Misconceptions on What Constitutes a 'Right'

In my last column on The Liberty Sphere I wrote about the principle of expansion of rights inherent in the 'originalist' or 'strict constructionism' method of Constitutional interpretation.

This brings us to the question of what, exactly, constitutes a 'right' as designated in the U.S. Constitution.

The question is of extreme importance, for it is clear that in modern society there are common misconceptions as to what constitutes a right.

Ask some of the neighbors in a 'planned community' what constitutes a right, and some may well tell you that they have the right to limit how many trees you can plant on your own property. In some inner-city communities, some may well state that they have the right to tell their neighbors they cannot possess a firearm due to the fact that they must feel 'safe.' Still others may state that they have a right to healthcare through the federal government, funded by taxpayers.

Each of these is an example of a gross misconception as to what constitutes a right.

Yet there is no small number of American politicians, who should know better, who are known to say the very same things. John Edwards, for example, when asked what he thought were the most important basic human rights, failed to mention a single issue delineated in The Bill of Rights but instead insisted that every single human being has a right to healthcare, to Internet access, and to American citizenship, among other such ridiculous and dangerous notions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have said similar things. So have Senators Obama, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry.

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'

You do not have the right to tell me that I cannot own a handgun simply because it may give you the willies to think of your neighbors being armed. For you to be able to do such a thing deprives ME of my liberty.

You do not have an automatic right to healthcare or healthcare insurance. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare in any emergency room in the nation, and through various and sundry other services provided to those who lack insurance or the means to pay for their care.

But to claim you have a 'right' to healthcare means that you are depriving someone else of their liberty. They must pay your bill if you cannot afford it. Taxes must be raised on the masses to cover the fact that the care you receive will not be paid for by you.

A society or nation may well decide through its elected officials or through a public vote that it wishes to pay for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured. But this is NOT a basic human right. To take something from someone else in order that you might have something you would not normally have does not constitute a 'right.'

When the electorate, politicians, and governments decide that taxpayer-funded freebies constitute rights, they are immediately engaging in double-speak. It is practically and rationally impossible to secure a right by infringing on the rights of others. The one automatically negates the other.

Thus, for the nation to implement socialized medicine that puts everyone on a waiting list that may well mean death to those who are very ill, is not securing a 'right' but imposing tyranny. Such a plan will cost you and me plenty in terms of money, swift and timely care, and the right to make medical decisions solely between patients and their doctors.

It is vital, therefore, that we not allow liberal politicians to scam us into believing these things are inherent 'rights.' A right doesn't cost anyone anything. The only cost incurred is to the individual who must take responsibility for the exercising of those rights and the willingness to pay the price to keep them.