Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: 2008
Bob Krumm live-blogged tonight’s debate. This part stands out:
McCain’s “Maybe” response to a yes or no question was very good. He explained why yes was wrong and so was no. Very effectively. He was the one who came across with good foreign policy nuance.
Nuanced, maybe, but fundamentally flawed for any voter who doesn’t believe Ronald Reagan launched the Cold War by referring to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” The Cold War began about four decades before President Reagan made the comment in 1983.
That’s as stupid as his idea to have the feds buy the junk mortgages he criticized in the next breath, or his failure to reconcile his vote for the pork-laden bailout bill when discussing corrupt Washington spending, or his naming of BRCK BM supporter Warren Buffet as a possible Treasury Secretary.
Still, none of these are as blatantly stupid as classifying health care as a “right.” Nothing can be a right that must be taken by force from somebody else. BRCK BM also lied saying President Bush told people to go shopping, lied about American income (again), couldn’t name a single program he would cut (again), and refused to identify anything he doesn’t know.
At least on that last question, McCain knocked it out of the park. McCain said what he didn’t know was the future, and that we need a steady, experienced hand to guide the country through the rocky and uncertain terrain ahead. Without question, McCain outperforms BRCK BM on that count. Unfortunately, mavericks aren’t known for having steady hands, either.
UPDATE: While looking for a test for my “right” definition above, I realized that the “right to counsel” in the Sixth Amendment can be (and is) interpreted as requiring appointed representation when a defendant cannot afford his own, and thus would be a right “taken by force” from somebody else, in this case an attorney. This is a right that seems to have evolved over time, beginning in the 1930s, to the point where it is now represented in the Miranda warning. But at least it can be traced back to the Constitution. Can the same be said of health care?
October 7th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I learned four things from tonight’s debate: http://www.neilchilson.com/?p=130
October 8th, 2008 at 6:45 am
“Nothing can be a right that must be taken by force from somebody else.”
That almost makes sense, but I think I’m missing something. If a person is imprisoned unlawfully by, let’s say, a terrorist, would they not be in a position to take their right of movement by force from someone else?
Please elaborate on what you mean by that statement.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I appreciate the question, and you inviting me to revise and elaborate. I would say on your scenario that the right at issue is personal freedom, which on the outset doesn’t require taking anything by force. The terrorist has abridged that right unlawfully (the terrorist had no right to take another person’s freedom by force) and would thus prompt the person’s forceful response — but the person would be reclaiming his own freedom, not taking it from the terrorist. Of course, the person could also forfeit his right to personal freedom by violating the rights of somebody else, and the court would then imprison him lawfully, or similar consequences.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
By your definition, anything the government does is wrong because it is financed by tax dollars taken forcefully.
The United States is about the only major industrialized nation that doesn’t believe its citizens have a right to basic health care.
(At the same time, it seems to believe Wall Street has a right to be bailed out for its own greedy mistakes.)
October 8th, 2008 at 8:56 am
“Anything the government does” is a right?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:06 am
That aside, We the People give our representative government the authority to defend and secure our rights, and thus the authority to define those rights and determine how to ensure them for all citizens. To support that effort, we provide its funding. The government can then of course abuse that authority granted by the people, but that doesn’t make every action of the government an abridgment of the people’s rights. Much less make government action a “right.”
October 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
You probably don’t believe every citizen should have a right to a k-12 education, either.
Parse. On. That.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I see Bob 5540 has joined the liberal committee to re-write history for political gain. Iraq/Saddam was the opening act and now it’s being used for the credit meltdown.
Rather fitting–Saturday Night Live just edited out Barney Frank’s role in this mess when they reposted their skit from this past Saturday (the one with Pelosi and Soros) but all the jabs at Bush remain in place. Typical jive from the party of 2 year olds who never do anything wrong.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Defining what constitutes a “right” is separate from determining what benefits and services the federal government should provide its citizens, no matter how strong an emotional appeal you can conjure.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Every English-speaking person who didn’t sleep through their right to an education understood perfectly well what Obama meant by a right to healthcare. You did, too. But reasonable discussion of public policy initiatives is not your schtick. Your schtick is to parse statements into a logical pretzels and then use the pretzels to make a straw man arguments. Okay, that’s cool. There really ought to be a blog or two for every conceivable topic and interest. You’ve got the parse2pretzel-blogger angle covered.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Bob, the candidates were asked to classify health care as a “a privilege, a right, or a responsibility.” I’m objecting to his classification and explaining why; that’s not parsing, pretzels or straw man argumentation.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
You are on the wrong side of history. Backward thinking. Loser.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Bob, what I think I hear you saying is that what’s important is that the federal government provide health care services (and others), not what term we use to explain it. And, further, than I’m being too technical by responding to the terminology rather than the issue as a whole.
But the question was technical and specifically focused on terminology. The candidates’ choices were important because they revealed an important aspect of their ideological foundation. And that’s exactly why Tom Brokaw chose it.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I thought it would have been interesting to tie the pending Medicare crisis and the health care question (privilege, right, or responsibility) together.
The reality is that there won’t be enough wage earners to support the benefits and current obligations of the Medicare programs for the baby boomers.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
As a teacher and a student of history, it is my belief after long reflection, that education is indeed a privilege, not a right. As to it being an individual’s responsibility for his/her own person, not applicable. We certainly are too young to make a reasoned choice at the time education is most effective. A responsibility to provide the opportunity for our offspring? Certainly. A responsibility to provide that same opportunity for your offspring? Debatable. A good idea both pragmatically and morally, but possibly not my responsibility nor even my duty.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The previous comment should have been directed to Bob5540.
The comment should have ended with the comment that health care falls within the same parameters. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not imply all will be healthy, without confinements, and free of woes.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
A couple quibbles:
>>that the federal government provide health care services (and others),<<
No, that government find the ways and means to ensure that a basic level of health care is available to everyone.
1. Not necessarily “Federal” (after all, it’s the states that prvide education). Federal may be in the best position to take the leadership, but that isn’t my hard-and-fast presumption.
And not necessariy provide the service. Some countries do that, yes, but that’s not a requirement. A single-payor system like Medicare, works for me.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Wow… this turned into an interesting conversation. I hope I’m not too late.
If “nothing can be a right that must be taken by force from somebody else,” then does it not follow that I am not entitled thank a soldier for my freedom? For the last six years, I’ve been reminded repeatedly by the right that I have the military to thank for my liberty. If freedom is an innate right unencumbered by the use of force, then why have a government at all? What exactly is the purpose of republican government (small r) if not to preserve individual liberty?
I distinctly remember being told in my high school history class that our freedoms as Americans were won at the price of blood. I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I really want to understand what you mean by this. It sounds good, but I’m not sure if I can reconcile it with everything else I’ve heard from your side of the fence. Are you drawing a distinction between existential liberty and what might be called supreme or sovereign liberty?
October 9th, 2008 at 5:28 am
You’re certainly entitled to thank a soldier for securing and defending your freedom, but no, the soldier didn’t give you your freedom — that came from the Creator. No use of force got you the freedoms you enjoy and the rights you claim, but force is often needed to protect, defend and secure these rights. That’s why we “have a government at all,” as in comment #6 above.