Snickers: A Basic Human Right

[chefdennis]

Good read.....well except for the "entitlement" mentality group here......

Snickers: A Basic Human Right

Monday, 28 September 2009 16:50
LarkenRose.com

Most people don't think in distinct, specific concepts. They
"think" (if it can be called that) in vague blobs of mush. They
can't follow simple trains of logic, and have a complete lack of
what I call "clarity of thought." For example, my wife just showed
me an online poll, asking people whether they thought "healthcare"
should be considered a "basic human right." What a fine example of
meaningless mush.

Most people answered "yes," no doubt feeling very compassionate for
having done so. Trouble is, none of those "compassionate" people
have any idea what a "human right" is. They haven't bothered to
THINK about it, because merely FEELING good is enough for them. Had
they THOUGHT about it, they might have realized how stupid the
question is.

What most people probably interpreted the question to mean is
something like this: "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the
healthcare they needed?" Well, duh, of course it would. But that
wasn't the question. The question is whether the thing called
"healthcare" is a basic "human right"--whatever that is. The
implication is that if someone doesn't get the healthcare they
need, someone's "rights" are being violated.

Let's consider the following question: Are Snickers (the candy bar)
a basic human right? If so, everyone who lived prior to 1930 (when
Snickers came into being) must have had their human rights
violated. Poor them. Furthermore, it would also mean that every
time someone craves a Snickers, but doesn't get one, his "human
rights" are also apparently being violated. (By whom, I'm not
really sure; the Snickers-makers, I guess.)

Think that example is silly? Yes, it is, but no more silly than
asking if healthcare is a "basic human right." If you hit a deer
with your car, out on a country road at night, and careen into a
ditch, there's a good chance that you'll be wanting some
healthcare. So WHO, exactly, would be violating your "basic human
right" to such healthcare when you don't get any? (Try suing the
deer.) And who has an obligation to supply you with the alleged
"basic human right" of healthcare, when no one even knows you're in
need of any?

Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious, but you can't violate
someone's "rights" unless you DO something to them. If you torture
them, rob them, assault them, or murder them, you may very well be
violating their "rights." In other words, a "right" is a purely
NEGATIVE concept: something that should NOT be forcibly interfered
with by anyone else. "Rights" aren't a bunch of goodies that
someone has to provide for you; they're the things that no one
should STOP you from doing yourself. For example:

1) If you have a right to "freedom of religion," it means only that
no one should forcibly prevent you from practicing the religion of
your choice, or force you to practice a religion you don't want to.
It does NOT mean that anyone has to make you a church, or listen to
you pray, or pray with you.

2) If you have a right to "freedom of speech," it means only that
no one should forcibly stop you from speaking your mind. It doesn't
mean anyone has to give you a stage, a microphone, or an audience.

3) If you have a right to be free from unreasonable searches, or
from being forced to testify against yourself, or from being
imprisoned without a trial, or from being tortured--and the list
could go on for ages--all it means is that no one should use force
to STOP you from exercising your individual liberty.

So what would it even MEAN to say that "healthcare" is a "basic
human right"? It means nothing, and makes no sense. A "right"
cannot be something positive; it cannot be some THING that someone
else should be FORCED to give you, like a house, or a job, or
healthcare. To have such a "right" would require that someone else
be FORCED to serve you. Unless you think you have the right to
enslave others, you can't possibly have the "right" to any service
or any product. You have the right to be left alone, and that's
all. ALL true rights boil down to that.

The trouble is, collectivists like to hijack and mangle the concept
of "rights," in order to justify the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE--the
exact opposite of what a "right" really is. For example, when
people try to pass off "healthcare" as a "human right," they are
advocating the use of state VIOLENCE (via "taxes") to FORCE some
people to serve other people. For example, socialists like Obama
are pushing a system in which the government can forcibly rob some
people, and/or forcibly conscript doctors and nurses, to give out
healthcare to other people. They are advocating nothing less than
widespread government violence, under the euphemism of "from each
according to his ability, to each according to his need." (Sound
familiar?) And they have the audacity to talk about it in terms of
"rights." And the American people are so clueless they actually buy
it.

(Apparently the old world slave-masters just needed better PR guys.
Had they managed to pass off "affordable cotton clothing" as a
"basic human right," they might still have those slave plantations.)

Unfortunately, having been thoroughly indoctrinated for years, most
Americans not only believe, but PROUDLY believe, that no one has a
right to keep what he himself produces, but that everyone has a
"right" to what his NEIGHBOR produces. And it's hard to get any
more economically idiotic, morally schizophrenic, and logically
insane than that.

- ------------------------------------