HEALTH CARE AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN

All quotes below come from the Catholic Encyclopedia and can be found at New Advent.org.

"Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something."

"Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own."

Do we have a right to the labor of a doctor or a nurse? And, if we have a right to their labor, how does this differ from slavery? For the slave owner the use of another's labor to satisfy the owners needs was morally acceptable. Isn't this exactly the position the government is taking in the health care debate?

The difference is that the government isn't as honest as the slave holder. The slaves were well aware of their condition for it was not hidden from them. They were forced to labor for their owner and their owner benefited directly from their work. In the health care bill being offered to the American people the slaves are not the health care workers directly, because they will be paid for their services, albeit not at the level they are accustomed to. No, the slaves are the citizens. We are being forced to hand over the fruit of our labor to the government from which point it will be redistributed to whomever the government deems most fit.

Does the government have a right to our labor, and do we have an obligation to supply it? How does this differ from slavery?

"Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner."

"The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members."

"From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects."

Without government man cannot achieve his goals. The question is, how much government do we need? In America, at the national level, the answer to this can be found in the Constitution, Section 1, Article 8. The eighteen clearly defined rights and obligations of our federal government does exactly what the quote from above suggests; it creates a framework for its own support. It defines the levels beyond which the government may or may not interfere in the freedoms of its citizens. These are powers proper and necessary to a government.

In America we believe, just as the quote above states, "...the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State...". The founders understood that the power of the state comes from God through the people, setting an order of authority that the federal government has since turned on its head. "...To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members." Notice that it is the state that possesses the duties while it is the citizens that posses the rights. Our government, in the instance of health care and many other things, has begun to acquire unto itself rights that it can never lawfully or morally posses. Rights, like the government, belong to the people, not the other way around. The government has no legal or moral authority to demand from its citizens anything more than is necessary to support its own existence. The government does not require healthcare to survive.

"...and the attainment of its objects." Is healthcare a lawful object of government? Only if the people demand it. Our government is a government of the people and by the people. We brought it into existence and it is designed, by God and the founders, to serve us and further our good. If we reject an action of the government it has the moral responsibility to cease that action. The people have rejected the current health care proposal by margins of up to 70%. For the government to continue to attempt to pass this against the will of the people is obscene and unjust.

"On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or, more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights, whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own."

"...If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others..."

The free use of his own; his labor. If one is forced to labor at the direction of others he is not free to fulfill his destiny. Whether it be the citizen forced to pay for the health care of others or the health care worker forced to accept a reduced wage for his labor, the control of health care by the government directly violates the rights of man as established by God. It is a form of control and a restriction of the exercise of our rights to our own labor, contrary to the true obligation of government to protect our rights.

We are supposed to receive back from government services equal to what we put in. "...Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services..." The tax code as it is currently designed will take from those that have and give to those that do not. The poor will receive services far beyond their level of investment while the rich will pay for services they never receive. This is the difference between distributive justice as taught by the Church and the redistributive justice embraced by the current administration.

Charity is the obligation of all but it must be an act of free will. Redistribution of wealth is not charity; it is slavery.

"Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.

While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc."

The government has the power and the authority to enforce our rights against those that would take them. This power, however, should not be construed, in and of itself, as giving the government rights it does not posses.

The American government has and is exceeding its lawful authority and demanding from us, through coercive powers, a negation of our true and natural rights. This overstepping of its authority brings into question its very right to exist. The governments rights come from the people and cannot exceed the rights of the people, for they cannot give to the government something they do not posses themselves. "...Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner..." If we have not given the government the right to our labor it cannot take it. If it does it is a thief and deserves to be treated as such.

America is at a crossroads. The immediate future will determine whether we continue to exist as a free country, a government of the people and by the people, or whether we become a despotic state, slaves to our own freely elected masters.

We are in the process of reaping what we have sown.