Rights Not Looting

There is talk lately of "a right to health care" and "a right to a good job". In the town I live in, there is a conversation about "a right to affordable housing."

There is an interesting and vital distinction that I think people miss. The "rights" that were declared in this country from the beginning were natural and the didn't take anything from anyone else; except if those others wanted to oppress and control others. Freedom of speech is natural. Being able to say what you want to say to whomever you want to say it is the natural drift and it does not cost anyone anything "real" (you can not like what someone says, but that doesn't cost you anything but annoyance). Freedom of the press... same thing. Freedom of religion... obviously the natural thing is for people to worshop, or not worship depending on what their own heart tells them. It doesn't cost anyone else anything. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do not extract a cost from others.

This new form of "rights" that people are now claiming actually cost others. Something must be taken from another ("looted" from what is rightfully theirs).

Examples:
"The right to health care" sounds good. Health is "natural". However, in order to supply the health care that would be everyone's "right", something must be extracted from others. Either doctors have to give their services away, with no thought to the effort it took for them to attain the skills and knowledge that they have and what the value of that skill and knowledge is. Or, taxes must be extracted from other people to pay for the health care of those who have a "right" to it, but cannot pay for it themselves. Or, hospitals and clinics have to give away care at an operating loss. Or, all three. What is the result? Would the best and brightest want to be doctors? (NO... and you can't get away with denegrating them for wanting to choose to make a good living over altruism) Hospitals and clinics will close. And, taking something rightfully earned from one person and giving it to another who hasn't earned it or performed a service for it is theft (looting).

"Right to a good job" This has to be taken from an employer, by telling an employer that they have to hire someone regardless of that employer's need for a particular person, that person's qualification for the job, or the employee's performance. Or, it is taken from the tax payers if the "right" is fulfilled by creating government jobs. In any case, there is no onus on the employee to prove their worth. They become a leech, sucking the lifeblood out of the employer, or, in the case of the unnecessary government workers, from all other productive earners. And, the employee who is working because it is their "right" to have a job, who doesn't have any incentive to work hard, brings down the morale and level of effort of other employees, something that can destroy the work ethic of a nation, and certainly can bring down a company.

"Right to affordable housing" (usually associated with having inexpensive housing in the midst of a desireable, and, hence, high priced area). This generally means artificially lowering the value of adjacent properties, which costs the property owners. It reduces the value of the property owned by whoever is forced to build "affordable" housing rather than building whatever the market could bear. If the housing is subsidized, it money is tranferred from one group of people (taxpayers) to another.

Etcetera...

Do you see the difference? It costs you nothing (meaning nothing real, though it may make you deal with your own thoughts and feelings) for me to have free speech. It costs you nothing (nothing real, though you may be disappointed in the result) for me to have a vote... even if I was a woman, or my ancesters were from Africa. But, if I don't have a job and you have a business, and you're forced to hire me, whether you've got my wages budgeted or not, whether I do a good job or not, it DOES cost you. And wait until I take you to court because I have a right to a "good job" and you're not paying me enough. You ain't seen nothin' yet!

We need to watch these "rights" arguments and see if they impose a real cost, a cost to body or property, on others. When someone claims a "right" that imposes a cost on another, warning flags should go up!

Help Us Ayn Rand!

Want to read a scary book? Don't read anything by Stephen King. Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Then read the news. Read this article by Pejman Yousefzadeh. Then read this article by John Hinderaker of Powerline. Alright... keep going... read this article on the inheritance tax at Ankle Biting Pundits.

OK... if you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", read it. It's a long, and very good, book. The story is great, and its ability to make one think is outstanding. However, for the moment, if you haven't read the book, what you need to understand about it is that it is a vision of what would happen to the world if "progressive" thinking ruled the day. It's written from the point of view of the most productive, highest acheivers in the society, and what happens to them, and to society in general, when the "looters" gain control. More and more is taken from the most productive in society and given to the least productive, and the most productive people are not thanked or even acknowledged for the extra burden they are willing and able to bear for the benefit of their fellows. Instead they are denigrated and declared to be evil for having acheived so much (unsaid: "more than they deserved"-- despite the fact that it was their effort and creativity that resulted in the achievement). The government became corrupt as it convinced people that it alone knew what was in the public interest and convinced people that they were helpless. An elite few controlled the country, and, as the elite few are good at producing fancy theories, but not so good at creating products, or running companies, or adapting to the chaos that is the marketplace, everything fell apart. Sorta like socialism.

What I found extremely powerful was the brutal honesty of calling the people "looters" who kept stripping money and ownership and opportunity to expand away from the successful people. And how one of the requirements for doing it was to make people believe that there was something wrong with achievement, so the achievers deserved to be looted. Including convincing the acheivers themselves that they don't deserve what they've earned (how often do you hear someone who has acheived something great say, "I was very fortunate...", rather than, "Yeah, I worked my ass off for it!") When is the last time you heard a business person acclaimed for his or her achievement?

For example, Bill Gates is acclaimed, not for the jobs he's created, the entire industry he's contributed to enormously, to the way the world has literally changed in very convenient and productive ways due in large measure to his efforts, but when he gives his money away. This is as it should be, IF what was said was, "Mr. Gates has earned every penny he has and deserves it for his effort, his creativity, his vision, and his ability to shape reality with his mind and his effort. And, incidentally, he has chosen to give some of what he has earned and has every right to possess and to celebrate owning, to others. May it inspire someone to his level of acheivement!" Instead, what is said or thought is more like, "He's kind of a dweeb who got lucky, and his company is this evil monopoly, so to assuage his guilt and the self-loathing he has earned, he has given huge amounts of money away. No doubt he realizes he doesn't deserve it."

People had a "right" to a job and a good living, whether they were productive or not. In fact, it is the fact that they are in need that somehow makes them worthy and right. Those who achieve, or are productive have an obligation to provide for those of less talent, ability, or productivity. What happened? Showing ability and talent meant only that you were to become a slave of those who had no talent or ability, who weren't productive, but still had needs. Obviously, being needy was a more favorable position than working hard for no payoff.

The parallels between "Atlas Shrugged" and today's "progressive" agenda are more frieghtening than anything Stephan King ever wrote. We need as many people as possible to read it and understand.