Chris
04-07-2012, 01:06 PM
The following opinion offers what I think is a valid criticism of the Tea Party Movement.
The Tea Party and Individual Rights (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/04/the-tea-party-and-individual-rights/)
...Opposing ObamaCare is a valid position. Nationalized health care enslaves doctors, will diminish the quality of care for patients, and will be a fiscal nightmare. It violates the rights of doctors and patients alike. But, according to the doctrine of “state’s rights,” a state can properly enact universal health care–if a majority of the citizens want it. As one example, Mitt Romney has defended his universal health care plan as an issue of “state’s rights.” In other words, the advocates of “state’s rights” do not oppose the violation of individual rights. They merely oppose it when it occurs on the federal level. This is nothing more than quibbling over the name of the slave-master.
The only principle that can eliminate this inconsistency is individual rights–the moral right of each individual to live his life as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. This means that neither the federal nor the state governments may initiate coercion to force individuals to act contrary to their own judgment.
If the Tea Party wants to have a long-term impact on American politics, it must embrace and defend individual rights.
The Tea Party and Individual Rights (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/04/the-tea-party-and-individual-rights/)
...Opposing ObamaCare is a valid position. Nationalized health care enslaves doctors, will diminish the quality of care for patients, and will be a fiscal nightmare. It violates the rights of doctors and patients alike. But, according to the doctrine of “state’s rights,” a state can properly enact universal health care–if a majority of the citizens want it. As one example, Mitt Romney has defended his universal health care plan as an issue of “state’s rights.” In other words, the advocates of “state’s rights” do not oppose the violation of individual rights. They merely oppose it when it occurs on the federal level. This is nothing more than quibbling over the name of the slave-master.
The only principle that can eliminate this inconsistency is individual rights–the moral right of each individual to live his life as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. This means that neither the federal nor the state governments may initiate coercion to force individuals to act contrary to their own judgment.
If the Tea Party wants to have a long-term impact on American politics, it must embrace and defend individual rights.