Awful truth #22: You do not have a right to something that costs money.
People tend to react not with reason, but with emotion, often childish emotion, at that. A little mature thought would go far in our lives, which is why we remain stuck in a political morass, willingly exploited and manipulated, seemingly forever at the mercy of our betters, those who would lord over us in ways not to our benefit.
Consider the concept of rights. We claim things to be rights which aren’t. While actual rights are not held in reverence, as they damn well should be. Thus, the emotion associated with our foolish materialism and willful childish ignorance is wielded against us as a too easy means to ultimately enslave us.
There are many material things a people want its government to provide, and many of these are reasonable desires and indeed necessary for a society to function. Though governments typically provide such things, we do not have a basic human right to roads, airports, libraries, sewer systems, healthcare, or a public education. These things cost money, lots of it. Taxes and fees are collected to pay for these. The aforementioned are desirable for a society to have. I want them, also. But we do not have a fundamental right to them. Our troops didn’t land at Normandy Beach on D-Day to defend our sewer systems.
We do have the right to demand elected officials devise and implement a government budget. We do have the right to expect the expenditures are handled competently and without corruption. Rights come with responsibilities. As citizens, we have the responsibility to accept the heartless fact that government revenue is not unlimited and, as such, there expenditures we may want which do not get funded, including for important things. Perhaps a city can afford only two fire stations rather than three. Two is what its citizens get. We must make the best with what we have and not claim the right to more than this.
Seems simple, doesn’t it? Almost the adult thing to do. Who could find fault with making difficult spending choices and living within our means. Therein, lies the farce: We convince ourselves we are adult citizens electing other adult citizens into leadership roles who are charged with the unenviable—but absolutely necessary—task of making difficult spending choices, sometimes terribly difficult ones.
Instead, our elected morons of every political stripe love to dangle before our covetous eyes government spending proposals or tax cuts, regardless of whether we have the money to pay for these. Spoiler alert: We didn’t. We don’t. We won’t.
Our federal government is massively in debt, and hugely increasing this debt burden each year with neverending deficit spending. If we include unfunded liabilities, such as future commitments for Social Security and Medicare, the budgetary shortfalls are beyond comprehension, tens and tens of trillions of dollars. Before long, we’ll enter “Q” territory, as in quadrillions. Imagine the first time quadrillion is mentioned as a matter of routine, and this day is not so far off, a fact which should terrify us if we’ve a lick of sense. (Additionally, many state and municipal governments are also in debt, which often includes significant unfunded liabilities associated with their pension plans.)
A key responsibility incumbent upon us as citizens is we must insist our leaders act with fiscal restraint and live within our collective means. This attitude doesn’t get votes, though. Politicians know we are like Pavlov’s salivating dogs, trained to mindlessly react with nary a thought as to the appropriateness of the spending or whether the money indeed exists to pay for it. Immediate gratification is the name of the game. Screw fiscal responsibility, adult decision making, and the future!
Some of these proposed expenditures are for government provided goods or services many of us would love to receive. Other proposals are for silly-ass stuff that proves a complete lack of seriousness on the part of the proposer and any idiots who insist such spending occur.
Polls consistently show support, among both Democrats and Republicans, for government provided healthcare. Such healthcare is not free, but it has been suggested that having the government as the single payer for healthcare, rather than a patchwork of public and private entities, let alone the tremendous burden on employers managing employee healthcare benefits, would be much less expensive overall than the aggregate cost of the current public-private system.
Knowing firsthand how government both works and doesn’t work, I can understand the skepticism about America’s ability to implement a single payer healthcare system. It would not surprise me if the government bungled the job and it ended up costing more than it does now. But as a consumer who fears, like many of us, the increasing cost of healthcare, I’m open to considering it.
There is a meaningful debate to be had regarding healthcare, but we must understand it would be in the context of a completely out-of-whack budget. We can’t afford the Mercedes, so sensibly trading down to a Toyota is only a legitimate option if we indeed have the money for the Toyota!
Examples of fiscal asshattery abound. Our nation’s debt is staggering, and yet Pakistan was bribed, using federal dollars, to join in the West’s transcult madness (i.e., pay for transgender surgeries). A legislator in Washington state proposed its citizens buy artwork for the poor, amidst a state budget crisis no less. Even if the state or federal government were flush with cash and debt-free, these are expenditures the average taxpayer surely opposes. But never forget: The Deep State, the military-industrial complex, the Woke-industrial complex, the globalists, and our other betters don’t give a rat’s ass about your opposition or your basic human rights. You’re going to get their agenda force fed to you, good and hard.
Speaking of rights….
The particularly dramatic spending proposer plays the “rights card” and asserts we have a basic human right to these expenditures, and may go as far as suggesting we codify the right in a state constitution or federal law. The right to an education. The right to food. The right to shelter. Etc.
“People will die if this money isn’t spent,” they may add, with additional panache. Or the nuclear option is deployed: “People will kill themselves without this spending.” My, oh my. Our world is subjected to a veritable plague of people tottering about on vertiginous ledges, holding the rest of us emotional hostage to their theatrics. (Note: Legitimate suicide risk requires serious mental health intervention, not castration surgeries or artsy wall hangings.)
Expenditures are not rights. Specifying an expenditure in the context of a balanced budget is one thing, since this subjects it to regular legislative oversight and a routine decision about whether to fund or not fund. It should also be in the context of having the money to pay for it, sans borrowing and printing. But to place something with a direct cost in a constitution is the height of folly, for this is not the place for such notions. It abrogates the responsibility of elected officials and instead foists it on an inanimate piece of paper.
The bottom line is quite simple, and one we must absolutely understand and accept, voter and elected official alike: You do not have a right to something which costs money. Otherwise, this would imply that in the absence of money the right vanishes or money which does not exist must magically appear to assure the right continues. The problem with claiming a right to something with a monetary cost, is adult decision making goes out the window, along with the bathwater and baby.
When considering what constitutes a right, we must think of what rights people must have regardless of their society’s wealth or technological level. It helps to imagine a preindustrial or post-apocalyptic society and what rights would we retain or try to resurrect, absent any wealth, if we are wise and desire freedom. Rights are abstract, not a tangible good. Freedom of speech. Due process. Privacy. Prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Right to self-defense and bear arms. Right to elect one’s leaders.
The right to due process does not mean a society unable to afford expensive DNA analysis must somehow acquire it. As society advanced technologically and gained wealth, such testing became available for civil and criminal proceedings. Regardless of the technological state of a society, due process requires a consistent impartial procedure applied to everyone equally. At its most basic pre-industrial level, this could be a group of tribal elders gathered in a crude hut who review a civil dispute or crime and then come to a decision, which in the case of a crime may include the punishment meted out. Hunter-gatherer groups do not have prisons. For them due process may result in exile as punishment for crimes which don’t warrant their version of the death penalty.
We apply this limitation on rights to further examples: The right to bear arms doesn’t mean the government is required to buy you a rifle. The right to free speech doesn’t mean the government must fund your podcast. The right to privacy doesn’t suggest the government buy you window curtains.
You do not have the right to healthcare, food, housing, or other tangible goods and services. Enshrining these in a constitution does not guarantee these absent the wealth to pay for them. A society strives, using its economic system, to provide such things to its people, sometimes via collective action, but this must be done outside of a constitutional mandate or in the context of claiming it’s a right. This doesn’t mean it’s not important. This doesn’t mean we don’t provide the good or service. But don’t foolishly believe these things rise to the level of a right, which is something which exists regardless of a nation’s wealth.
A nation’s (or state’s) constitution must only contain rights which exist regardless of its wealth, i.e., expectations regarding important abstract concepts, rather than specific expenditures. No matter how poor a citizen or a country may be, these are the rights that truly matter and which should be formerly enshrined.
Rights are our most valuable possessions. Incalculably valuable to which a price cannot be applied. Apply actual dollar values to the tangible goods and services we desire. These may be of great importance, but they’re not rights.
Be First to Comment