Volume 5, Issue 12
It is not a right.
Health care may be determined by the collective will of the people to be critical to a righteous definition of collective government services. But there is a difference between a right and a righteous demand.
A right is inherent to an individual and vests at birth. You are born free. You are born deserving liberty. Your life is a gift. And you have a God-given right to your individual pursuit of happiness. These rights were declared unalienable in the Declaration of Independence. A right is not given, manufactured, or bestowed by government. Rights are in fact to be defended by government. To exercise and enjoy a right requires no affirmative action from government.
Further, a right never depends upon another person’s contribution. It belongs to an individual, in totality, from their first breath. No one has to pay for someone else’s right or establish a protocol to realize it.
And lastly, a right never infringes on another person’s freedom or liberty. By definition, a right encompasses all people at all times for all purposes, whether God-given or by the succession of Natural Law. Our Founding Fathers believed that said rights were granted by the Creator, and therefore unalienable.
A righteous cause is the benevolent act of a government, an organization, or a culture of people. It requires government or institutional structure for said cause to be provided. In defining a just and righteous society, a people may decide to provide for public education, health care, welfare, and protection of the environment. Each of these are elements of righteousness. They may, in fact, be critical in establishing a just and righteous society. They may, in fact, be indispensable for the common good. But they do not meet the test of a right.
On Meet the Press this past weekend in an interview with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chuck Todd asked rather emotionally, “Senator, do you consider health care a right?” She did not answer that question. She rejoindered that if a person needs emergency medical attention and enters a hospital Emergency Room, the law requires they be provided medical service. She answered the question that Chuck should have asked, which is, “Senator, do you believe that health care is a necessary component of government service for a righteous society?”
Recently, a liberal economist asked the question differently of a Member of Congress. “Is the issue the amount of health care to be provided and who should pay for it?” The Congressman, also an economist, simply replied, “Yes.” A right never requires anyone to pay for someone else’s benefit of exercising a right.
Why?
Because a right goes directly to the connection between an individual and the provider of the right. In the purview of the Founding Fathers, God granted individual rights so that a person, without restriction, could pursue his or her individual talents and desires in their pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers intended that government should not infringe upon the liberty of an individual’s freedom. No government action whatsoever was required to initiate a right, only to facilitate and to protect said right. By this decree and spiritual order, God is sovereign over man and man is sovereign over government. For government to provide a right would be inconsistent with this order of authority.
Atheists, who believe in a mystic Natural Law derived by reason, come to the same conclusion. Rights belong to individuals without the consent of government. How an atheist makes the connection to an inorganic, non-personal eternal or natural law stretches the imagination. That is their struggle, but the operative conclusion is the same.
Our government, in order to protect unalienable rights, established in the Constitution the doctrine of separation of powers. Madison called this the most brilliant concept of the document. Our Supreme Court is charged with maintaining the balance between a right which cannot be infringed upon and a righteous cause which emanates from the collective wisdom of the legislative branch. The structure and spirit of our Constitution ensures, from generation to generation, that no righteous cause will jeopardize anyone’s unalienable rights. This revolutionary concept that all men are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, is God’s will codified, and, in law, our gift to the world.
Freedom and liberty are the basis and the energy of individual initiative for one to pursue his or her God-given talents and dreams. Through these rights, an individual is empowered to pursue his or her own destiny. Families make moral decisions as to cultural identity. Cities are the organization of policy applied. Therefore, an individual is the authority of initiative. The family is the authority of morality. And the city is the authority of political activity. States are a collection of cities. And the United States is a collection of states bound by purpose and principles with the federal government, by and through the U.S. Constitution.
Righteousness is the act of doing the morally right or justifiable thing. A just and righteous society cares for the poor, the infirm, the elderly, the children, the foreigner, and the collective common good. However, each determination of a righteous purpose must be measured in reference to the overall and aggregate perspective of government programs, to include financial stability and protection of individual rights.
God gave us rights so that we could know Him personally through our own initiative. Freedom is the ‘blood’ in our veins that allows us to realize the purpose and gift of life. We have an obligation to love one another. It is righteous to do so. Protecting each other’s unalienable rights is our charge for the generations.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?