Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess.
If I could contain my conservative idealogy in a single, 634-word column, it would read something like Walter Williams’s latest, Bogus Rights. This idea of rights is the foundation of my belief in conservative principles. Williams writes:
The way our Constitution’s framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.
The key phrase is imposes no obligation upon another. I think we all agree with that. In theory. Williams continues:
Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights.
There was a time when people turned to family, the church, or charitable organizations for unmet needs, and many still do. These options were supplemented by massive government intervention during the Great Depression.
New Deal government handouts were more like bailouts designed to stimulate the economy. But this kind of intervention wasn’t yet considered a “right” akin to the freedom to say nasty things about the government without fear of imprisonment or decapitation. People still had a sense of pride.
Sometime in the 60s (and probably before that), attitudes began to change. As blacks struggled to be recognized as first class citizens, the true meaning of freedom stood in stark contrast to government-mandated race discrimination. After legal segregation was dismantled, the government tried to redress wrongs and provide opportunities for those shut out for so long. It was during this time the “right” to be taken care of by the government crystallized.
So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn’t earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.
The so-called right to decent housing is almost comical, isn’t it? I am obligated to help someone move into a house he can’t afford. The incentive to save and earn it yourself goes out the window. I am obligated to contribute toward another’s medication, and if I refuse to pay, I could go to jail. I am obligated to pay some lazy person’s grocery bill. Every time employed individuals pay taxes that go toward social programs, that’s exactly what we’re doing.
Williams points out the absurdity of extending this obligation to actual rights, not artful schemes we create to get something in return for absolutely nothing:
If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.
Williams concludes with his thieves analogy, one he writes and speaks about occasionally. Except for some ranting and raving, we’re pretty complacent about the redistribution of our hard-earned income to people who didn’t earn it. The “right†to other people’s stuff has become generationally entrenched. So has the necessary evil of allowing it to happen.
A great analysis on whether it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991, rather than 2003. Pros and cons of both.
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/saddams_removal.html
How is this related to my post? - Admin
Comment by Tester — 02.08.06 @ 6:52 pm
Not related to your post, but it is certainly a conservative political topic. If you like it and it is of interest to your readers, I just thought I would pass it along.
Comment by Tester — 02.08.06 @ 7:06 pm
Generationally entrenched is right. My peers have known no life before government stepped in to “give” us “freedoms.” Any ideas as to how echo boom generation conservatives might fight incremental creation of new “rights?”
Comment by Jonathan — 02.08.06 @ 7:17 pm
As usual - right on track!
Comment by Pablo — 02.08.06 @ 7:30 pm
There is one question that time and time again has been echoed through the corridors of time.My bible shows me that God had a problem with that question.The question was,”Am I my brother’s keeper?”. As we see today there is great emotion exhibited by people on either side of the aisle.As a born-again Christian I am not surprised.
It is interesting to note that the American constitution has been very good in serving as a foundation for the legal,moral and mechanical workings of our beloved nation. However,the framers didn’t anticipate the coming of the Internet,Cell phones,Issues pertaining to wartime power of the executive,abnormalities in Religious Freedom,Gender Freedom(Abortion),Sex Freedom,Eminent Domain and so many to mention.
Do not get me wrong.I am extremely opposed to wasteful spending.On the other hand,I am very much in support of the statements of our President in the State of the Union Address,in which he warned against the dangers of Isolationism in any form.Isolating ourselves from the fact that we don’t live in an “ideal world” is very dangerous. The Reality on the ground is that there are some people that are not as successful as others and the American constitution will not be our basis for how we deal with such individuals.Amendments existing show that the ideas of the constitution cannot be set in stone.
Let’s face it,every person has a right to choose the course of his life.It is called “Free Moral Will” and even God has respect for this concept.
We do not have the right to show retaliatory actions toward the poor even if they choose to be that way(He/She is Lazy).
In all my life I have not seen somebody become immensely rich and comfortable from begging and being handed stuff.How wonderful is the so called,”Decent Housing” that we are talking about?
They are the most miserable of people and we don’t even need to rub it in.
We all pay tax but can we really say that our tax money has always been used by the nation for causes that are worth the palaver?
Also based on history can we risk the effects of thumbing our noses at the less fortunate?
The government as a model must show compassion but this must be tempered with an attempt to activate the less fortunate to start struggling to keep their heads above the water.
I do not like spending on individuals that have refused to wake up from their lack of motivation but at the same time I really question the motives of the people that follow the trail of gifts,aid,charity,welfare(call it what you may)to the hands of the recipient and monitor the recipients efficiency in using the help. It is really spooky and such people according to the scriptures have received their reward.
I am rather interested in America outsourcing all it’s Technical and Manufacturing Jobs to third world countries and leaving the graduates of this great nation clueless without a job.
Let me finish by saying I have seen a lot of white people on welfare,a lot of black people on welfare,alot of black middle-class people doing well and a lot of white-middle class people doing well.Poverty exist across the world and some of our remedies for this vice reminds me of the question,”Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Comment by Idiongo Udoh — 02.08.06 @ 8:18 pm
Idiongo, I was trying to follow your reasoning; I apologize if I’m misreading you, but here’s my response.
Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that the government is required to take care of the people. Christians are to give charitably and sacrificially, but no citizen, Christian or otherwise, should be coerced by the government to take care of anyone, whether they’re lazy, disabled, or underemployed. Christians give all the time individually and through the church. But that is what we’re required to do because it is Christ-like, not coerced. Supporting other people through government taxation is not “giving” in the biblical sense, nor does it replace Christian charity.
And Christians who live on welfare, not just for a brief time but a lifetime, are living unbiblically.
Calling lazy people lazy and not wanting to pay their bills with my hard-earned money while they watch TV, sit outside and drink beer all day is not retaliatory.
Comment by La Shawn — 02.08.06 @ 8:35 pm
This is an excellent post and a point of view I wish more “conservatives” would lend their attention to.
Regardless of what some would think are liberal feelings on some social issues, I am a constructionist bordering on libertarian when it comes to politics.
Comment by M. Woodward — 02.08.06 @ 8:40 pm
I agree with you completely. I don’t have an obligation to help the homeless or the starving or the sick. But I often find myself ridiculed and discriminated against for saying that. Now that racism has been eliminated I’m afraid that Conservatives are the new black.
Comment by Jon Swift — 02.08.06 @ 9:27 pm
Yes, handouts regarded as “our just due” will destroy our nation in a variety of ways. The loss of the other side of the coin of Liberty may well be the worst loss. No freedom without responsibility is not just a phrase that sounds good but actual truth. We have the freedom to make our own choices, which is good. We do not have the right or ability to decide on the results of our decisions.
We can have law from within ourselves - we do not put our hands in boiling water. We can have law imposed from outside - mom keeps her eyes on us and keeps us from burning our hands. We can have natural law - we put our hands in the boiling water and get the universal result. We will have law. Our choice is which one we want to subject ourselves to.
Hiding the results of our actions only make the results worse when they do show up.
Work, the actual doing of something we perceive to be productive, is a basic need of mankind. Just as we need air to breath, we need the sense of satisfaction of accomplishment. Welfare destroys the ability to work. Even worse, sin destroys the ability to have Joy instead of mere happiness. So far I think I understand and agree with what you are trying to say.
However in a modern society there is a need for welfare. This is said with great regret. If welfare was a uncomfortable thing which was publicly acknowledged as shameful it would be a far better thing than that which we have. We have welfare as a uncomfortable thing which is acknowledged as shameful only within our hearts, that we all pretend is earned and deserved by our mere existence.
We need a safety net. As Christians we are expected to be a part of that net. Pretending that it is a right is what is so self destructive.
Some parts of that net need to be paid jobs. Again that is something said with deep regret. A positive example of my attempt to rationalize this is a second hand story that felt true when read.
The wife of one of my favorite authors at one time was, in effect, one of the teachers of last resort of the city of Los Angeles. Her students came to her with several of paperwork each, proving that these kids were unable to learn. She threw it away and taught the kids to read. It feels true. Desperately hope that it was and is true. That is where I leave this post, with hope.
Comment by Ted Moore — 02.08.06 @ 9:55 pm
Excellent Excellent post. I’ve read and listened to Walter Williams for over 13 years now and think he has too much common sense.
While it’d be nice for us to “tithe” or give to the poor I don’t understand liberals who think government should hamper the economy (thus creating more unemployed) by having the government levy more taxes (higher tax rates) on those who produce in order to give to those who don’t produce. While a safety net for the non-able bodied is fine, what we have is a hammock for all who don’t produce even if they are able-bodied. This essentially hurts non-able bodied people due to the dilution of the safety net with too many other priorities.
Comment by Baklava — 02.08.06 @ 10:05 pm
Sometimes when you discuss your religious beliefs in regards to a topic, you get painted as a Republican, or Dem, depending on how moderate your views are. I sense there is a loss of seperation of Church and State when it comes to politics, or at least it seems its going this way.
Raymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
Comment by Raymond B — 02.08.06 @ 10:10 pm
Excellent post. I needed to read that.
Comment by mary — 02.08.06 @ 10:16 pm
Social programs my ass… Work or don’t eat…
Hunger is a tremendous motivator in this economy…
Help those that truly NEED help, but motivate them to better themselves, not become dependent on a welfare state…
Comment by TexasFred — 02.08.06 @ 10:58 pm
J Swift: I don’t have an obligation to help the homeless or the starving or the sick. But I often find myself ridiculed and discriminated against for saying that. Now that racism has been eliminated I’m afraid that Conservatives are the new black.
Agreed, and in many places like college campuses conservatives are the new ni___ az, but racism has been hardly eliminated. It is very much alive- better disguised and rationalized in many places, but still there. Racism’s classic expression and effects a la segregation have been scaled back much however, from what they were, to the benefit of all Americans. But it has certainly not disappeared. On the flip side, it has mutated into other forms, like a belief in black inferiority by some liberals (I don’t say all)– only rather than burn crosses, liberals proffer numerous ineffective symbolic or patronizing programs.
As for charity, it is commendable that a Christian as a private citizen help the homeless, starving and sick. This is an old Judeo-Christian principle going back to the laws of Moses. Fields for example, were not to be gleaned, so that the poor and unfortunate could access them for food. (Deuteronomy 24:21). In fact, that is one of the great contributions of Christianity to mankind’s benefit- the concern and care shown for others not in one’s kin group or tribe. It was Christians after all, as members of a non-governmental private grouping, that were in the forefront of establishing enduring institutions like orphanages, hospitals and other institutions of mercy, a fact too often conveniently forgotten by assorted atheists and other opponents of Christianity. In the modern era, government programs have pre-empted and removed much of the activity and initiative once carried out by private charity, so the private citizen’s dollar is already carrying out a range of relief services via taxes. Nevertheless, it is a commendable thing to carry out private charity, as long as it is consistent with scriptural teaching, and doesn’t become an end in itself to “prove” how “compassionate” one is.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 02.09.06 @ 12:10 am
Idiongo sez: Let’s face it,every person has a right to choose the course of his life.It is called “Free Moral Will†and even God has respect for this concept. We do not have the right to show retaliatory actions toward the poor even if they choose to be that way(He/She is Lazy).
Nothing in Christianity mandates Christians be everyone’s welfare sugar daddy, particularly lazy people. The question “Am I my brother’s keeper” was uttered by Cain, in relation to his murder of Abel. It’s primary bearing had nothing to do with charity or welfare, it has to do with the guilty evasions of a sinner (Cain). Charity is of course commendable on the part of Christians, but too often this commendation is manipulated to fit into an entitlement mentality. But in fact scripture is very disapproving about undeserved entitlements or “rights”.
The Apostle Paul certainly wasn’t fuzzy in his thinking. As he says clearly in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3, vs 10 (2 Thess 3:10) “For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat..” Likewise he says in 1 Timothy 5: 8, “But if any one does not provide for his own, and specially for those of his house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than the unbeliever.”
It pretty clear that everyone that is able is expected to pull their own weight, and if not, to be really in need of help, and not just looking for any easy payday. Such things are too often forgotten in the haste to link Christianity on with the latest trendy government program out of Washington.
Even the words “am I my brother’s keeper” do not necessarily point to yet another handout. In fact they could very well mean the opposite- a searching question asked of the one who sought assistance as to whether they were in fact “doing for self” as suggested by the Apostle Paul, rather than looking for an easy payday, or demanding assistance as “entitled” to it. In fact scripture condemns those who CHOOSE to be lazy. The words of Paul above are pretty clear, but even the Old Testament books like Proverbs condemn sloth and laziness vigorously, and mince no words about the something-for-nothing “entitlement” mentality.
Example: Prov 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep, and the idle soul shall suffer hunger..”
or see Prov 2:27: “The slothful roasteth not what he took in hunting; but man’s precious substance is to the diligent”
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 02.09.06 @ 12:27 am
Idiongo sez:
There is one question that time and time again has been echoed through the corridors of time.My bible shows me that God had a problem with that question.The question was,â€Am I my brother’s keeper?.”
I can’t see where God had a problem with the question “am I my brother’s keeper.” Cain had the problem, not God. If anything, the testmony of God’s word is pretty clear on the subject as noted above from the New testament writings of the Apostle Paul to the Proverbs of Solomon. But some may say, what about the words of Jesus requiring compassion towards all. His words do indeed suggest that, but compassion towards all doesn’t mean foolishness, and doesn’t necessarily translate into support for more gubment spending. In fact, just how “compassionate” is it for gubment to subsidize out of wedlock births, or mass abortions or multi-generational welfare dependency? It would do well to look at the words of Jesus often quoted by many to justify some activist agenda or another. I concentrate here mostly on liberals since the subject is poverty and “entitlements”, but far right types have also been fond of quoting scripture to support their twisted agendas such as the bogus “curse of Ham” on blacks as justification for segregation.
Sometimes the words of Jesus are twisted into an “endorsement” for unfettered welfare handouts or some other gubment social spending. But it is clear that the words so often referenced are sometimes twisted beyond all context and have nothing to do with the trendy linkages liberals have in mind.
A favorite reference manipulated by liberals is that spoken by Jesus in Matthew 10:42:
—— “And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.”
—— It is clear however that the context of the entire segment is those who follow and sacrifice for the name and work of Jesus, not the latest government program or liberal activist agenda. The words “in the name of a disciple” sets the issue precisely where it should be, the name and work of Jesus, not some gubment program.
—— This is confirmed by a similar verse in Mark 9:41 that speaks again of the cup of water: “For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.”
—— Again, note the words “because ye are Christ”, not because of the latest media appearance by jesse jackson or the latest press release by the National Welfare Rights League.
Another reference oft manipulated by liberals is that spoken by Jesus in Matthew 25: 35-36
“for I hungered, and ye gave me to eat; I thirsted, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was ill, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me.”
—— The context of the segment however is concerned with Ultimate Judgement of the dead at the end of the age, not current welfare activity, and is concerned with those who were faithful to Christ in the present time of his rejection, not people faithful to the platform of some political party’s platform on social spending.
—— The “I” being spoken of is a rejected Christ, which the world has more or less rejected despite much soothing lip service. It has nothing to do with whether the gubment should spend more, or grant new “rights” to use the homeless shelter down the street. Too often the great moral teachings of Christianity are reduced to things that are utterly ludricrous or banal, rather than being taken up in their proper moral or spiritual context.
Furthermore Jesus also laid down the well known parable of the ten talents. Those who labored much, received much reward. Those who kicked back and did little, received little. The primary bearing is moral, but even if you stretch that, again it shows that in Christianity people are expected to pull their own weight as far as it is possible. Fakers and slackers get no reward. The words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 6:4 confirm this: “but let each prove his own work, and then he will have his boast in what belongs to himself alone, and not in what belongs to another. For each shall bear his own burden.
—— The corrupt and debilitating system of multi-generational government dependence many seem to love and invoke as “endorsed” or “required” by Christianity is a total travesty of the moral principle suggested in the scripture.
Comment by Enrique Cardova — 02.09.06 @ 12:56 am
Wow, Enrique needs a pulpit and his own blog…
Comment by TexasFred — 02.09.06 @ 1:00 am
One of the best posts I’ve read here. Well said and a good reminder that I haven’t read enough Walter Williams recently.
Comment by Adam C — 02.09.06 @ 1:36 am
Excellent Job Enrique context means everything Peter said people would treat the scriptures this way.
2 Peter 3:14-16
“Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”
Comment by James Newman — 02.09.06 @ 6:18 am
Interestingly, in my church we just finished a 3-part series on money. If there was one message that came through loud and clear to me is that God owns everything and we are the managers of what He owns and the Bible is full of references to this fact. I hope it is not against the rules that I include a link to these sermons which are on-line and called “Clean Sweep”. They are also condensed in message notes with Biblical references and I believe worthy of reading. Many times in my life I have felt anger for working hard and handing over what I have worked for to people who I didn’t think deserved it via taxes, etc. But, the bottom line is I don’t own what I have. I am managing what God has given me and after hearing the messages in the sermons at my church, I know that I should concentrate the most on managing what He has given me in the best way I can. There are also good, practical examples of how to do that. Here is the reference. LA SHAWN, if I have broken a rule by including this reference, I trust you will delete it.
http://www.westsidefamilychurch.com/worship/audio.htm
Comment by dianne — 02.09.06 @ 9:17 am
Just to put in my two cents…
First of all, all these material things will burn up one day. Like dianne said, we are managers of our money given by God. It’s all God’s anyway. To think we worked hard and did it all on our own is idolatry. God blessed those of us who are successful with a work ethic and skills or whatever to get what we have and to be a blessing to others. We as Christians help those who are lazy, who make the wrong decisions, whoever, whatever and we preach Jesus the whole time. Whether it be with money, clothes, education, we do it.
We definitely dont depend on this “God-hating” government to do it.
I also agree with everything else except that I think in a perfect world, healthcare would not be a for-profit business.
I dont think healthcare is a right, but it should be much more affordable, here in America.
I just think its immoral to have so many who cannot get decent healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. I think its a HUGE problem. Its a combination of poor health habits and skyrocketing healthcare costs.
I dont know the answer on how to achieve this. I wish I did.
Comment by lukeNC — 02.09.06 @ 10:04 am
It may not be in the Constitution, but I do think the government has an obligation to take care of its people and make sure they are provided for in a democracy. And I think voters in a democracy have a right to decent housing, affordable housing, medical care. There are many individuals whom are running countries living fat and rich with their fat rich friends while their people are starving and dying. I don’t vote because I want the right to travel. I vote and love my country because I am trusting in my government to give me the ability to live a basic decent life and that if because of factors beyond my control I am unable to do that to recognize that I have provided also and step in to help me in my time of need.
Having said that I believe the question is whether people who choose to sit on their asses all day,punch out babies and let their baby’s daddy lay up fit into receiving the benefit of the above government obligation. The answer is no.
Remember, not everyone needing affordable decent housing, and I say decent because living in New York I know how building owners prey on the poor, is sucking off the system. My grandmother worked for 40 years and died from a form of MS. When her disease first hit her she couldn’t work, she received food stamps and medical assistance. My mother has worked since she was 12 years old, and after her and my father divorced, not receiving child support, she had to get assistance to make sure that my sister and I could eat and had daycare while she went to work. As a Christian I don’t mind paying dues to make sure that someone that is in a situation where they need medical care and can’t afford it, can get it. Or that someone can get a clean decent space to live. I’ve been on the charity side of it. I feel it is my duty as a Christian to make sure I share my good fortune and blessed life with others. And as a Christian who votes I would hope my government would have the same concern for those in its care and I think based on what this country stands for it should. They can take my taxes. I’ve been paying taxes and I’ve been able to eat, cloth myself, and have a home.
I am also not that person that just assumes every bum on the street is there because he or she is too lazy to work. There are many factors that lead to homelessness. Physical and mental illness, degenerative family situations, etc. You’d be surprise how many homeless people actually go to work every day. There are many factors to lead to poverty.
Having said all that, those that are capable or here illegally don’t have a right to anything. You know, those that are getting their WIC stamps, Has section 8 paying their rent, and drives a Expedition with spinning rims.
That is the problem. Welfarism has turned into Free Moneyism. People don’t see welfare as assistance or a safety net, they see it as they can live however they want an get free money for it.
Comment by Z — 02.09.06 @ 10:41 am
Oh, rats! Health care had to sneak into this. Treating drug addicts is health care. Replacing worn out hearts with one from a formerly living human is health care. Stem-cells and cloning and organ harvesting are health care.
When does the confirmed alcoholic who has worked his way through multiple liver transplants run out of “health care” options?
Health care begins with careful personal commitment to living a healthful lifestyle and maintaining a concerted effort toward preventative medicine.
Health care is the greatest “welfare rights” sinkhole of them all.
Comment by Heliotrope — 02.09.06 @ 10:55 am
Long-time reader, first-time commenter. Well said, La Shawn, and thanks for drawing our attention to Williams’s piece.
Comment by Bob — 02.09.06 @ 11:11 am
>>I dont think healthcare is a right, but it should be much more affordable, here in America.>>
It was - before the government got involved. It has also become a problem since modern technology has permitted medical “miracles”. What limits on care should we possibly consider? We - as a society - need to come to grips with death. In this category, there are no easy answers.
>>I do think the government has an obligation to take care of its people and make sure they are provided for in a democracy. And I think voters in a democracy have a right to decent housing, affordable housing, medical care.>>
The government _produces _nothing_. Therefore, it owns _nothing_ with which to take care of “its” people. In fact, that statement alone is indicative of a false mindset - the people do not belong to the government, the government is established by and for the people. In other words, the government belongs to the people, not vice versa. In order for the government to “take care of ‘its’ people” it has to take from other people - which is the point of the original post. It therefore has the power to take from one group in order to give to another group. It’s a form of legal theft, and additionally, “steals” morality from the people. It is moral and Christian to give to the poor. There is no morality, no virtue and no Christianity in having money taken by force even if it is used to good purpose. No free will, no choice, no morality.
Comment by suek — 02.09.06 @ 12:20 pm
Dr. Williams is always on point, and always has his facts lined up. That’s why he irritates liberals so greatly.
The “right” to so-called “health care” is not a right at all, largely because it calls for the picking of my pocket to fund it. This was Dr. Williams point. It’s wealth redistribution, nothing more. If we can learn to call it what it is, perhaps the discussion can be carried on honestly.
Comment by RedBeard — 02.09.06 @ 12:26 pm
The notion that if you work hard enough you can have a decent house is simply a fantasy for millions of Americans who work hard at full time jobs every week. No one is saying they should have a great or better house, just a decent house that keeps out the cold and elements. Unfortunately, many American workers cannot afford basic housing that keeps out the cold and elements. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is all I can say. Your either with Jesus or your against him, right?
Comment by Crazyliberal — 02.09.06 @ 12:33 pm
The leading causes of death in this country, one being heart disease, are almost 100% preventable. Diabetes is skyrocketing in this country. The type that is preventable with a healthy diet and exercise. Of course, the insurance companies are going to pass on the expense to the people they insure, people who don’t take care of themselves. And then we complain about the cost of health care! It’s not pc to talk about. When you hear people talk about healthcare, especially politicians, no one wants to mention how physically out of shape we are in this country and how much that contributes to the cost of healthcare. I know it’s not the only reason, but it sure is a main one. For most people, if you take good care of yourself (eat a healthy diet, exercise daily, etc.), you will not need medication or to see a doctor very often. I personally know so many people that would rather go on cholesterol lowering drugs than exercise. People then turn around and complain about the cost of drugs and how much money the drug companies are making. I know that certain medications are necessary for people to live, but nowadays everyone wants a quick fix to everything. My mother-in-law was just commenting to me the other day that everytime she goes to the doctor, he’s pushing another pill on her. My mother-in-law is 67, looks 57, and is the picture of health. She exercises daily and is thin.
For me this all boils down to choice. People make choices everyday that influence their quality of life. For many people, if those choices are bad (drug abuse, out-of-wedlock birth, smoking, over eating, etc.), they want the government to make it all better for them by using tax payer money to pay for their bad choices. This is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind.
Comment by Sharon — 02.09.06 @ 1:20 pm
Could not have said it better Sharon
Comment by Renee — 02.09.06 @ 1:38 pm
Excellent post LaShawn. I’m a big fan of Walter Williams. I’d like see a post from you on the comment you made to J. Swift on racism,
“…but racism has been hardly eliminated. It is very much alive- better disguised and rationalized in many places, but still there.” I think this is something that needs to be aired out more often.
Comment by Ron Stephens — 02.09.06 @ 1:41 pm
>>The leading causes of death in this country, one being heart disease, are almost 100% preventable.>>
So…. you’re saying death is an option?
Comment by suek — 02.09.06 @ 1:43 pm
Everyone is supposed to have equal OPPORTUNITY. That is very different from everyone ending up with an equal share. Yes, there are some people who are unable to help themselves through no fault of their own, but IMO, many people that get public assistance don’t have to be if they would even extend even the slightest effort to do for themselves. There are jobs to be found (or why else do we have so many illegal immigrants coming to this country), but some people think they are too good for those jobs. If I were unemployed with no one to help me (and I don’t mean the government), I would take any job I could to start getting back on my feet. It comes down to personal responsibility. Everyone makes choices, and we have to deal with the consequences, good or bad, of the choices we make. Government handout to people who repeatedly make poor choices don’t really help anyone in the long run.
Comment by Lisa — 02.09.06 @ 2:52 pm
Mr William’s thesis as I understand it is: “So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn’t earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.”
However, there are several rights guaranteed under the Constitution that impose a financial (tax) obligation on Americans to ensure other Americans rights.
The 7th Amendment guarantees the Right to Trial by Jury. Some tax payer has to pay for that. Have any of us “earned” a right to trial by jury? Does anyone complain that their tax dollars go towards funding Court costs?
The 15th and 19th Amendments respectively, guarantee minorities and women the right to vote and grant Congress legislative power to enforce these rights. Some tax payer has to pay for that enforcement (i.e. your taxes pay for agencies that protect these rights). Has anyone “earned” their right to vote? Has anyone “earned” the right to have their vote protected?
We all have a right to a Legislature (Senate/House). Have any of us “earned” that right? Our tax dollars pay for the Legislature, yet no one complains of their right to something they earned being curtailed by other American’s right to Legislature.
In short, using your tax dollars to pay for someone else’s rights is not contrary to the Constitution.
Now whether the rights of an individual to medical care are enumareted in the Constitution is another question. Oftentimes people argue that they have rights that are not found in the Constitution or in any interpretation of the Constitution. But that idea is separate from what Mr. Williams is articulating.
We have to pay for other’s rights all the time. Get over it.
Comment by Hull — 02.09.06 @ 3:17 pm
“It comes down to personal responsibility. Everyone makes choices, and we have to deal with the consequences, good or bad, of the choices we make.”
Exactly right. My sister is a good example of dealing with the consequences of a bad choice. She got pregnant at the age of 24 and the father refused to marry her. They had been dating for 2 years at that point. My sister raised her son on her own and never once did she ask for help from the government. She cuts hair for a living so it was sometimes very hard for her. She also stubbornly hid from her family how dire her situation was at times. She raised one heck of a son, who we are all very proud of. He graduated with more honors and awards then any other student at his high school. She took a bad choice, sex outside of marriage, and made good out of it. First she gave her child life when she could have aborted it and had the government pay for that abortion. Second, she worked hard to give her son the best life she could with the limited means that she had by making sure that he got a good education all without expecting anything from the government.
All of this does not mean that I don’t believe in a safety net. There are people in this country, who through no fault of their own, need help. It’s just that we have too many who look at the government as their daddy and that’s wrong.
Another bogus right that people think they have that just drives me crazy is the “right” to be offended. Not a day goes by that I don’t hear some outrageous story about how someone was offended by this or that. I can’t believe how hypersensitive people have become. Be offended if you want but don’t make a federal case over it! It’s even more outrageous that people actually bend over backwards to try not to offend the hypersensitive of the world. I’m offended that you’re offended and on and on and on.
Comment by Sharon — 02.09.06 @ 3:58 pm
#30 suek asks: “So…. you’re saying death is an option?”
Personally, I have no concept of a “death optional” life. I am closing in on the last chapter, so if there is a sign up counter somewhere for bypassing the inevitable, I guess I need directions to it.
Comment by Heliotrope — 02.09.06 @ 4:08 pm
With all due respect to Dr Williams, he fails to acknowledge the impact that 400 years of oppression may have had on a population’s ability to gain and create wealth. Even though we have these social safety nets many hard working American’s remain trapped in a cycle of poverty. While I agree the transfer of wealth is not a right, it is our moral obligation as the riches nation in the world to take care of our own. Why do we send Billions to nations that thousands of miles away however we will step over a home less person on the street without even thinking twice about his circumstances. As an African American I find that most offensive.
Comment by B Gad — 02.09.06 @ 4:12 pm
>> As an African American I find that most offensive.>>
Why “as an African American”? Why not as just “As an American”
African American home ownership is at an all time high - that says to me that Blacks are moving into the middle class.
>>…as the riches nation in the world to take care of our own>>
Who are only our own, I’d like to point out, as the result of “400 years of oppression”.
I’d also like to point out that you imply that those 400 years of oppression are the sole cause of the “homeless person on the street” (as if all homeless persons were black). How would your present situation differ had your ancestors not been removed from their native land (Do not assume I justify slavery in any way - it was and is morally unacceptable, although it still exists in many countries today.)
In other words, I think you’re playing the race card…
Comment by suek — 02.09.06 @ 4:25 pm
>>Personally, I have no concept of a “death optional†life. I am closing in on the last chapter, so if there is a sign up counter somewhere for bypassing the inevitable, I guess I need directions to it.>>
Yeah - me too. I hope the sign up includes an new body though - this one’s showing the wear and tear of time!
Comment by suek — 02.09.06 @ 4:28 pm
“Why do we send Billions to nations that thousands of miles away however we will step over a home less person on the street without even thinking twice about his circumstances.”
Because it’s like Oprah has said on the issue of poverty in this country versus others and I’m paraphrasing: At least in this country you have hope, a chance. She had a child who was stuck in a third world country in the most extreme poverty tell her on her show that she would rather be poor in the United States. The poor in this country are rich in many ways compared to the poor in third world countries. Once you travel to a third world country and see what it’s like to be poor there, you have a different perspective on poverty in the United States.
In third world countries there is no hope. At least if you are homeless in one of our large cities, you have shelters and soup kitchens and caring people who show up with mobile medical centers and food and blankets. You also have organizations and churches who are willing to try to help you pull yourself out of your situation in anyway that they can. Now contrast that with a third world country like Ethiopia. Imagine what it’s like to be poor there.
And I know people find this hard to believe, but some homeless people are homeless by choice. A social worker in my county said that they try to help the ones who want to be helped, but some are homeless by choice.
I believe we do need to do more to help people who want to be helped. I consider it our Christian duty.
Comment by Sharon — 02.09.06 @ 5:07 pm
I’ll take the 400 years of American oppression to the way we treat each other in Africa for the past 400 years anyday (it always amazes me that we cry rights, rights rights, yet in Africa we have no such thing still and I don’t see us running back in gross numbers either…matter of fact…everyone is coming here for the “American Dream”)
Comment by Renee — 02.09.06 @ 5:45 pm
Food, shelter, and clothes should be considered civilization benefits. And we should live in a civilization which can offer every person such benefits — thru a volunteer National Service Corps.
With a 10pm nightly curfew, no drinking alcohol in the barracks. Up at 7am — go to work. The Service Corps will always have some work: picking up garbage/ doing maintenance/ building houses…
A middle class American life is an achievable dream for those willing to work a bit for it — benefits have costs, and people enjoying benefits have responsibilities.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 02.09.06 @ 6:03 pm
May not have expressed it as well as I hoped in #9. We do not have a “right” to welfare. Our society has a need for a safety net. A hand up rather than a hand out. Post by Tom Gray (#41) is a reasonable attempt. Alternative is figuring out what to do with the dead bodies. The Nazi party wanted the weak to go to the wall.
400 years of oppression? Think the universe is fair? The universe does not care about you or me. It was designed to be indifferent to us. Past injustice is past, deal with todays oppressions, one of which is the manufacture of rights as an election ploy. Done by individuals who are aware of the damage they are doing to Dame Liberty. Desire to cry a pox on both their houses, but as adults we sometimes need to learn to make a choice between unpleasant alternatives.
Am against abortion. Recognize I have no inherent right to tell others what to do. Believe Ros vs Wade was an improper decision. But when reading the constitution I gain the sense of a right to privacy. Do not believe it to be a “manufactured” right at all.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thanks for such a penetrating idea of how to get so many to comment without rancor.
Comment by Ted Moore — 02.09.06 @ 8:03 pm
OK, I’ll admit I didn’t read all of this post, but I think I got the main point. Yeah, we may not be “obligated” for anything, but the fat cats that have all the money do, we do need affordable housing and affordable medications. Heck, LaShawn,you know what the price for s starter home is around here.
Comment by musiclover — 02.09.06 @ 9:46 pm
#43 re: “the fat cats that have all the money”.
I know you realize that if the fat cats had ALL the money, that would leave none for you and me.
Poverty of spirit is far worse than poverty of pocket.
The most pitiful soul is one with poverty of pocket who wastes valuable energy by feeding off a poverty of spirit.
Only you can prevent your own poverty. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing him to make counter-productive choices.
This is from one who has been there and is never going back.
Comment by Heliotrope — 02.09.06 @ 10:12 pm
Jesse and Frank James thought the “fat cats” had all the money, and decided they wanted to take it. The difference between the James boys and liberals is that the James boys had enough honesty to use guns.
Comment by RedBeard — 02.10.06 @ 5:27 am
I think the point of the 400 years of oppression is that here in the US it has retarded one group of people’s ability to function and compete on the same level as others. And in the past 20 years or so ( and I say 20 because the 80’s just about took black folks back 200 years) we have been playing catch-up.
It is easy for someone who has their own unique situation to tell someone else, who has their own unique situation, that if they work hard enough they can live the American Dream. In order for there to be rich people and middle class people, there are going to be poor people, and people that live in downright poverty. We live in a capitalist country. There are people who work hard and still can’t afford the decent basic necessities of life in a civilized society. Yes, a homeless person can go to a shelter, but homeless shelters may have pretty tiles on the floor and 10 dollar paintings on the walls but they are riddled with criminals, mentally insane individuals, drug addicts, sexual predators, and thieves. And many people are scared to be boxed in with those type of people. Think of the SuperDome after Katrina.
Blanket statements seem insensitive and a little bit naive to me.
As for the government and rights, lets look at gay marriage. Being gay is not a crime nor is it a hostile threat to the physical safety of Americans, yet folks are rallying for the government and have voted for a president who they think will block the ability for gay people to get civil marriages on the basis of Morality. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the marriage bond as deemed by God. Civil marriage is a government institution that we all must enter in to receive government recognized marital benefits. This include medical,physical, and financial benefits. So why deny these people a government marriage? None of which has to do with God or Christianity. In my eyes, people want the government to reflect their religious morality and Christians want to uphold the moral code of Christianity, here. However, as a Christian, I believe that should also apply to taking care of the sick, poor, unsheltered and disabled. To me, as a Christian, this is a right for everyone, and my government should reflect it as a right.
Sorry, but being taken care of is not a right biblically or otherwise. Christians are required to give privately, but Christians are not being unbiblical for not wanting to give through government. It is
Comment by Z — 02.10.06 @ 10:42 am
>>The difference between the James boys and liberals is that the James boys had enough honesty to use guns.>>
Ouch!
Comment by suek — 02.10.06 @ 12:52 pm
uh….Heliotrope…
how can one always make the right choices to prevent poverty?
Poverty can happen to anyone.
You can choose avenues and execute on them to get out of poverty. But you never know when you could be poverty-stricken. You could be wealthy one day and dead broke the next.
And I’m only talking about here in America where the opportunity to get out of poverty abounds.
Comment by lukeNC — 02.10.06 @ 12:55 pm
It’s been said in several ways in the comments to date, but I think two points still need clarification. First, yes I am my BROTHERS keeper, and those I chose to call brothers. You can’t legislate that, period. If you make the American people responsible for raising all Americans in poverty, why not all Britains, of French, or anybody? Secondly, though we don’t have the RIGHT to health care, some consideration must be made for absolute emergencies. A hospital, or emergency care center, can’t wait for one spouse or parent to find the insurance card while the victim lays bleeding to death. That one is a bit harder to figure out, but needs a bit of thought before we wholesale lop off all of these so called rights.
Comment by Brad — 02.10.06 @ 1:39 pm
> conservative idealogy
LaShawn, that’s not really conservative, but libertarian. It just coincides with True Conservative principles somewhat (as opposed to Modern Conservatives, who think that anywhere right of the Democrats is conservative enough).
Comment by OhBloodyHell — 02.10.06 @ 1:57 pm
>>So why deny these people a government marriage?>>
Because it isn’t a marriage?
>>Civil marriage is a government institution that we all must enter in to receive government recognized marital benefits. This include medical,physical, and financial benefits>>
Doesn’t it seem unfair that somebody has to find somebody else in order to qualify for these benefits? Maybe the benefits should be available to _everybody_. Why should the government discriminate against single people?
Comment by suek — 02.10.06 @ 6:49 pm
The problem with concern over 400 years of oppression, or twenty years of oppression is that it takes our focus away from the here and now. Poverty takes form in many ways. A person from a thousand years ago would think todays poor were wealthy indeed. Does that mean we have no poverty? Of course not. If our income were doubled would that eliminate poverty. Of course not. If we took all of the money of that 1% of fat cats living high on the hog would it eliminate poverty. Not at all. There are physical levels that need to be met to take someone out of poverty but it cannot be done with money alone. Not just what is refereed to as poverty of spirit, but thankfulness is needed.
If we do not know what we have, we are poor. I am wealthy I just do not have a lot of money. Would taking something that belonged to someone else make me wealthy. not at all. We cannot be wealthy without counting our blessings. If we do not know how much we have we will always be concerned with those who have more.
All of my children are alive. (4 daughters) wealth indeed.
Comment by Ted Moore — 02.12.06 @ 2:40 pm
Great conversation going on. Kudos to Enrique, Redbeard, Helio, Sharon, suek et al.
Me? Nothing to add. Ya’ll got it covered, bummer
Comment by Andy — 02.12.06 @ 8:29 pm
Great post Lashawn and Thank you very much for your insight. I also liked the insight of Cardova.
In the final analysis, I think that the concept of welfare will be hard to eradicate but we must review it based on generations of people that have lived in poverty and refused to do anything about it. (Post Katrina situation in New Orleans).
Thank you.
Comment by Idiongo Udoh — 02.13.06 @ 9:04 pm
Regarding Christian giving, every time I read a survey by the Barna Institute, it points out that Christians are not tithing. In general, the giving is at about 2% rather than 10%. It doesn’t seem to me like many Christians are all that concerned about the widow and the orphan.
Comment by Delwyn Campbell — 02.14.06 @ 10:28 pm