Home » Voices » Columns »

Know your rights, and what doesn’t make a “right”

By on November 13, 2009 2:40 am in Columns / 4 comments

 
Know your rights, and what doesn’t make a “right”
email

One of the most complex legal topics is the idea of rights.
People need to be careful not to throw around the word “right” lightly. To do so devalues the weight behind the word.

I have recently seen two instances in which the word “right” was used in such a manner. The first was in the Nov. 5 Central Michigan Life story, “Thursday panel wants Chippewa nickname changed,” when a student said,
“This is not a mascot issue. This is a human rights issue,” in reference to using the Chippewa name as the university’s nickname.

A main document used to define human rights among the international committee is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Nowhere in the 30 articles of the UDHR is there anything that remotely deals with this issue. Using the Chippewa name has nothing to do with human rights. It may be a political correctness issue; however, it is certainly not a human rights issue, and to describe it as such undermines true human rights efforts.

The second instance where the word “right” was used improperly was in the Nov. 9 CM Life column, “Health care should be provided to all citizens.” Columnist Michael L. Hoffman said the Declaration of Independence “established the idea of the rights all Americans are entitled to. In today’s world, this should include affordable health care,” referring to the “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause.

There are several problems with this claim. First, the Constitution trumps the Declaration of Independence, and there is no indication the government needs to provide affordable health care for its citizens.

Second, there is a problem using the “pursuit of happiness” argument for affordable health care. When Thomas Jefferson wrote this, he meant that government should not take away the life, liberty or the ability to pursue happiness from its citizens.

For instance, I may want to pursue happiness by buying a Ferrari. The government has no right to stop me from doing so; however, the government does not have to make sure that I can purchase a cheap Ferrari. Just because the government cannot take away the ability to purchase affordable health care does not mean that it has to ensure that affordable health care is available to everyone.

Last, Jefferson also wrote that whenever the government stops securing those rights for its citizens, “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government.” If affordable health care is truly a right, and if the government denies citizens this right, then we should rise up and institute a new government.

Somehow, I don’t think I will be seeing another revolution if affordable health care is not provided to all American citizens.

 

Tags

, , ,

Related Posts

 
  • David C.

    While I agree with the introductory part of your post, the united nations (to which the US is a member) agreed in 1947 that healthcare is indeed a human right:

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25

    “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

    This certainly points to universal healthcare, and definitely speaks against our majority employer-provided current healthcare system. This system is the only type of it’s kind in the world, and was grown primarily out of wage limits imposed during WWII and not designed intelligently.

    I would make the argument that the current for-profit system that has grown in the US is one that should be eliminated. We currently pay enough for the government to provide us with healthcare, we just don’t get it; instead paying more to a private insurance company. We should demand that the US live up to the document that it agreed to in 1947.

  • Linux

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Pretty sure health care is covered by this.

  • Greg B.

    The United Nations does not have the authority to enforce its own laws; it has an army that cannot declare war nor fight back. It creates resolutions that are unenforceable. The same applies to human rights; admirable on paper, effortless to circumnavigate in reality. Cases in point; Libya, China and the Sudan.

    Stating that “promoting the general welfare” (or any other aspect of the Constitution) implies that it is the government’s role to act as a parent figure for its citizens. I disagree with this viewpoint, as I feel that this is not the proper role of government.

    Granted, there are problems with America’s current health care system; that does not mean that we should tear the entire system down, replace it with an experimental one and expect it to function properly. I say “experimental” because this administration has yet to provide working, functional examples of the system working beyond theory. Show the American people a municipality, county, and state where Federalized health care is used and we will address successes and failures accordingly.

  • Lucio

    You cannot have a “rigth” to something that must be created/provided by other people.

    How do you enforce a “rigth” to housing or clothing?
    By forcing others to build it? By extracting by force money from others to pay for it?
    In order to -enforce- a “rigth” to things you must use slavery or robbery.