Take us back some 400 years to a time when the world was just beginning to move away from the acceptance of a “right” that had existed since the beginning of recorded history. That period of time covered at least 6000 years. The practice could be called a “right” because there were no laws against it.
The “right” was, by the strength of arms, one man could require the fruits of another man’s labor. It is probable that some who were not involved with either end of that evil situation were always sensible of its injustice, but that is just the way things were. That particular injustice is no longer considered to be a “right”, and has come to be recognized as a crime throughout the world.
Today, a more insidious form of that practice is, by the strength of arms, being accepted as a “right” through the belief in a certain type of political philosophy.
For example, in the case of the “right” to healthcare, one must assume that he is entitled to the effort, knowledge, skill, time (all to be considered labor, if you will) and products of the persons who provide those services and or goods.
If the providers are to be compensated at all, then such compensation must again be taken from others who have used their own labor to acquire that means of compensation.
So, what we see here, is the expectation that a person has the “right” to the labors of others.
In our country, private individuals cannot use force to compel others to submit their labor or property so that goods or services will be provided. That would be a crime punishable by law. The US government can use that force… and does.
Just as in the case of the original historical unjust and evil practice, there are certain perceptions that must prevail in order to allow it to be perpetuated.
- A sizable group of folks must imagine themselves to be the ones who are to receive the benefits of the labor of other people.
- Another large group of people must believe that they will not be negatively affected by the practice. This latter perception is true especially if the situation can be, somehow, couched in terms that seem to be benevolent and sympathetic toward those who are to receive the benefits.
In the case of our current situation, the danger lies in the fact that submission to the philosophy of this new right means that the ultimate decisions would be made by some central authority. That authority would determine who is to be the recipient of the labor, who is to provide the labor, who is to provide the compensation and its amount.
Some will say, “If you are really a Christian you will not object to helping others”. One retort might be, “Yes, but Jesus did not exhort us to give our alms to Caesar (the government), from which he may take a portion for himself and help others of his choosing”.