I assumed Michael Moore’s epic idiocy in the form of a “new amendment” would provoke some lively responses. Among the liveliest was this Comment of the Day from one of longest running active commenter (and one of few I’ve had the pleasure to meet face-to-face, Tim LeVier.
Tim makes the timely observation that Moore doesn’t understand what a “right” is in American tradition, and indeed there’s a lot of that going around. Part of the Left’s fury over not only the SCOTUS opinion reaffirming the Second Amendment but its long-overdue erasure of the imaginary “right to abortion.” Numerous ideological scholars are now attacking the Founders and their Constitution as archaic because they didn’t understand the more expansive concept of “rights” favored by progressives. They want recognition of a right to make a living wage, a right to have a home, a right to have enough food, and so on, ad infinitem. That inflated concept of “rights” is the predominant one in socialist and communist societies. They don’t work, you know. Usually the nations gulled into either system fail spectacularly. However, all those “rights” sound great in theory: the problem is that all require an efficient, trustworthy government that won’t abuse the almost limitless power maintaining such a society requires. Isn’t there an old saying about that? I seem to remember one.
The first stirrings of serious socialist aspirations in high places emanated from none other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who always had a dangerous measure of dictatorial aspirations in his soul. In his famous Four Freedoms speech, he endorsed loose talk about “Freedom from Fear” and “Freedom from Want” to accompany the basic First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom the worship. “Freedom from Fear” sums up Moore’s insidious “28th Amendment” and “Freedom from Want” is an open invitation to the nanny state., or worse. FDR was pandering when he launched this irresponsible rhetoric, at a time when poverty was rampant, there was an unhealthy and growing popular attachment to Communism, and when he was also rallying support for a war against Nazi Germany. Calling these universal freedoms that all people possess—in other words, rights— was metaphorically playing with dynamite that could blow up democracy.
It still is.
Here is Tim LeVier’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Mark Of A Totalitarian: Michael Moore’s “Replacement” For The Second Amendment.”
Too bad he doesn’t understand what a “right” is. You have a right to exist and create safe conditions for yourself, but you do not have a “right” to protection. If we had a “right to protection”, the Uvalde police officers would be on death row at this moment. No. Police a.k.a. the government, is for maintaining the peace if possible, but restoring peace and cleaning up after tragedy is more correct to their mission.
To that end, Moore’s amendment falls short in only repealing the 2nd amendment. To be effective, it needs to also repeal the 3rd, 4th, and 6th amendments. Why the 3rd you ask? Well, we can’t have gunsmiths and people with the knowledge to create weapons go un-surveilled. We’ll have to station stooges and cameras in the homes of those most likely to create weapons to ensure they don’t.
This whole thing is sprawling out of the mantra of “healthcare is a right”, to which the opposition correctly points out that healthcare is a service and the service of another person is not something that can be a right of yours. Those proponents will argue that they meant “health insurance is a right”, but again, service of another. To which, I actually agree with their motivations. To get the cheapest prices in healthcare, one needs to create the largest pool of participants as possible. Making the service of healthcare a government concern much the way we do with streets and infrastructure would, if nothing else, be a wash from a cost perspective (at least according to my finances). I pay as much for health insurance and service each year as I do taxes, so if you say my taxes will double – what would I care?
So then we say “well, if we kill private insurance, that’s going to put a ton of people out of work.” Yes. Yes it is. You know what? This is probably a great time to do it. We’re a nation in a transition at the moment. We have staffing shortages because a ton of people figured out how to be financially free by creating a social media platform and there are a ton of kids coming of age who will never apply for a job in the first place. So if our private health insurance people can’t swing to a different line of insurance, we can sure use them in some of the trades and service industry. Will they make less money? Sure, but they won’t have to pay as much for health insurance either, so it might actually just be a win-win.
Ho boy. I forgot, the reason I started down this tangent of “Healthcare is a right”. Let’s say it’s true. Really, literally. You have a right to healthcare. That’s actually a good amendment. *STAY WITH ME HERE*. I’m not saying the service of healthcare is a right the way our lefty friends are saying it. What I’m saying is, that you, as an individual, should have the recognized right to try any medicine, any procedure that you think will improve your condition. This would drastically reduce government regulations and restrictions in the healthcare space. If you want to use an unlicensed doctor or try an experimental drug for an off-label use, that should be your right. Again, I’m not saying you have a right to have that all paid for you, but it should be available to you.