Saturday, July 3, 2010

If Mitch Greenlick Can Be This Wrong On Rights, What Else Is He Wrong About?

Political positions in state government can have far reaching implications. Amongst statists, it is their well entrenched idea that the safety and well being among the nameless people of the state are best guaranteed by an intrusive state presence and its regulatory powers. That is how you get people like Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, whose background is in health system organizations, finding his way onto the chairmanship of the House Health Care Committee.

We recently noted Dr. Greenlick declaring:
"Rights come from wrongs"

Rights come from wrongs? Is he being flip here or does he actually believe this is an insightful comment? He followed that with his healthcare idea for the state of Oregon:
"it is the obligation of the state to ensure that every legal resident of Oregon has access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Dr. Greenlick is confusing rights with wishes. As Dr. Walter E. Williams points out
"True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another."

If Dr. Greenlick needs medical care, the onus is on himself to arrange for payment of those services. To use the power of the state to force his fellow citizens to pay for his care is for him to enslave those very same citizens. Dr. Williams continues:
"To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes."

Would Dr. Greenlick consider slavery a right? Professor Williams does not:
"Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation."

The state's funds are derived from the purses of the people. To claim that the state has an obligation to pay for someone's food or car or medical care is to put a claim on the funds of the people of the state, people that have worked for and earned the funds that Dr. Greenlick would claim by fiat.

This then is not an act of charity, it is an act of theft.

No comments:

Post a Comment