With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. (There is) an implied use of force. If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be. — Rand Paul
Sure, this isn’t a “right” in America yet, but give the Left a little more time.
It is regarded as a luxury that allows people to watch top sport and blockbuster movies from the comfort of their armchairs.
But owning a satellite dish is actually a human right, according to unelected European judges.
In an extraordinary ruling, lawmakers in Strasbourg have warned that banning dishes on listed buildings, social housing and even private homes could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice religion.
…But European judges ruled that the Swedish government had failed in its obligation to protect the couple’s right to receive information. It found that satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its guidance, Britain’s equalities watchdog suggested that a disabled tenant who received transmissions of religious services held overseas would have their rights to freedom of religion breached if their landlord banned satellite dishes.
Wow, there are a lot of “rights” hinted at there.
If it you have a “right” to have a satellite dish in order to practice your religion, then doesn’t it follow that if you can’t afford it, then the government has an obligation to buy it for you if you can’t afford it? What about other religious paraphernalia? What about religious trips? Certainly, if you’re not being allowed to have a satellite dish infringes on your “right” to practice your religion, then couldn’t you make a fair argument that you have a “right” to have the government ferry you to-and-from church? How about a “right” to have your trip to Mecca or Israel or some grove of holy trees somewhere?
Oh, and we haven’t even gotten into the “right to receive information.” That would seem to cover TV, radio, cell phones, computers, books — it goes on and on.
It’s all well and good to blather on about what people have a “right” to have, but if other people have to be forced to spend their money or time to provide you with your “rights,” we’re not talking about “rights,” we’re talking about another name for oppression.
PS: A “right” to a lawyer could be considered an exception to this, but I’d argue that’s really more of an obligation the Founders placed on the government than a “right” in the traditional sense.