The_Peacemakers_1868
(L,R) Generals Sherman and Grant, President Lincoln, and Admiral Porter. Linked attribution.

by baldilocks

Originally posted on December 10, 2009.

While hanging out yesterday at Ace’s yesterday [sic; December 9, 2009] as he was flogging racists, I happened to mention that many if not most black Americans view the federal government as beneficial and friendly.  Some other commenters were surprised and I was surprised at their surprise, because it isn’t difficult to figure out why this is.  Whether it’s the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that is what it was supposed to do.

The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs.  Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You’ll get an earful about her “rights”.)

And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.

What’s needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education–not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.

Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People–even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one’s needs is not government’s role.  That’s God’s purview.

We all remember President Obama’s statement containing the assertion that one of the flaws of the US Constitution was that is only contained a  list of “negative rights,” meaning negative government “rights.”  The idea that a Harvard-trained lawyer thinks that the government has rights or that there was no list of positive responsibilities assigned to government was mockable.  (Hey, you voted for him.)

But what the statement betrayed was a widespread misconception present in those of us who aren’t lawyers of any variety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man’s liberty and to redistribute wealth (aka stealing).  The notion that the founders “forgot” to address this is hilarious.

So when the Democrats came to full power [in 2009], they began to build on the foundation that Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson laid.  The good news?  Between Socialized Medicine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the federal government’s active role in overstepping its bounds–in crippling America–is opening the eyes of Americans of all races.  The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

When the cat’s away, the mice will play.  While Da TechGuy is in Maine with DaWife, I’m running amok on his blog.

In one of my ConConCon posts, a commenter stated that there was a “de facto right to health care” because of the requirement that emergency rooms treat patients.  Now, our intrepid commenter should learn the distinction between de facto and de jure rights, as well as to understand that EMLATA only applies to hospitals which accept funding from Health and Human Services, and only to those who are in the throes of a medical emergency, or women in active labour.  It’s quite a jump from there to free doctor’s visits, liver transplants, contraception, transsexual reassignment surgery, chiropractic work, or prescriptions.

My response to this nonsense about the “right to” something is the same as it has always been: giving people the affirmative, positive right to something means that someone else has to provide that right or face the wrath of the government, via the seizure of his property or freedom.  The reason that the Bill of Rights starts with “Congress shall make no law” (emphasis mine) is that the fundamental basis of our rights is the right to be left alone.

The so-called “right to health care”, as envisioned by the Left, is a “right” which requires physicians to provide their services at the price mandated by other people – physicians who worked themselves to the bone throughout high school, college, medical school, and residency, with piles of student loan debt, who are then told that other people have a “right” to their services.  To put this nonsense into lefty-speak, that’s like saying that someone has a “right” to take Elizabeth Warren’s class, even if that person is a hick from the South who isn’t qualified to be admitted into Harvard.  Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that the Brady Bill peeps have to buy guns for any redneck schmuck who can’t afford his own.

The negative right to health care – i.e. the right to seek health care without the interference of the government – is no small matter.  In Bahrain, physicians who treated injuries brought by police officers onto protestors have been sentenced to years in jail:

The official Bahrain News Agency reported that eight people it identified as doctors who worked at a central hospital in the capital, Manama, received 15-year sentences. Other medical personnel at the Salmaniya Medical Complex, Bahrain’s largest public hospital, were given terms of between 5 and 15 years.

That, my friends, is why we have a negative right to health care: the right to seek health care without the government arresting our physicians.  It does not mean that we get to commandeer the services of a doctor, or do so indirectly by taking over a hospital.  When a government gives its citizens the “right to health care”, they are removing the negative rights of physicians to provide health care on their own terms, the negative rights of everyone else to not have to support a stranger without being thrown into prison, and it ignores the reality that our great country was founded upon negative rights.  The sleight-of-hand makes it easier to erode all of our negative rights, including the right to access health care without the government nosing into your business.