Whenever someone uses the term “slavery,” you can almost hear Lefties’ heads exploding–they get so apopaleptic. Immediately, they go into a frenzy, break open their Alinsky manuals, and attempt to ridicule the person making the point.
An example of this occurred just yesterday, when Sen. Rand Paul [R-KY] stated that those who believe that health care is a “right” believe in slavery. Yep. He used the dreaded ‘S’ word and, predictably, the whacky Left went bonkers.
Of course, his comments come on the heels of Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-VT] introducing a bill in the Senate for socialized medicine.
The fact of the matter is, and regardless how the Left wants to insipidly spin it, Rand Paul’s right. It is not an abstraction. It is the full realization of the principle the Left espouses when they claim there is a “right” to someone else’s labor.
Here is what Paul stated:
“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me,” Paul said recently in a Senate subcommittee hearing.
“It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses,” Paul said, adding that there is “an implied use of force.”
“If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be,” Paul said.
In hearing Paul’s argument, it is pretty clear that his definition of rights is that of individual rights, not collective rights, as defined here:
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
When Rand Paul speaks of the Left’s use of the term “right” to healthcare, he is speaking about a concept where one man (or society) has the “right” to demand the labor of another. It is a collectivist argument and Paul is right to frame it as such, regardless of whether people cringe over his usage of the “S” word.
Paul is not alone in his beliefs either, as illustrated here:
The true nature of rights — the type of rights the Founding Fathers believed in — involved the right of people to pursue such things as health care, education, clothing, and food and that government cannot legitimately interfere with their ability to do so.
Thus, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as described in the Declaration of Independence, doesn’t mean that someone else is forced to provide you with the means to sustain or improve your life. It means that government cannot enact laws, rules, or regulations that interfere with or infringe upon your right to pursue such things.
There is no difference whether the collectivist is demanding his “right” to health care, a job, a house, or high speed internet–all of these are “rights,” according to today’s Left.
Ironically, for all the Left’s recent clamoring over the “right” of government workers to collectively bargain, they apparently do not see the hypocrisy in their demanding an entire profession to be under the yoke of governmental control.
Unfortunately, today, we have a society where it has become acceptable for the Left to demand as its “right” the labors of an individual* without well-deserved repudiation. However, that does not make it right.
Rand Paul is right. Health care is not a “right.”
HT: Erick Brockway
_________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Jeff Emanuel
Exactly right.
marshmom (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 7:25AM EDT (link)Nobody in their right mind would spend HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars, 8-12 years in school, and countless hours away from their family to become a physician just to be told they won’t be paid for their services.
As with anything in life, you get what you pay for. If you don’t want to pay a physician to help you, you’re not going to get quality care. Bottom line.
Maybe doctors should join a union. Then they’d get paid a “fair wage” according to the government. Ha!
Excellent point....
actuarius (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 9:52AM EDT (link)All the important sub-specialties have to train even longer (15-20 years). Who would put up with that many years of grueling hours, indescribable pressure, crushing debt, and little to no pay unless the potential rewards were significant?
If PPACA constrains how physicians work and what they make, we’ll see a huge deficit in the number of physicians, especially specialists. Those who are already trained will cut back or otherwise limit exposure to HHS by retiring, going part-time, leaving the US, etc. And those who are best qualified to be physicians, will do something else.
De-fund, repeal, and replace the abomination that is ObamaCare.
This is absolutely true
peg_c (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 8:21AM EDT (link)Socialized medicine equals the slavery of doctors, nevermind what it means for the rest of us. As Ed Driscoll says, there’s a reason why his first name is Rand.
Government cannot be the solution when government is the problem.
We need more gutsy senators like Rand Paul
tea42 Friday, May 13th at 9:34AM EDT (link)The president who brought back racism has trained the media and his union cronies well. If we can elect Herman Cain President and replace the senators running in next election with gutsy people like Rand Paul we will end this socialist agenda. Now that’s Hope and Change I can believe in
No Cain
whiskey_sierra Friday, May 13th at 9:44AM EDT (link)>If we can elect Herman Cain
Sorry. No. I don’t care what Fox News is trying to push using their corrupt democrat pollster after the debate.
CAIN = bad. pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, opposes audit of Federal Reserve(and was former Fed Reserve board member), he endorsed big-government Romney, endorsed big-government Bush
Watch this to learn about the real Cain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFfhoRWXGQ
I would LOVE to have a first black republican president, and the first woman president but it does not mean we should just pick another big government republican to do it.
Video is a joke
tea42 Friday, May 13th at 9:55AM EDT (link)Who made this video, David Axelrod? It has the signature of BO all over it.
Video said he kissed GWB ass. Given the change between the present and the former, I’ll take GWB anytime while you side with the delusions of Dreams of my Father..
Thank you for enlightening me about Cain, WS. nt
20jan2013 (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:18AM EDT (link)http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
Since when is wanting to audit the Fed anything other than a Ron Paul fever dream? [nt]
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:25AM EDT (link)——

Caveat Suffragator
not senator
swi2522 Friday, May 13th at 2:06PM EDT (link)how about rand for president
i would actually understand what his position is on everything since he is a person of principal and his beliefs are not based on an opinion poll
Robbing seems better
whiskey_sierra Friday, May 13th at 9:37AM EDT (link)Frankly I always equated it to robbing more than slavery.
If someone says they have a “right” to something I produce then that means they think they have a right to take from me the product of my own body, mind and hard work. I guess that is sort of slavery, but frankly its stupid to use that word because of the social stigma in the US.
Just call them what they are: ROBBERS.
I like calling it robbery better too
sandbun (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:12AM EDT (link)Slaves didn’t choose to become slaves and didn’t have the ability to leave slavery, which is where Rand’s analogy fails. I get where he’s coming from, but he still has a choice in becoming a doctor which didn’t exist with slavery.
So, whiskey and sandbun.. you have a way to opt out of Obamacare?
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:30AM EDT (link)If not, then it’s not robbery to any kid born after 2012 or so…
Mew
——

Caveat Suffragator
Doctors didn't choose
gpclaw Friday, May 13th at 10:52AM EDT (link)Yes, a person currently practicing medicine made the choice to become a doctor, but they did not choose to become a subject of the state.
You are correct to infer that a doctor can escape subjugation by the state, by no longer practicing medicine, but this is a false choice, because it puts a person in a position to make the choice between earning a living, and submitting to the whims of the government.
No. Slavery is the right term.
quill67 (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 11:06AM EDT (link)When someone robs you, they simply take some of your property. Taxes to transfer wealth to another person is robbery.
Now let’s consider slavery. There were two types of payment by plantation owners to their slaves. The first is the one we consider “pay”. today; plantation owners would pay cash bonuses to slaves for meeting production quotas. This cash could be used to purchase anything the slave wished and from anyone he chose. The second type of “pay” slaves received was the food, housing, medical care, and clothing provided by the slave owners. This “pay” could only be used for what the slaveowner decided. The slave did not get to choose from whom to purchase their food, the quality of their housing, or the quality of their care. No. The slave got “paid” but only in ways and by means that the slave owner decided. That is, the slave could not decide to give up some food for better housing, or give up some housing for better clothes. How about giving up some food to get a better education for his kids–no educating slaves was not allowed.
In short the slave was a slave not because he was not “paid” but because he was not free to work for whom he wanted, charge what fee for his labor that he thought was acceptable, and because he was not free to spend his “pay” as he chose.
Fast forward to the health bill. This bill dictates what a doctor can charge for his services not just to the government but to anyone. Kinda sounds like slavery to me. This bill limits my choices as a consumer. I might wish to purchase better quality care but I’m not allowed. That makes consumers of health care a slave as well. Some will argue “yes but the doctor can still work in other fields, he does not have to be a doctor” While this is obviously true, the government has directed his labor in the way they choose not in how he wanted. Suppose a slave owner gave his slaves the choice of how they would work for him: picking cotton, plowing fields, or working as a servant. Would that make them any less of a slave?
Anytime, the government limits our choices as consumers or as workers, that is making us more and more of a slave. At least when they tax us, we get to choose how this will impact our lives, but when they dictate our pay or what we can buy….No this is slavery.
I'm not sure that robbery is a perfect term
sandbun (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 11:58AM EDT (link)but I still feel it’s closer than slavery.
“Suppose a slave owner gave his slaves the choice of how they would work for him: picking cotton, plowing fields, or working as a servant. Would that make them any less of a slave? ”
No, that wouldn’t. However being able to choose not to work for that slave owner at all would.
Also I’m referring to ObamaCare turning doctors into slaves which is what Rand Paul was discussing, not the consumer side of thinking of it. I wasn’t considering whether slavery was the appropriate term for those required to buy a certain product. Your analogy there seemed to make more sense, but I’d like to think more on it before commenting further.
The term you want, sandbun, is "serfdom".
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 12:40PM EDT (link)Something you’re born into, in which a government owns the fruit of your labor, and are willing to share some of them with you.
The government doesn’t *technically* own you… but they’ve got a he.. of a lot of control over your life…
Mew
——

Caveat Suffragator
That's closer
sandbun (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 12:50PM EDT (link)Although I still have a problem with the “born into” aspect of it (again talking from the doctors side). This is more of a Monopodom – where there’s a government sanctioned monopoly on a business by them and if you want to work for in that profession you have to work for them at the pay they decide.
That’s right, Monopodom. I’m officially at the point where I’m making up words now. Maybe I’m just getting to the point where I’m being too particular about terms. But in my defense being a software developer trying to lock down a requirements doc will do that to you.
Are you only looking at the Doctor side, sandbun?
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 1:23PM EDT (link)They’re vastly outnumbered by Patients, so .. seems to this cat any accurate spec would define the Patient first, then define the Doctor as a subset.
Oh, and keep in mind that if Doctors suddenly can’t pay off their massive student loans, carry expensive malpractivce insurance, and enjoy a relatively nice lifestyle, we will no longer attract the best and brightest into the field… we will create fewer Doctor objects… thus lowering the standard of care for the Patients.
My guess would be the creation (or, since they already exist, the improvement) of “medical resorts” in Mexico and the various Caribbean nations where those who can afford it will go for faster and better diagnostics and treatments. Maybe not where you go for an ingrown toenail, but if you have a strange mole and your government doctor says it’s nothing… fly down and get a second opinion.
Mew
——

Caveat Suffragator
I said that I was
sandbun (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 6:51PM EDT (link)I’m doing that because it’s the direction that Rand took, and it was his comments that lead to this post.
Completely and totally agree about the issues that will pop up if doctors don’t receive fair compensation for their work. Just randomly being very particular about the word use. Like I hinted at above, recently wasted some time at work because what I was told to do in a project requirement doc wasn’t really what they wanted done, so I’m being particular today about stuff like that.
I'm going to have to agree with quill67 on this one:
rickbull Friday, May 13th at 11:11PM EDT (link)Slavery is the correct term. And to clear up the issue: slavery is no more a “social stigma” in the U.S. than in any other country on the planet. Every country and every race on this Earth have engaged in the enslavement of others at some time in their history. The Saudis are slave owners to this day. The Egyptians and the Germans enslaved Jews (among others). The Romans, then later the Brits, pretty much enslaved the people of every country they added to their empires. Every tribe in Africa enslaved members of other tribes, and bought and sold them. Where do you think WE bought OUR slaves 300 years ago? The slave traders who brought them to our country didn’t hunt them down and capture them–they bought them from one African tribe who had captured them from another tribe. This idea that slavery is America’s “dirty little secret” that we should be hush-hush about is ludicrous. It’s EVERYBODY’S dirty little secret! Let’s put away the “political correctness” and be honest. We did what every other society has done. Then we grew up and realized it was wrong. And I’ll get off my soapbox now. Sorry about the threadjack. Carry on . . .
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
It's s subtle difference.
Charles Cianfrocca (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:25AM EDT (link)Maybe the distinction comes down to what they do if you decline to produce the product they want to steal.
“Get your hand out of my pocket. Ain’t nothin’ there that belongs to you.”
- Sonny Boy Williamson
How does one opt out of being born, Charles? [nt]
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:43AM EDT (link)——

Caveat Suffragator
Hey - it wasn't ME that argued...
Charles Cianfrocca (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 10:55AM EDT (link)…that it was not slavery. I was just trying to work my way through the argument that it was robbery instead. Using the example of the doctor whose work product is being stolen, I don’t see it as different from the big strong slave whose labor in the field is being stolen.
If there is a distinction in anyone’s mind (and I personally don’t see it) it is probably that the big guy would be whipped until he submitted if he refused to work. Mr. Paul already addressed that distinction in his comments, though, with the language about breaking down his door.
MY opinion is that, whether you chose the profession yourself, or just happened to be physically capable of it, working for someone else’s gain against your will is nothing less than real, no-fooling slavery.
“Get your hand out of my pocket. Ain’t nothin’ there that belongs to you.”
- Sonny Boy Williamson
My apologies
gpclaw Friday, May 13th at 11:17AM EDT (link)It looks like I plagiarized you comment title, further down thread.
To your point, robbery is the theft of a persons possessions, slavery is the theft of a persons labor.
Not if the individual mandate is upheld
gpclaw Friday, May 13th at 11:58AM EDT (link)then congress can regulate any inactivity that has a substantial economic effect,
Let’s say enough doctors choose to leave the profession, because they no longer want to be subjected to the regulations under ObamaCare, leading to a doctor shortage. This would push up the cost of health care, not to mention the economic cost from lost labor, as people wait to get medical treatment.
The “inactivity” of doctors, who have chosen to leave the profession, has led to a “substantial economic effect”, which could lead to congress passing legislation regulating their choice to practice medicine.
No, the analogy doesn't fail
ozarksscribe Friday, May 13th at 10:46AM EDT (link)Suppose nobody chooses to be a doctor. Is health care still a right? A state committed to that proposition would have no choice but to enslave someone to become a doctor, or nurse, or pharmacist, or any other health care provider.
I, for one, don’t think liberty minded folks should weasel out of using “charged” words like slavery when they are the best way to focus people’s attention on our argument. At least we won’t be ignored, which is what the statists would like to be able to do.
Subtle difference
gpclaw Friday, May 13th at 11:12AM EDT (link)Freedom of speech, and freedom of the press both exist as rights. These freedoms do not give you the right to use your local newspaper, or radio station, to express your thoughts, with out compensation.
A right only guarantees protection from a person, organization or government, who would deny your participation in an activity through the use of force. A persons “right” to health care should only mean that a person can not be prevented from voluntarily entering into the insurance market with a willing partner.
ObamaCare violates a persons “right’ to health care, because it denies an individual from choosing what form of health insurance, if any, a person can purchase. If you decide to purchase an insurance policy that isn’t approved by the government, you are punished for your decision.
They won't have to.
Menlo (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 3:16PM EDT (link)There will be no need for the government to force people into the position because there will soon be no other career alternatives available.
A look at the job ads shows the vast majority of open positions in health care. Nursing is about the only field where qualified workers cannot keep up with demand.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Socialism defined graphically
ColdWarrior (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 11:04AM EDT (link)Follow the link.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AOdk-xDdPJM/SFKuB3PQPPI/AAAAAAAAAA0/ZG5usXz1byw/s400/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg
Thank you.
CW
In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?
Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Unified Patriots.
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and
I LIKE IT!
rickbull Friday, May 13th at 11:18PM EDT (link)I’ll post it for you here:

WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).
The unforgivable sin, calling it like it is.
johnt Friday, May 13th at 11:04AM EDT (link)And the little piggies squeal. You know Paul is right and has touched a basic nerve of the nazi American left, who live for their hate, by the rabid hysteria. At the very least it comes under the dreaded category of “forcing their will on us”, of which we heard so much when Bush was in office.
It’s great being a lunatic, there are no restraints or contradictions, or principles & no need for thought or decency.
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville
Two Key Misunderstanding
cobragotpole Friday, May 13th at 12:16PM EDT (link)This article suffers from two key misunderstandings that the author makes no attempt to understand or explain: the definition of slavery and Bernie Sanders’ healthcare proposal.
A simple definition of slavery is forcing someone to do work that they do not want to do. There are two points in Rand Paul’s comparison where it falls apart.
First, Rand Paul was not forced to become a doctor and still has the freedom to leave the profession if he would like. African-Americans were born into slavery in the USA and did not have a choice to join another profession.
Second, Rand Paul, like the author of this article, doesn’t understand Bernie Sanders’ proposal. The proposal is to give allow all Americans the right to pay for medicare as their insurance plan if they would prefer it to a private insurance company.
Currently many doctors provide care to patients on medicare, and I’ve never heard of a doctor comparing that to slavery. This is because they do not have to serve medicare patients, in fact many doctors refuse to accept medicare. But there are also many doctors that realize the rates paid by medicare, while often lower than private insurance are reasonable rates and therefore still provide care to medicare patients.
Slavery is the forcing of someone else to provide labor that they don’t want to provide for the benefit of others. Doctors are not required to be doctors, nor are they required to accept medicare patients. Obamacare and the proposal by Bernie Sanders do not change either of these facts.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, cobragotpole.
Moe Lane (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 12:27PM EDT (link)“First, Rand Paul was not forced to become a doctor …”
“…I’ve never heard of a doctor comparing that to slavery.”
If you can’t even write internally-consistent agitprop, why do you think that we’ll let you waste our bandwidth?
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
Besides...
Charles Cianfrocca (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 12:58PM EDT (link)How is “Rand Paul was not forced to become a doctor” on point anyway? Who decided that it was ok for people to be enslaved as long as they chose to become doctors?
What other professionals are to become property of the state, then? Or are we stopping at doctors?
“Get your hand out of my pocket. Ain’t nothin’ there that belongs to you.”
- Sonny Boy Williamson
Civil engineers, Charles?
acat (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 1:24PM EDT (link)Is there much call for them outside government?
I’d say cranky DMV and Post Office counter clerks, but .. I don’t think there’s a government monopoly there…
Mew
——

Caveat Suffragator
president rand paul
swi2522 Friday, May 13th at 2:12PM EDT (link)this is a person i could get excited about
Rand is right on and it is just like the Left
runner12 (Diary) Friday, May 13th at 9:02PM EDT (link)to twist what he said into something bad. He was referring to the institution of slavery, not just the US experience of this atrocity. And his analysis makes quite a bit of sense, if you think about it.
When you make the product of someone else's labor a right,
rickbull Friday, May 13th at 11:32PM EDT (link)you enslave the producer of the commodity.
The question that the left is not asking:
“What if I WANT to be a doctor, but don’t WANT to be a slave?”
Do I not have the freedom to choose my profession? Should the farmer and the grocer be slaves to all people because we all need food, thus food should be a basic human right? Should the builder be a slave because we all need a house in which to live?
What the left does not understand is that a right is not a necessity, and cannot be a product or service. A right can only be something that I have the power to do myself, and that does not interfere with the rights and property of others. That is why we have a right to “keep and bear arms,” but not to own a gun. To own a gun, you must have the money or barter to purchase it, or the skill to make it.
Yes, Runner12, Rand is RIGHT ON!
WE ARE THE 53% (who actually pay taxes).