We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
During the presidential debate Tuesday night, Barack Obama was asked if he thought health care was a “right.”He said he thought it was a right. Well, if you accept that premise, I think you can ask some logical follow-up questions:Food is more important than health care. You die pretty quickly without food. Do we have a “right” to food in America? What about shelter? Do we have a “right” to housing? And if we do have a right to housing, what standard of housing do we have a right to? And if it is a right, due to all Americans, wouldn’t that mean that no one should have to accept any housing, or health care, which is inferior to anyone else’s… since it’s a right? Do we have a right to be safe? Do we have a right to be comfortable? Do we have a right to wide-screen televisions? Where does this end?
Read the whole thing. This is a point we have all made many times on Maggie's Farm. American rights are the rights of freedom from the government. There are no rights "for" anything. Whenever the government provides something, it diminishes the rights and autonomy of somebody else because government produces nothing - no products and no wealth and no money and no capital. Only citizens do that. That's the problem: rights without responsibilities are are snare and a delusion.
Related to the above, it's time to repeat our earlier notion that the markets are anticipating an Obama victory, thus driving more money - and especially foreign money - from our markets. In support of that idea, Insty found this graph:
Obama slipped in a jab at McCain's proposal for portable Health Insurance. BO is against being able to shop across state lines. Of course insurance in a state with fewer mandated benefits would be cheaper than one with more. Those mandated benefits, along with the associated fleet of lawyers, analysts, and IT programmers contribute greatly to the price of health insurance.
If anyone really wanted to lower health insurance costs, they would move to a single regulating body instead of 50 state Department of Insurances. And, they would resist the temptation to mandate all kinds of "preventative" medicine into a basic health policy.
In re Bill Whittle's essay: All this confusion about "rights" to such things as health care, nice houses, and other expensive things that the clueless and the jobless and the illegal aliens desire began when some evil government person decided to designate "benefits" as "entitlements." Think about it. Words have power.
Excellent point, Marianne. As to rights in general, having a right means that someone, somewhere, has to give it to you if you haven't got it. I have a right to vote - my town has to give that to me, and they're in trouble if they don't.
Assistant Village Idiot
Marianne is absolutely correct.
There is some dispute about the old saw:
I love the NRO, God Rest WFB, but we are dealing with enemies that do not argue in good faith.