During an appearance on ABC’s This Week on July 1, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan argued that the Affordable Care Act passed into law by Congressional Democrats and signed by President Barack Obama should be repealed because rights come from “nature and God,” not the government.
“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference,” he continued. “What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.”
While Rep. Ryan may believe that rights come from nature and God (not government), let’s take a look at just a few of the rights granted to our nation’s citizens by our government:
- Womens’ right to vote (granted by 19th amendment)
- Right to vote for all citizens, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment)
- Right to bear arms (granted by 2nd amendment)
- Right of all citizens to live free from involuntary servitude (granted by 13th amendment)
- Right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury (granted by 6th amendment)
Further, Rep. Ryan’s assertion that rights come from nature and God ignores the fact that the very rights he’s referring to – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – were granted by the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Further, Rep. Ryan conveniently ignores the supreme hypocrisy in the fact that those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness didn’t apply to the slaves being held against their will at the time by Americans. And let’s not forget that it was action by the government that finally allowed those slaves to begin to be able to enjoy those rights.
1797: The Treaty of Tripoli. Negotiated under President George Washington’s presidency in 1796, signed by President John Adams and ratified UNANIMOUSLY in 1797 by the United States Congress. Let’s take a look at Article 11 of the treaty:
“As the Government by the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, and as the said states never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Let’s begin there. The United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Now, let’s look at the subversion of natural rights by historical revisionists – Christian revisionists – who have so vigorously colluded with Libertarian revisionists to craft an insidious propaganda effort to craft a history that never occurred in this nation so as to serve their own narrow, elitist, and fundamentally totalitarian, dictatorial, and theocratic intent.
Tad does give us a good analysis of the reasoned logic expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And he is right to point out that the Declaration is just that – a declaration articulating principles of separation. It is not a governing document. The Constitution is our governing document.
I would suggest, however, that Tad not rely on what is obviously his advice to Zach: “revisiting a grade school American History class.” Clearly, Tad has relied on a grade school – level knowledge of American History despite his nearly accurate interpretation of the passage.
As to natural rights so says Tad: “Pretty clear to me. The rights are from God.” Tad neglects to mention that those rights are not conferred by the Christian God.
With the exception of John Jay, the thinkers responsible for designing our government were not Christians; they were Deists who wrote into the Declaration and into the Constitution the inherent rights of both believers and non-believers. They regarded rights “inalienable” by virtue of their inherency to the human condition irrespective of an individual’s religious persuasion.
The Declaration of Independence does not state that government authority is derived from God. It states that government derives “just powers from the consent of the governed.” Perhaps it would be useful to look at Thomas Jefferson’s original, unedited version of the passage that Tad is so pretty clear on. Jefferson’s original text:
“All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.”
Note: Neither Jefferson’s original nor the edited version specify a Christian God. The language of the Declaration is expansive precisely because it is exclusionary; in that it is Deist rhetoric, not Christianized language – it is language intended to be inclusive of Christians from any denomination, Deists and other Non-Christian religionists, Atheists, and Agnostics. The Declaration does not pertain to Christian scripture nor any biblical precept. The Constitution doesn’t either.
The Constitution intentionally addresses religion in the same expansionary-exclusionary terms. Article 6, section 3 of the Constitution specifies:
“No religion test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.”
Not one word or ideological reference to Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Bible can be found in the Constitution. Not one. The governance of our nation was never intended to be guided by Christian principles or Christian morality.
Not one president in the fifty years following the creation of America was Christian. Not one. It was during the First Great Awakening that Christian domination of our government began. Christian governance was not a founding principle nor vision.
Yow, correction: Second Great Awakening.
Now, let’s examine Conservative subversions of inalienable rights by Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson.
For Ron Johnson’s distortion see BB post from June 29: “Sen. Ron Johnson: businesses should be allowed to deny health insurance to cancer patieints.”
Both use the same propagandist tactic – conflation of declared rights (from the Declaration of Independence) and conferred rights (protected and secured by the Constitution) by the instantiation of the “creation of rights” by those other than God, “created rights” not present in the founding principles.
Rights are inherent within all of us, we the people whom are equally created. There is no disputing that. But Ryan and Johnson do dispute that notion in their distorting rhetoric. It is they who would like to dictate to all of us what our rights are and what our rights are not.
Those “created rights” currently in question are the rights of the American people to health care. Neither Johnson nor Ryan consider health care a fundamental right, but a “created right.” Assigning health care to a legal right and not a natural right is an arbitrary distinction, and it is a justification for denial of natural rights. Rights cannot be “created” or spontaneously generated from the perspective of the founding fathers. That’s true. Rights are inherent or God-given if you prefer – per the Declaration of Independence. But per the Constitution, what can be regarded a right by posterity cannot be limited by its unspecified denotation or apparent exclusion from the rights specifically provided for in the Bill of Rights.
Johnson, Ryan and Radical Conservatives subvert natural rights as those conferred upon the equally created American people. It is Ryan, Johnson and the Radical Conservatives who are limiting the rights of the American people by limiting our right to health care. By denying that health care is a right at all, it is Ryan, Johnson and Conservative Extremists who are denying the American people their God-given rights. A health care system which distributes health care differentially is not equal – differential access endows a “privilege,” not assurance nor securitization of a “right.” It is Conservative Extremism that is taking our rights away from us. Health care is not a government-granted right. It is a natural, inherent right to be secured and protected by government.
With that said, the ACA does try to rectify the inequality of conferred rights to health care. The ACA does, therefore, attempt to do as the founding fathers intended our government to do – secure and protect our equally created, inherent, God-given rights. It will forever fall short until health care is returned to the purview of its most appropriate sector – the public sector.
The Constitution is not a justification for any particular economic theory, indeed, Supreme Court precedent until the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) established that the Constitution did not pertain to nor justify any particular economic theory. To justify the preference for subjecting health care to the vagaries of “free” market capitalism is untenable. The “free” market does not secure our freedoms endowed within our natural, inherent, God-given rights. Only the government can do that. The government, indeed, must protect and secure our rights FROM the vagaries of “free” market capitalism.
Don’t fret, Sofa. I haven’t forgotten about you, your miseducation, or your meritocracy. Tomorrow, I promise.
Ah, sofa, forgive my delay. Today: Meritocracy
First, sofa, your table of 20th Century mass murderers? You don’t know your left from your right – The bulk of them are Right Wing Regimes. Fascism is definitionally Right Wing, the Communist and Socialist structures you cite were headed by Right Wing dictators.
Now, the interesting thing about your list is that Meritocratic principles underscored a number of these Right Wing regimes – Communism and Nazism in particular. What you neglect to mention is that Meritocracy underscored the bulk of those massacres: for the meritorious to rise in those Right Wing regimes, the less meritorious were eliminated through systematic massacre. Culling for merit – that is the principle involved in nearly all the examples you provide. That is what meritocracy does, sofa, it culls.
It is not strong central government nor muslims that seem to be the problem there. It is Right Wing dictatorial government that is the problem there. You haven’t any understanding about systems of governance. It is quite plain you understand nothing about any of these regimes you reference. If you did you would know that the concept of merit is most illustrative in these regimes.
Democracy is an impediment to the rise of the meritorious. The Meritocracy Party, for example, seeks to supplant Democracy so a culling process may occur. But we can see how Meritocracy operates by examining the Right Wing regimes you mention during the Cold War – which apparently you are still fighting, sofa. In the Soviet Union, for example, the best and brightest of the people, those with the most potential were selected for advancement – in every sphere, most notably science and athletics. So, your adherence to strict meritocratic principles is in precise alignment with the meritocratic principles of Soviet Communism.
You demonstrate fundamental ignorance of Marxism, Communism, Fascism, and Socialism. Moreover, the Meritocracy Party favors that culling process so central to Soviet Communism and Nazism. Your ignorance descends into immoral with respect to the appropriate sphere of merit. From selectively choosing worthiness emerges a ruling class. Your Marxist screed about focusing on social class epitomizes hypocrisy – an immoral, dictatorial hypocrisy – you are a moral hazard. Meritocracy by definition, by foundation relies on hierarchical stratification – the very purpose of Meritocracy is to create hierarchical class structure – that is the focus and intent of Meritocratic principles. You are fixated on class struggle, sofa, with your fixation upon merit – you do realize what that means don’t you? I mean with respect to your analysis of Marx? I suspect your utter resistance to rational synthesis prevents you from acknowledging the obvious, but you do realize that you are articulating Marxist principles? You are being very Marxist, you do realize that don’t you? Or haven’t you read Marx?
Merit has its place in a functioning Democracy, but Meritocracy is antithetical to Democracy. If we were to operate on merit alone – your ignorance would disqualify you from any discussion among civilized, rational, moral persons. If we were to operate on merit alone, Scott Walker would not be governor of Wisconsin. He is uneducated, immoral, and unfit. If we operated on merit alone Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson would not represent us in DC – they are unfit, immoral, hypocritical, and ignorant of American principles of governance. If we were to operate on merit alone, no radically Conservative Extremist, No Religious Extremist, and no Democratic or Republican spoils-system toady would hold any elected office anywhere. But even the unfit have the opportunity to be elected in this country because even ignorant moral hazards such as yourself have the right to vote.
Next …Your Miseducation.
The Miseducation of sofa
sofa’s screed has unveiled a rather noxious blend of anti-communist, anti-socialist evangelist revisionism. The template (the template sofa distorts and subverts ) is Carter Woodson’s groundbreaking work Miseducation of the Negro, published in 1933 but more thoroughly studied 30 years later. Along with Freire and a number of post-modernists, quite a few media theorists, historians, free thinkers, and a variety of critical theorists MON was one of the influential sources for the pedagogical shift in the late 60s. The shift toward curricular diversity in American and European universities – not only of African American, but of Latino, Women, Native American, and the Transgender experience among others. In short sofa lumps together nearly 5 decades of cultural criticism into one heaping, distasteful mound he simply denounces as “Marxist.” The reader may recall that the ideological premise of the Tea Party’s 40 year plan for “recapturing” our American culture is to undo the evils done to our society by the “corrupting” influence of the late 60s.
Just as a refresher on Woodson’s work: it reveals how the education system up to his time (the 1930s) represented a system of institutionalized racism perpetuated by white supremacist propaganda. He first coined the term miseducation when he described the “mis-educated ministers” who preached a white supremacist theology which justified segregation. Curious isn’t it when white supremacy and neo-nazism is making a flourishing resurgence in America, most notably in the south? Curious isn’t it when GOP legislators are eliminating, banning, ameliorating cultural diversity curricula, literally entire programs and departments like Tuscon’s Latino Studies program?
There’s no mistaking Skousen in sofa’s screed, but David Barton’s influence is also apparent. Also unmistakable Tea Party kool-aid: American exceptionalism and the inciting propaganda of an “opponent” who “blames” America and who hates America or “western civilization.” In not-so-polite circles this Tea Party poison always refers to America’s left and the “Democrat Party” – another propagandist term with sickening origins. The “leftist” is one with whom never to compromise as the King Streets Patriots will tell you, as Herman Cain will tell you. Never listen to those “leftists” from the Democrat Party, they’re all out to get you. They’re all out to get your money. They’re all out to destroy you and everything you hold dear. These aren’t my ideas. I am paraphrasing, but these are Tea party concepts, spoken out loud in not-so-polite company during their many Tea Party summits. The opposite, of course, is the real truth. The Tea Party propaganda effort is fueled by very elitist, very big money whose only means to entirely subsume the engine of government is to poison the minds of those who vote.
Take note, too, of slavery subversion in sofa’s screed. Allen West is a notable voice in this area. sofa, you’ll notice, is very concerned about redefining the public and private sectors using evil Marx as a distorting lens – in so doing, the actual distinction between public and private sectors made by the founding fathers is obliterated. The end goal of the propaganda effort is privatization of the public sector and of the government itself. Slavery, public, private, individual responsibility, individual rights, freedom, and supremacy of the divinely chosen people get all garbled up in sofa’s screed as well – but it can be unwoven once you understand precisely how sofa distorts. Again, the subverted principles can be found in Woodson’s Miseducation of the Negro. sofa reiterates but with a sick twist the oft repeated notion by Conservatives including Paul Ryan, that any kind of government assistance (“welfare”) magically creates a state of moral degradation within those who rely upon it to whatever degree. sofa, however, condemns these Americans even further by admitting the belief that such persons deserve to be starved slaves. sofa has the Tea Party poison down pat. It’s a delicate and particulate propaganda that combines Goebbels method with a technique distinctly Reconstruction Era American.
Most importantly I recommend the reader re-read sofa’s screed, especially the comments from July 2. Note the combination of conflation and omission, where capitalism; fascist kleptocracy; tories; damnation; odd distortions about monarchical redistribution of wealth (King George III was evidently a Marxist); mis-renderings (and subsequently misunderstandings) of declared grievances from the Declaration of Independence… The whole bit reinforces the idea that runs throughout sofa’s screed – Communism and Socialism are evil (though sofa clearly doesn’t understand how either were implemented around the world), also the evils of a phantom government bureaucracy, and the value which insists that Capitalist Individualism is godly, rightly, and just, nay – pre-ordained and pre-destined according to God’s moral plan for America. sofa is fusing Capitalism with American democracy as if the two were one and the same. They are not. This is the ultimate subversion of Classical Liberalism. At this point, the subversion goes without saying, it’s a foregone conclusion – It has been an extremely effective propaganda campaign that has radicalized the right wing.
Radicalization of the Tea Party rank and file and the GOP officials they elect is not organic in any way. It is inorganic, pre-meditated; the effort to privatize America’s government and pervert American culture will succeed if it goes unchecked and unchallenged. Conservatives are not conservative anymore – radicals like sofa do not represent conservation of American tradition or preservation of American principles. The sofas are distorting, subverting, and hideously rewriting history – much in the same way Woodson warned us about in 1933. Much in the way Goebbels distorted German society, politics, and culture in 1933.
“When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his “proper place” and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary.”
~ Carter Woodson, The Mis-education of the Negro
“Fascism is definitionally Right Wing, the Communist and Socialist structures you cite were headed by Right Wing dictators.”
-PJ
Facists like Mussolini and Adolf were National Socialists. Lefties.
They were to the right of Marx, but Lefties who preached “to each according to his needs”.
Adolf nationalized Health Care, pushed gun control, and put Car companies under national control. Sounds familiar, eh?
Typical Lefty agendas.
Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot: Lefties.
Point being- Marxism,Facism,Socialism=Lefty Dictatorships, as they have to be, to redistribute wealth using force. Lefti-ism always resorts to force against the people. Always.
====
Thanks for citing so many examples of your confusion. Lots of misinformation without understanding=Miseducated.
Ever been to China, North Korea, Eastern Europe under the Soviets, Cuba? They provide data which counters your mythology: Examples of use of force to make people follow flawed lefty ideologies. They also all have national health care, gun control, etc.
Sofa,
Take the time to study history instead of absorbing the propagandist talking points. Historians, real historians even Conservative historians accept the verity of historically Right Wing regimes – Nazism, Mussolini, Stalin and on and on…. Socialism isn’t synonymous with Left. Fascist is ostensibly center ideologically but it has been implemented in the real world as right wing. Your subversions are outstanding, sofa, there’s no doubt about it. Again, why don’t you study history yourself, study historically Right Wing regimes yourself instead of absorbing distorted historical revisionism and propaganda talking points. I realize Conservative Radicals don’t like to be identified with despots and dictators, with Hitler and Mussolini but that is your lot and you should pay closer attention to it. Your examples are not “Lefty” dictatorships, sofa, they are all Right Wing dictatorships. Go to the history books written by real historians who use real historical methods. You have demonstrated that you know a pat answer and a stock answer derived by propagandist reasoning. You have not demonstrated that you understand any of these regimes at all. In fact you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of what might even make a regime right or left.
JFK speeches disagree with your rants.
National Socialism, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro = Left Progressives= Brutally murdering any who disagree by refusing to let their wealth and lives be re-distributed. It’s what the left always does.
George Orwell discussed the need to re-write history to match your mythology, to try and hide the truth. Your Mini-True attempt is double-plus ungood, comrade.
Re-distribution is theft, and always leads to mass murder of imprisoned citizens. Always.
Spend some time in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba. See the carnage of lefty progressivism.
Keep going, sofa. 🙂 Continue. 🙂
Do enlighten us all with your epistemological prowess. I haven’t any doubt you have an encyclopedic catalog of conclusions all which demonize the Left. I wouldn’t bet against that certainty. However, when you discuss your conclusions rationally without A priori deduction perhaps your emotional appeal may approach something near to sensible. You are free to your divisively partisan opinion supported by disinformation, and that’s all you’ve offered – unsubstantiated, unreasoned, uncritical opinion that just happens to identically parallel Radically Extremist Conservative Propaganda.
By all means, sofa, don’t stop rattling on with your nonsense. It is best we all see what it is precisely that you say, how you say it, why you say what you do…. the more you say, the more we can examine. In that way, those of us who think, can think critically about what you are saying. Your screed touches on complex issues which you’ve distilled into ridiculously oversimplified terms. Your conclusions are not products of complex thought. Your conclusions are products of facile thought. Those of us who think can verify on our own whether or not what you say evidences critical, nuanced thought or if it seeks only a single purpose.
Please, blast further so we can all witness how you twist and contort. You are an object lesson in propagandist thought versus critical thought. We can all learn how to think critically from your propagandist screeds.
Unlike yours, my mind is open. I’m not at all opposed to coming to your “side” with respect to your conclusions, but you have yet to provide evidence and you have to exhibit intellect. You are merely disseminating hate.
Try to subvert Orwell too, but anyone who reads Orwell for themselves can make up their own minds. Orwell opposed Communism, yes. But which Communists and why? Orwell valued above all a ‘society of liberty and equality’ – but did he believe that liberty and equality could be facilitated through laissez-faire means? No, sofa, he did not. He thought that between collectivism and free market competition the greater tyranny was the free market because it was irresponsible and unaccountable. As much as you would probably like to co-opt Orwell in your Hayekian scheme that insists socialism always and only leads to despotism, Orwell was actually more tempered and realistic than either you or Hayek. Orwell understood and articulated that totalitarianism was a threat not isolated to Collectivism or Communism or Socialism.
Orwell was socially conservative in some respects; he was homophobic, anti-abortion, and he liked his guns. But did he advocate a ‘society of liberty and equality’ which accommodated only his views, where opposing views were not allowed? Do you believe for a moment Orwell would consider legislating opposing views out of existence was appropriate? You are a dolt if you think so. What did Orwell think of British imperialism or British colonialism – you know – the British imperialism that you somehow confuse with Marxism? You do know Orwell was English?
You are aware of Orwell’s admiration for Aneurin Bevan?
Orwell grasped a number of ideas which you do not. Orwell understood the difference between Socialism and Communism. Orwell understood the difference between Socialism and Fascism. Orwell could distinguish between economic systems and political systems. He could and he did. It is you who cannot. Orwell understood authoritarianism and opposed it. You do not. Orwell understood totalitarianism and opposed it. You do not. Try thinking for yourself. It’s actually enjoyable to think.
Clearly you also don’t understand JFK – who did get it when it came to understanding the relationship between Post-Colonialism and Communism.
Look in the mirror for doublethink, sofa. Once again, you are an object lesson, Big Brother. Your subversive identification of Progressive as Right Wing is beyond laughable. Your worship of Hayek and his assertion that socialism inevitably leads to despotism reveals little more than inflexibility of thought and dismissive ignorance. I reiterate: study history for yourself, don’t rely on your revisionist sources. It is you who are rewriting history and for vile purpose. You would make Goebbels proud. You can repeat, repeat, and repeat your lies and you can believe them with all sincerity, but if you want anyone else to believe your extremist assertions you must indicate some working knowledge of any of the regimes, time periods, and myriad issues you sweep together. Until you do you are using Propagandist Method. Not Historical Method. You have yet to meaningfully discuss your thesis on anything other than superficial terms.
I say again, I’m not at all opposed to responsible Conservatism. I welcome it. You do not relay thoughtful, responsible Conservative ideas. You are an irresponsible, irrational right wing propagandist with absolutely no comprehension of history.
Redistribution is theft? Benjamin Franklin profoundly disagrees. He firmly believed wealth and property in excess of reasonable, personal use should be put into the “kitty” into the tax pool to fund the public good. How did he regard those who begrudged taxation? As savages. And savages they are.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
~Benjamin Franklin, 1783
PJ, when it comes to Sofa, you’ve been “casting pearls before swine”.
You been to China, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba? The certain carnage of lefty progressivism- That’s reality.
Hate reality. Spew anger. That’s what is left of the left.
Just stop, Sofa. You’re out of your league.
We don’t need to worry about sofa; he’s taking a vacation.
🙂
Speaking of sofa… by chance, did anybody notice any similarities between sofa and SOFA – the new American Exceptionalism SuperPAC? Spooky?