Monday, October 26, 2009

Does the Government Have the Right to Play Robin Hood?

On Facebook today I saw some comments that I just had to respond to. This guy, Thomas, was idealistically preaching the essential right of health care for all via the government, and even went so far as to invite us to "rejoice already!" that we're finally going to get this panacea that will cure obesity, all ill health, increase productivity and make a shining city on a hill out of all of America once again. Okay, he didn't quite put it that way, but ...well, maybe not those words but that was definitely his picture. I just had to respond. This is just too critical a fallacy to ignore.

First, there is no correlation between obesity and a lack of health care or insurance! And there is no sudden miracle cure for obesity that's going to occur because we now have that golden ticket of all golden tickets to paradise - ObamaCare!!!  Hallelujah! Let all the Church bells ring!


And then I went on to paraphrase and then quote Cleon Skousen. If you haven't read The Five Thousand Year Leap you are missing out on one of the most powerful books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers I have ever come across. And it's even an easy read!

So here was my response to Thomas the Utopian:

@ Thomas - Sorry, but safety most definitely does not include being "safe from medical bankruptcy, safe from breach of contract when medical insurance companies decide to cut you off when you get sick, or being able to seek affordable medical insurance" (with a few edits). The proper role of gov't is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. It's that simple.

 The Founders understood what people, especially the Liberals and so-called Progressives, these days don't get anymore -- the people cannot delegate to their gov't the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves. For example, in that spirit of benevolence you are feeling for your fellow Americans, do you have the right to give your neighbor's second car to the guy across the street because his was totaled? Of course not. You'd be arrested for car theft. However, the 2-car neighbor could generously donate the car to his friend on his own, but that is his decision and not your prerogative.

Does it make it any more legit for you to go to your President and your Congressional Representatives and lobby for your neighbor in need and get them to pass a law that forces your 2-car neighbor to hand over his 'extra' car to the gov't for them to then hand it to the guy with none?

It doesn't. No amount of compassion changes the natural law that the prosperous neighbor is entitled to protection of his property. If the gov't steps in and in the name of compassion changes the law that takes away one man's rights in order to play Robin Hood, "the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is now the 'law') he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property." (Skousen, _The 5000 Year Leap_ p 88)

"The...Founders recognized that the moment the gov't is authorized to start leveling the material possessions of the rich in order to have an 'equal distribution...', the gov't thereafter has the power to deprive any of the people of their 'equal' rights to enjoy their lives, liberties, and property." (Ibid)

There is no reasonable, logical argument with that. Natural law is what the Constitution is based on - our natural, inalienable rights. We cannot afford to let the current administration overrun the Constitution and our God-given rights. This tyranny has to stop or this nation as we know it will perish.

Here's the link to the article that generated the comments, and the comments. I'm sure the conversation will continue.

No comments:

Post a Comment