One of the favorite stupid tricks of leftists is to assert the existence of imaginary "rights" ... which generally seem to cash-out as the assertion of ownership of other people's cash. Which is to say, the non-existent "rights" that leftists assert are really assertions of ownership of other people; for to claim ownership-by-right to the fruit of another man's labor just is to assert ownership of the man himself. In case you're still not getting it, this means *you* -- when leftists assert these non-existent "rights", they are generally asserting that they, as the self-designated spokesmen for some collective or other, own you, as an individual (*).
This is an easy way to tell that an assertion of some novel right is bullocks -- if the asserted novel right denigrates someone else's actually existing rights, then there is no such right. Consider, for example, the so-called "woman's right to choose", which is to say, the assertion that a woman has the right to procure an abortion for any reason or no reason at any point in her pregnancy. There are a number of actual rights denegrated by this non-right; the major one being, of course, the right of the pre-born child to not be murdered.
(*) Among other things, this claim of ownership of other people in the name of some collective is one way that you can tell that the so-called "alt-right" advocated by the remarkably dishonest 'Vox Day' is really just another flavor of leftism. His "alt-right" is an "alternative" to the right because it is not rightist.
===============================
So, let us consider Victor Reppert's recent leftism-based attempts to claim having a "right" to "free" health care and/or health insurance. See here for background, including why it is that he is no longer merely a "liberal", as we misuse that term in America, but has graduated to open support of leftism. Understand, I am not saying that he has graduated to the ranks of the puppet-masters; no, he is still as much (in Lenin's memorable phrase) the "useful idiot" as ever, dancing as the string-jerks dictate. But he has stopped objecting to the strings because ... "free" shit!
As I said before, as best I can tell, the following is his response to what I wrote at the above link --
Here is the problem. Not even conservatives want to say that people should be able to keep all they earn. Money for defense in necessary. It it taken from people in exactly the same way that money for Medicare or socialized medicine is taken, through taxation.Taking is Taking, Part I
The military protects me from ISIS. Medicine protects me from cancer. No conservative ever complains about a socialized military. They all complain about socialized medicine. Why? Protection is protection.
First, note that the "problem" of the first two sentences doesn't even exist; it has been invented by conflating unlike things, namely, limited-and-specific taxation of everyone so as to fund a necessary common/public good, on the one hand, and unlimited-and-nonspecific taxation of *some* (politically disfavored) persons so as to redistribute the monies to other (politically favored) private parties, on the other hand.
Protecting is Protecting, Part I
I could *swear* that I had already dealt with this "protection from ISIS" ploy in my previous post ... along with noting that Mr Reppert's leftist puppet-masters work overtime to make that particular governmental duty, along with "protection from criminals", more difficult for the various appropriate levels of government to acheive.
Note, not only are "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" governmental duties, and not only are these actions two instances or aspects of the same duty of government, but this duty is the primary duty of government. And the primary duty of government (*) -- the duty that legitimizes a government (**) -- is not some vague all-purpose "protection" of those it rules, but rather that it enact justice on their behalf, so that they don't have to enact vengence, which begets vendetta.
It is unjust for ISIS to maim or murder Mr Reppert. It is unjust for Joe Schmoe to rob or maim or murder Mr Reppert. AND, it is unjust for Mr Reppert to assert that *he* is owed any of the wealth already owned or newly-created by Joe Schmoe.
But, notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are societal goods; they do not accrue to any particular individual, but to all of us, corporately. Even imprisoning the specific criminal who bopped Mr Reppert is not about "protecting" Mr Reppert specifically; it is about justice-in-society. If it "protects" Mr Reppert, well and fine, for he, too, is a member of the society ruled by this government.
Notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are directed against identifiable actors or agents, not against vague non-entities such as "terrorism" or "cancer".
(*) Leftists *hate* justice; this is why they work over-time to increase injustice in the world, whether by coddling criminals and encouraging crime, whether by crippling the military and encouraging foreign or terrorist attacks, or whether by teaching the people to assert ownership of their fellow subjects.
(**) A government that cannot -- or *will not* -- deliver justice for those it rules is illegitimate, and will not long endure.
Protecting is Protecting, Part II
As mentioned above, the primary duty of legitimate government is to enact justice on behalf of the people it rules; or, to put it another way, the primary duty of legitimate government is to exact vengence and retribution against those who unjustly use its subjects.
It is impossible for any government to "protect" is subjects, that is, to always prevent injustices against them before the injustice occurs. Even a police state cannot do that ... and none of us (except the lefties) want to live in a police state in any event. Hence, since direct "protection" of its subjects is impossible, we have no choice but to settle for after-the-fact indirect "protection" via the exacting of vengence and retribution against the evil-doers.
Taking is Taking, Part II
I trust Gentle Reader recalls the infamous and anti-Constitutional Kelo decision, in which the "liberal" members of the US supreme Court turned the Constitution's "takings clause" on its head, so as to justify governmental confiscation of one person's property for the purpose of giving it to another person.
The very same "principle" animates Mr Reppert's demand that monies be confiscated from you and me and given to him (whether directly or indirectly via subsidies).
It is a perennial sin of mankind to attempt to live off the sweat of another man's brow -- and it is a perennial sin of leftists to stand that statement on its head as they attempt to paint their covetous envy with the colors of righteousness, and thereby "justify" their own desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow.
Slavery is slavery ... even when you vote on it and call it "fairness".
Rights vs "Rights"
[to be continued]
So, why is your fist still in my pocket?
