Can someone please explain to this to me, why ownership of assault-type weapons, as used by this latest lunatic, is a "right" enshrined by the Constitution, but healthcare for his many victims is merely a "privilege"?
Undoubtedly you’ve seen this question come up on Facebook or other social media in the past few days after the shooting in Las Vegas. Your first reaction may be to just blow it off or ignore it as liberal hysterics in a way to politicize the latest tragedy. However, in doing so, you are missing a great teaching opportunity on the core foundation of Conservative and Libertarian philosophy and are allowing the discussion of the subject to be dominated by the left’s terms. So let’s discuss a better way to handle this question.
The initial reaction to this should jump out that the framing of this question is incorrect in its nature and is created to lead those trying to answer it down a rabbit hole of the questioner’s choosing. So let’s look a bit deeper into this.
----------------------------------
First, let’s reframe the question.
Does one have the right to defend their own life, liberty and property and does one have the right to take care of their own health? In both cases, the answer is absolutely yes. A right is something that you have ownership of as an individual. You have the right to your beliefs. You have the right to defend yourself and your liberty. You have the right to make the personal decisions you need to make to take care of your own health.
----------------------------------
Now let’s reframe the question again. Does one have the right to a free or subsidized AR-15 assault rifle or other firearm and does one have the right to free or subsidized health care or health insurance?. In both cases, based on the framing of this question, no you do not.
A right does not require the sacrifice, property, or service of another person. If something is provided or offered, such as a property or action, then that is not a right, but a commodity or service. If one were to demand that the property of service of another person is a right you must have, then you now own the services and property of that person. The person providing the service, be it a doctor or a taxpayer subsidizing it, is not owned by you or society. They can choose not to provide the service and you should not have the right to force them to provide that service. Instead, because it is a service, in a free market you can negotiate with that person what they are willing to exchange their service for you from. Some, may be more than happy to provide that service for you for free (subsidized by themselves), and in our healthcare market, we have those in the forms of services like St. Jude’s Hospitals for example. You may also freely choose to group together with other people and split the costs to pay for the service. However, that is a commercial choice you are making, it is not a right you can demand others take part in.
----------------------------------
So when faced with the initial question, let’s answer the initial, poorly framed question the best we can.
You have the absolute right to self-defense and to take actions to take care of your own health. You have neither the right to demand someone provide an assault rifle (or any other tool) to you or the right to demand a doctor provide a service to you or someone else pay for it for you. As soon as you involve another party, it is a service, not a right.
