"Oh, that's just theoretical. Put it on your tab!"
Putting Proper back in “Property” – Part 18
A predictably nasty by-product of the Nanny State, in which human life in Society is presented to the masses as a safe, easy ride with various perks and risk-free guarantees, is the state-sanctioned deluding of the vast majority of the population regarding the distinction between rights and entitlements.
A “right,” as I have explained in this ongoing series of articles on property rights, is a claim of freedom to live according to one’s essential characteristics – as a human being. It is no coincidence that the noun form of “right” is related to the adjective form – used in related positive contexts. Adjective: It is right that I get to breathe and move around unhindered and without coercion by other humans. Noun: I have the right to breathe and move around unhindered and without coercion by other humans.
Rights extend from the metaphysical nature of our existence as rational beings, whether we fully practice this faculty or not. All humans have the same basic physical requirements for proper, normal, healthy, social living. Because of this fact of reality, all humans have the right to be left alone to live. This implies that each individual ought not be molested or harassed as he/she moves about, breathes, explores, thinks, speaks, creates, trades, acquires property, etc.
Of course, there is a very important proviso: the right to act, move, speak, create, trade, acquire, and so forth is valid IF and ONLY IF these actions do not infringe on the equal right of other human beings to do the same. It is vital that we maintain the logical connection between all downstream rights and this primary right that we all share: the right to live freely.
What is an entitlement? “Entitlement,” as a noun, is a relatively modern term, and any legitimacy it may have must be confined to contracts and agreements. For example, in a typical auto insurance policy, there is a clause that deals with towing service and/or car rental allowance. If an insured motorist has a collision, or her battery goes dead, she is entitled to receive reimbursement for standard towing to a service station within, say, a 20 mile radius. And, she is also entitled to receive reimbursement for temporary car rental (of a model similar to her own).
In other words, she is entitled to fair and secure coverage. She cannot expect full reimbursement if she has the car towed to her brother-in-law’s garage 165 miles away. She cannot expect full reimbursement if she rents a Mercedes CL550 coupe while she drives a Toyota Camry. In the context of the insurance policy, the word “entitlement” has a neutral connotation and a utilitarian denotation. No problem there.
However, in the modern parlance of Welfare-Speak, depending on whether you are a recipient of one, or you are the poor bastard who will have to pay for one, “entitlement” may have a spectrum of connotations. The denotation is this: it is a government-mandated redistribution of wealth. Entitlements are given to so-called “deserving” or “needy” individuals – usually at minimal or zero cost, for the purpose of buying votes or of inauthentically improving one’s spiritual profile.
Of course, gravity still exists, and goods and services do not grow on trees. Therefore, the cost of these “gifts” is subsidized by other individuals. Those suckers can be lumped into a lovely, if not a linguistically absurd, uncountable noun: the “rich.” The late great Robert A. Heinlein, a science-fiction novelist, drew attention to this principle by popularizing a no-nonsense acronym in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (1966). It was used to sarcastically call bullshit on this kind of socialist, statist criminality. TANSTAAFL: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Obviously somebody has to pay for the provision and distribution of entitlements. The magnanimous giving away of “free” education to millions (hundreds of thousands of which do not pay taxes) does not mean that education can be provided without cost. What about the issuance of food stamps by Uncle Santa? What about the government-mandated “open door” policy required in hospitals across the land? These general hospitals are forced to give away some of the most costly and advanced diagnostic and medical-related technology in the history of the human race in the form of Emergency Room care.
We’re entitled to these, aren’t we? Well, you and I probably aren’t, but “the poor” are.
Never mind that the actual cost of a liver transplant or a triple-bypass heart operation is $150,000. The bum who hasn’t paid taxes is entitled to it. The Haitian refugee who has never paid taxes, and can’t speak English, is entitled to it. The doctors, nurses, technicians, and generous taxpaying “rich,” like you and me, are not entitled. But – we get a consolation prize. We are privileged … i.e. we get to cover the cost!
Rights are inherent in the natural essence of who, what, and how we are. They emanate, not from governmental decrees but, from Nature. We have rights whether we live on desert islands or in modern metropolises. Be clear: the Constitution does not grant us our rights. The value of that great document is that it clearly delineates and names some of the more fundamental and important rights – toward the purpose of defining the proper role of government: that is, to protect our rights!
Entitlements are artifacts of man-made agreements called contracts. They are legitimate and valid only to the degree that the contracts are entered into voluntarily and equitably – that is to say, legally. Entitlements of the sort that are doled out by the charlatans and voodoo economists hailing from Washington are in no way valid, legitimate, or moral.
The next time you hear a politician dangling the term “entitlement” in front of an unsuspecting crowd of basically honest folks, consider standing up and boldly calling out, “TANSTAAFL!” If the smooth-talking scum responds to you, take the opportunity to remind him: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!” Proceed to let him know that you know the nature of his vote-buying scam. Look him in the eye and call him a thieving, good-for-nothing bastard! Then, with all the righteousness you can muster, let him know what his actions and intentions have entitled him to: his choice of a tar and feathering or just a good ol’ pistol whipping.
