will a jury use if not the Law? Whence the law, if not through government? Whence the government if not through the people? What sort of circular logic is being employed here? Well, it's unintelligible gibberish, and nothing more. The rest of this web-putty could be destroyed just as easily, but really, what would be the point?
I have often had similar thoughts, mark.
The only thing I can say in his defense is that his heart seems to be in the right place, I guess. He seems to be a firm believer in the existence of a God and so he couches everything in that context.
For me, it's more helpful to simply admit that we are not alone on Planet Earth and we are going to have conflicts with other people. So, we organize into societies and try to rise above the law of the jungle and institute some pathetic semblance of justice.
That's what the Constitution did, from my perspective. I think it's a very good effort and I can't really do any better so I'm going to support the original concept it espouses of as much freedom for people as we can tolerate.
Also, it bugs the heck out of me that so many people are willing to just ignore or intentionally misread the Constitution. It makes me sick to see such a nice effort as the Constitution vandalized. People died for that thing!
This summer, I'm going to Paris for the first time. I can't wait to go to the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa (and other stuff).
Imagine if, when I finally get there, someone has taken a Sharpie and drawn a mustache on the Mona Lisa!
Yes, we organize to get some semblance of justice - I agree. But, nothing is static. The earth turns, people are born and people die, and trying to hang on to life as it was 200 years ago is a futile illusion. You simply can't live in the past. Modern day Christians do the same thing by trying to pretend they are Bronze Age Jews. It's simply ridiculous to pretend you are going to use Leviticus as a body of law.
The Founding Fathers are quite dead and cold. They were savvy businessmen with wealth and privilege who wanted to maintain it, and they did. But now who is that? You? Are you a wealthy aristocratic landowner trying to make a living off slaves? I'll take a guess the answer is "no" - so what on earth is your emotional investment in that system?
Life is happening NOW. NOW is actually the only time it can ever happen, so you might want to think about adjusting your watch and calendar. We have 300 million people in the USA now, and we don't buy into slavery anymore. We have decided to recognize women as full 100% partners in the human race. Likewise, black people. What on earth are you hanging on to 1790 for? People died for it? That's not an answer to anything. People die for a few seconds of street racing too, so what? How is that a criterion for anything?
Pretending it is 1790 is a fantasy of the silliest proportions. It is bound to frustrate, and frustration is nothing but unhappiness. You can waddle around in a powdered wig with a blunderbuss and some leeches, and a nicely tattered copy of the Constitution, and you'll be considered quaint. How that improves any person's life in 2010 is beyond my imagination. You want to go back to wooden teeth, candle-light, leeches and slavery?
There's no uncharted territory left for you rugged individualists to go off and homestead. You want to exist, you're going to be paying rent or paying a mortgage. You want to eat you're going to be going to the grocery story and paying utility bills and driving cars. For all that you need MONEY. That's right - M-O-N-E-Y. Your artificially yellowed copy of the Constitution will get you exactly ZERO bags of groceries at the store and will buy ZERO gallons of gas. So, right now the people playing "Founding Fathers" for you are stealing you blind and packing it away in barrels! If you intend to do anything useful about that, you better learn quick what year this is, who is in charge, and how the system works right now.
Liberty is timeless.
You are the only person talking about living as if it were 1790.
It's just another injustice of human existence that people who understand the value of liberty are willing to die so, as a consequence, morons like you can go on living free.
Wake up and use some of your precious M-O-N-E-Y to get some therapy!
You seem to think that recognizing the accomplishment of the creation of the Constitution, and the liberty it creates, means that we all want to go back to that time and live. Nonsense.
We respect the US founders for their huge leap in the concept of government. For the first time, government was seen as being a necessary evil and the Constitution was a document which, instead of listing all the things people had to do, or could not do, it explicitly stated the powers of the government and (more importantly) the restrictions on its power.
This limitation of power and the freedom it gave to the people created the environment in which the progress beyond "wooden teeth, candle-light, leeches and slavery" was made.
We "rugged individualists" don't want a free ride where we don't have to pay for anything. We understand and expect to have to pay for the things that we get. However, we also want government to stay out of our way and stop taking the fruits of our labor for their pet projects.
It's not the "yellowed copy of the Constitution" that we regard so highly. It's the liberty it enshrines. And that liberty is as important, if not more so, today as it was in 1790.
Your freedom to exercise your individual rights is regulated by the requirement that you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
If you do infringe upon the rights of another, the use of a jury of your peers to determine your guilt or innocence and, if guilty, your punishment for the infringement, is the standard that has been agreed upon .
That standard has been agreed upon because people, believing that an orderly society is beneficial to everyone involved, have decided that the use of a jury trial and equally applied punishments for offenses is preferable to individuals or groups taking retribution for real or perceived offenses.
Juries are subject to laws and rules that govern their conduct and what punishments can be induced for offenses.
There is no circular logic or gibberish anywhere there.
No, the contradiction you see is in your premise: "and not subject to government oversight." The US government and the Constitution WAS setup to oversee (i.e. protect) people's rights from infringement by others. However, what Napolitano is pointing out is that our government was setup on the premise that these rights are not GIVEN by government. This was made explicit by the founders because they wanted these rights to transcend government, to therefore be unassailable by government.
As far as the jury, it was setup to be the determiner of unlawful action so that people couldn't be judged by representatives of the government itself.
This is a great article and an even better video. Regarding the conversation about federal authority and state authority... I have often thought that the system that we have in place would be best served by libertarians serving at the federal level and liberals/conservatives serving at the state and local level. Of course this would work great until the libertarians decided to force their views in unison across states too. :) Does that make sense?
In general, states could then be free to manage themselves based on the regional cultures, needs and desires.
However, without the chains of the Constitution placed on the federal politicians, this is impossible. Here's why... local and state politicians reflecting regional values are the most likely to run for national office and when they get there, guess what, they feel that they are free to push for their system to be put in place over all of the other states.
Therein lies the problem... you can't enforce what type of person ends up in Washington; however the solution is that you can place chains upon their action when they get there. And the Constitution and the 10th are those chains... too bad our nation badly needs a reminder...
"Does that make sense?" It makes very good sense. I have been saying Libertarians are off the mark to think a highly populous, civilized society can be left with far less regulation and social safety nets than we already have. You are right in that these functions are better localized. The Libertarian philosophy would have a greater tendency to work at the federal level because of its "hands-off" approach. That said, I still think that globalized trade has so destroyed the working class that it would be improvident to continue to subject the states to the Constitutional power of Congress to make trade "regular" (open, without barriers).
Your third and fourth paragraphs adequately reflect reality, with the proviso that a nationalized military makes enforcement of the 10th all but impossible. To continually muse over the way the Constitution "should" work is, in so many respects, a process of mental mastur.... well, you know.
Jeff,
A "nationalized" army does not make enforcement of the 10th amendment impossible.
The National Guards of the various states are under the control of the governors of those states unless and until the governor releases them to the president, so the states maintain a military capability and the ability to deny the use of those forces to the president.
If it ever, God forbid, came to a showdown where the National Guard of a state was mobilized by the governor to counter operations of the regular military in that state (suppression of a supposed insurrection or something similar), I'm willing to bet that a lot of other governors would also mobilize their National Guards in short order, either to actively support the first state in countering the regular military and/or, as a minimum, prevent the movement of regular military units in those states.
The lack of a standing military invites attack; when the country was first founded, travel and communications were slow enough that the country could afford the luxury of a very limited standing military. The militia could be called up to defend against attacks until a regular army could be raised, trained and moved into place to take over the fight.
In this day and age, travel and communications happens so fast that there is no way that we could stand a viable military up in time to counter a competent attack on the country, even with the current National Guard system that we have.
The government of the United States is tasked with providing for the common defense; the states along our borders cannot be expected to bear the burden of protecting both themselves and the interior states.
The regular military does not necessarily need to be huge for the purposes of deterrence, defense and the protection of our national interests, but it does need to be backed up by a reserve force that is formidable enough to give any potential aggressor serious pause before even considering an attack.
I say this with the caveat that protection of our national interests does not include policing the world or making the world safe for "democracy", and that the National Guard, which should be the largest contingent, should not be deployable outside the borders of the country except to come to the aid of a regular unit that is in danger of annihilation.
Brian
Somewhere, I saw an article about the optimal size of governments. The author of the article argued that governments fail if they cover too large an area or too many people. That made sense to me.
That argues for local control which was the original intent of the Constitution. I think faithful, federal Libertarians would be more likely to leave the states alone.
I also think it's helpful (and even fun) to muse over how the Constitution was intended to work and whether it could be improved. This clarifies people's thinking and allows them to make more persuasive arguments to others.
I know my thinking has been clarified by the posts on this web site and I welcome the chance to explore this important topic at length with people from all over the nation. We still have a vote and we can at least try to make a difference.
What's the point of having this web site if we can't debate over how the US would look if the 10th A were actually recognized instead of ignored?
I would only get concerned if I sensed that someone is in so deep that they might go do something rash that they might regret. I don't sense that at all in this comment.
I would like to point out that property is not a right as in the right to own but the right to trade and exchange with others. When we are born we have no property so our parents, through their own free will, give us food, shelter, diapers, and us through our own free will receive them. When we do this we are exchanging the right over a physical object to someone else. Once we receive we know own the rights over that object because another person decided to give the right over that object to us. Without the voluntary agreement to do this any property exchange becomes theft.
There has never been a society in history - not even in Colonial America - where this "theft" did not occur. Might as well get used to it.
Even among animals, hyenas make a kill, and along come lions to take what they need from it. This is nature, and people are no different and never will be.
In actuality, theft is defined in the various Penal Codes, and by definition, taxation is not theft. It's nice to try to equate taxation as theft, because obviously elements of coercion apply. But still, it is a pure fantasy world to think taxation will ever become extinct.
There is always a need for us to pay a tax, we pay this for our protection, to the federal government, to protect us from foreign invaders. If I am not mistaken this is one of the duties of a federal government. If I am not mistaken the Federal tax was imposed on FEDERAL EMPLOYEES to pay for a war. I am not a federal employee! Why am I paying a federal tax?
There is a MAJOR problem with paying federal taxes that many citizens seem to be unaware of. More specifically, not only did the Founders make the 10th A. to reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, but the states uniquely have the power to lay taxes with respect to those powers.
In fact, Chief Justice Marshall had appropriately established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, that Congress can not base taxes on state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So not only is Obamacare, for example, constitutionally unauthorized as evidenced by the Constitution's silence on public healthcare, but Congress doesn't have the power to lay taxes in the name of Obamacare either. And much of the federal taxes that we pay are likewise based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
The problem is that the constitutionally powerful state legislatures have not been doing their jobs to protect citizens from the constitutionally humbled but power-hungry Congress. This is evidenced by the ratification of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.
I actually think that taxation is a nessaccary evil kind of like government itself but the taxation that does not involuntarily remove your money from you (aka theft) would be a sales tax since you agree to pay the tax when you voluntarily buy something. You can not pay the tax by not buying as much. Its the closest thing to a voluntary tax that we have.
I have thought this for a while about paying taxes for unconstitutional objects and wish someone would sue the federal government to get what share of taxes they paid back that went for unconstitutional things. A successful lawsuit like that would put a brake on the federal tax machine.
RE: 'Even among animals, hyenas make a kill, and along come lions to take what they need from it. This is nature, and people are no different and never will be. '
And that is why governments are created by Man....to secure those RIGHTS.
I see no chance of moving the US from its current position to one where there are no federal income taxes within my remaining 25 years of life expectancy.
Also, I'm unaware of any place on the planet I would care to live where I can be free from some kind of 'governmental' interference. As far as I know, every habitable area has been claimed by some group of people who assert their will over that area.
So, I'm willing to accept a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government pursuant to the original design of the US Constitution and I will therefore vote for and support people who agree with me. I sent Ron Paul money last year when he ran for President, for example.
I recognize that SOME government is useful and I'm willing to pay a reasonable fee for that.
The current tax system is a mess and a joke and is not reasonable. I suspect many people who agree with me about returning to the original design of the Constitution will also agree that taxes are too high and all screwed up. So, it works out well.
But, I'm not supporting the 10th A and a return to original intent just to avoid taxes. That won't happen. Not in my lifetime.
Finally, semantics are usually a dead end in the real world. Debating whether "taxation" is "theft" is fun from an intellectual standpoint but won't put any food on the table. So, this is a great place to debate it. But, in the end, you better pay your taxes if you want to remain free.
Now, I'll play the game:
FWIW, in my mind, "theft" is the wrongful taking of another person's property. If that's correct, then the entire debate is whether taxes are a 'wrongful' basis for taking property. Our society, at the moment, allows various governments to tax various things and does not consider it 'wrongful.' So, taxation is not "wrongful" and is not, therefore, theft.
"For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good." - John Locke
No society has ever existed under this principle, and for obvious reasons.
Don't get me wrong. I admire Judge Napolitano. Unlike his seemingly constitutionally clueless Fox News colleagues, Judge Napolitano has stated on the air that since Section 8 of Article I is silent about public healthcare, Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate healthcare.
However...
I don't think that Obama and his socialist cronies give a rip about people's health regardless if it was a right. The reason that Obama pushes healthcare "reform," IMO, is that just as with the failed stimulus package, Obama's special-interest supporters will likewise benefit from the thousands of "nonexistent" earmarks in Obamacare legislation whether Obamacare fails or not.
Agreed. That is the case with almost every law. You have winners and losers, and the people without voices (money) and the willing ears of Congress are almost always the losers. That doesn't mean health care issues don't need to be addressed at some level of government. It does mean you are right about corruption. As to the level of government where it needs to be addressed, this should not be the federal level if you want to adhere to the Constitution.
Too many people (not you) post comments to make it seem as if their states are constituted like the federal government, and they want to direct local laws and regulations as if they fall under the same paradigm. This is an incorrect view.
I suspect many people have not thought through the consequences of following the federalism scheme. If they did, they would be more familiar with their own state's constitution than the federal constitution since the US Constitutional scheme left the vast bulk of the power potential with the states.
In the world envisioned by the US Constitution, you could still have all kinds of laws, restrictions and taxes that many posters here would find onerous and objectionable. But, at least you could move to a different state if one looked better to you. With the centralization of all power in Washington DC, the states all look more and more alike with each passing year.
AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT you will find power-hungry people in charge. That's why they run for office in the first place. Very few people are truly interested in "public service."
It reminds me of the TZ episode where we humans misread the alien instruction book "To Serve Man."
Don't get me wrong. I admire Judge Napolitano. Unlike his seemingly constitutionally clueless Fox News colleagues, Judge Napolitano has stated on the air that since Section 8 of Article I is silent about public healthcare, Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate healthcare.
However...
I don't think that Obama and his socialist cronies give a rip about people's health anyway. The reason that Obama pushes healthcare "reform," IMO, is that just as with the failed stimulus package, Obama's special-interest supporters will likewise benefit from the thousands of "nonexistent" earmarks in Obamacare legislation whether Obamacare fails or not.
One other point, more to the health care topic: Napolitano says in the article: "When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be?"
There is historical reason for this. People establish governments in order to preserve conditions that are harmonious to survival and prosperity. In times past, people suffered plagues, leprosy, and other fatal and highly contagious diseases. Imagine what comes of a civilized society if it decides to let nature take its course and to not deal with it by using tax dollars. Tax dollars are used to keep order. We don't want diseased people who are broke and begging in the streets, accosting us and coughing and breathing all over us. It doesn't bode well for civilization.
This is the same reason for many welfare systems. They keep the downtrodden in control. Crime is reduced (believe it or not). If we let nature take its course and left everyone truly on their own, this would be one seriously messed up society. I don't see how anyone could feel safe anywhere.
That's why we have socialized militaries, police, fire protection, schools, etc. Civilized societies do not function well under pure Darwinism, where only the well-connected are safe because they can afford their own, personal police and militaries.
I am not saying the Constitution allows all these things, but I am saying that, at least at some form of governmental level, be it state, county, city or neighborhood, they are absolutely necessary to a civilized society.
To ask, as Napolitano does, "Why should that be [that people will wind up paying for them anyway]," gives a certain rise to the frustration of disgruntled taxpayers who feel their equality of opportunity is whittled away by such mechanisms. But it does not serve the complete purpose of providing the answer for why these systems have developed over thousands of years. They are absolutely necessary at some level.
If anyone saw the Denzel movie, "John Q," the plot deals with this very issue. The man was not going to let his financial hardship get in the way of medical treatment to save his son's life when it was quite clear (to him) that the resources were available to save his son. He didn't have the financial resources, but he had a gun. So, he took the hospital staff hostage.
These sorts of things are what truly desperate people do. We really don't expect them to just "suck it up and deal with it," do we? Maybe they should "suck it up" (if that's how you feel), but regardless of the way you feel, they could care less when their situations become to desperate. They will do what they need to do. Welfare systems maintain order.
I won't try to speak for Da Judge but I'll respond on my own behalf.
The issue of whether order is best maintained by providing taxpayer-funded health care for all was left to the states to decide - not the federal government.
My state, Oregon, has opted for government funded health care. It that's a big deal to me one way or the other, I can move to or from Oregon.
If the US Constitution controls, all 50 states would continue to make that determination and we can all get more empirical evidence on the issue of which approach is better. To the extent the answers are different, it offers me more options.
In general, my view is like Napolitano's. (You can justify almost anything under the rubric 'maintain order.')
I do not approve of taxpayer-funded health care for all for various reasons including the 'moral hazard' argument.
But, I don't find Oregon's approach so onerous that I'm willing to leave over it at this point.
Yes, that's why I say the Constitution was not the process for dealing with these issues, but that every society, at some level, will have to.
Jeff,
To amplify on what "Guest" said, besides being able to decide on the type of health care system, there is nothing to prevent all or some of the states from agreeing to mutual minimum standards of care or reciprocity between the health care systems of the different states.
Yes, there is a mutual interest in controlling the spread of communicable diseases, and most people would say that being able to see a doctor to treat diseases makes their life much better, but, as "Guest" said, how that is done is up to the people of each state to decide for themselves.
I like Napolitano. I wish he wasn't so busy with other matters that he couldn't take a look at, and address, the following issue:
Let's presume it is also not a right of certain well-connected people to lobby our Washington politicians in order to procure contracts that funnel vast profits to them from tax payer money. Suppose this has gone on for over 150 years, where the tax payers have been continually looted.... all the way up to a point where the top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
If there is no compensation of any form for this wrong-doing of the tax payer after this massive looting, not even in the form of a modicum of a simple, basic service in return, what the heck is the remedy? Should the tax payers engage in actions to commit a reverse-plunder and restore balance?
I am just not so sure how you restore a Constitutional framework when the basic damage has already been done. When you catch a thief, you don't let him keep what he stole.
So, how, under the Constitution, do Americans restore their place as a people who were to enjoy the prosperity of a nation that was initially founded on equality of opportunity, but which has since been pillaged by Constitutional excesses that have bled the taxpayers of their money and wealth and funneled it to well-connected people who have directly and successfully lobbied Congress to exceed its Constitutional authority?
Go to www.losthorizins.com, read the five pages there and learn who should and should not pay "income taxes". If you like what you read and see, pay $25 and buy and read "Cracking the Code by Hendrickson. If you get it from him, you will receive a free weekly news letter on the subject. If you know the Constitution and the many rulings of the Supreme Court on the 16th Amendment you already have a head start on this subject. You will not be sorry. Try it!
No thanks. The only ones who get away with it are doing so because (1) they don't get their numbers drawn for the audit lottery, or (2) even if audited, they earn so little there would be no tax due anyway.
I don't fit the 2nd category, and I am not taking my chances on the 1st. I kind of like staying out of prison and not being paranoid that the IRS agents might come and find me. I've known people who have served time for tax fraud. Not me; no way.
I am a federal practice lawyer and I've handled about a score of these tax evasion cases. The reasons the individual in question believed he didn't have to file a return and/or pay federal taxes have covered everything from improper ratification of the 16th A to lack of a gold standard and even the Bible and religious freedom.
In EVERY CASE, the individual was found to owe the taxes and paid the consequences. Some went to jail but most just had horrendous penalties and interest assessed.
When the government can determine the scope of its power, you will ALWAYS get that result. You simply cannot realistically expect a federal judge, who is paid from federal tax dollars, to agree that you do not have to pay any federal taxes. There is a built in conflict of interest and you will lose every time.
Unless you want to hang with Wesley Snipes for a few years, I STRONGLY urge you to file and pay what THE MAN says you owe.
I'll disagree and say that being "well-connected" does not remove your right to petition the government or advocate for particular policies. However, the primary method to "restore a Constitutional framework" is to begin to eliminate the Federal government of its power and, as intended, place that authority on the states. By removing the option for the Federal government to give such power and money to some people or the threat of regulations and restrictions on others, there would be little need for well-connected people or corporations to lobby Washington politicians for their favor.
I've said for a long time, making more regulations about lobbying won't do reduce the practice. Only by eliminating the power to grant the favors that those lobbyists are seeking will get rid of them.
To me, the first baby steps in that direction is to increase the transparency of government. Passing bills that make Congress:
- vote on one topic at a time
- read the bills they vote to enact (signed affidavit)
- write all criminally punishable laws (no more incriminating regulations by FCC, FDA, FAA, FTC, SEC, etc, etc)
- post the final version of the bills longer (28 days for non-emergencies, 7 days for emergencies)
- name the clause in the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to do whatever they are trying to pass
I believe that by pushing these simple transparency policies, we can begin to reassert the authority of the Constitution and reclaim the federalism of the Federal government.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/25/what-is-a-right/#mce_temp_url# by Judge Andrew Napolitano is probably the best-to-understand explanation I’ve seen: A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you. [...]
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/25/what-is-a-right/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
[...] What is a Right? [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: What is a Right? http://bit.ly/dxbhDq #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…
[...] February 27, 2010 by patriotsrising2010 What is a Right?�|�Tenth Amendment Center. [...]
[...] What about healthcare? Big issue right now. I just read an article that talks about health care as a good, not a right. I’ll let you read it on your own; http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/25/what-is-a-right/ [...]
[...] What about healthcare? Big issue right now. I just read an article that talks about health care as a good, not a right. I’ll let you read it on your own; http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/25/what-is-a-right/ [...]
[...] What is a Right? [...]