Thursday, July 3, 2014
That word can be seen as good or bad, depending on context. If we're referring to the freedom-loving rebels in Star Wars, opposing the dark forces of the Empire, it's good. When referring to an anarchist uprising to overthrow a peaceful democracy, it's bad.
Rule of Law.
The difference hinges on whether the rebellion is for or against the concept of law. That concept can just as easily be carried out by a dictator in a benevolent empire as it can by a balanced, congressional or parliamentary system of government. Both systems can fall prey to tyranny. You could have one tyrant or 300 tyrants. Take your pick. The difference between a free society depends on those in authority recognizing that they are serving the rule of law, not the other way around.
Everyone likes to argue about rights. Unfortunately, our discussion of rights seems to have devolved into "freebies." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has become a list of things that we expect someone else to pay for. Worse still, we seem to think that some Ruling Class ought to enforce these unnamed someones to pay for it all.
In particular, I'm thinking about the Hobby Lobby verdict. We have politicians calling the verdict "idiotic."
What I find idiotic is the whole debate. Or that it even became an issue.
Why is it that when a "corporation," which is a private enterprise by private, and presumably free people, doesn't want to provide a "benefit" to their employees, it becomes an issue for the Government? Do we really want a Ruling Class to dictate what private enterprises must do or provide? Do we want them to tell private citizens what they must do and provide?
If so, that's called slavery. If you're for that, great. But it sort of conflicts with the whole idea of "rights." Just be honest about it. You want to be a slave to a ruling class that will give you stuff at the expense of others. But that has nothing to do with rights. Your rights don't get billed to someone else, and someone else's rights don't get billed to you.
The Good of Society.
Naturally, we don't want people to be misused, so we have laws that govern treatment of people on work-sites, we require that companies provide compensation in the event of job-related injuries ... etc. Those are understandable as they relate to the common good and stability of our society. They also protect the worker's right to life, which shouldn't be forfeited in the service of an employer. Without such measures, we might have fewer workers and a stagnant economy due to harsh conditions, resulting in injury.
With abortive birth control, however, the issue isn't about the general welfare of the workers. I'm fairly certain that Hobby Lobby doesn't run a sweat shop where women are being impregnated against their will. In fact, such a practice on its face would be illegal. We have FBI taskforces devoted to tracking down and stopping such things.
Healthcare as a Human Right.
The issue isn't the public welfare. It rises from the notion that "healthcare" is a human right. Unfortunately, when people talk about healthcare, they're not referring to one's choices in being healthy. That, certainly is a right and doesn't cost your neighbor a dime.
What is meant by "healthcare" is actually health insurance, which pays for check-ups, surgeries, medication, etc. which is provided by doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Those folks earn money by providing the services that health insurance pays for. Thus, healthcare insurance, or even healthcare services cannot be a human right. Otherwise we might just require doctors, nurses and pharmacists (and those who research and develop and mine for the drug ingredients) to work for free.
Birth control has fallen beneath the umbrella of healthcare. It's actually rather simple to explain, too. It costs less for an insurance company to pay for a vasectomy or the pill than it does to have babies born. Simple dollars and cents. Even Hobby Lobby's insurance has these provisions in their coverage.
Abortion as Birth Control.
Unfortunately, "birth control" includes murder in today's parlance. And that's, essentially, where some people have the audacity to draw the line. I guess I do, too. I don't see killing off your "mistakes" as an acceptable "solution." And I don't care if you're raised as a Nazi. It's wrong. Objectively.
If "loving passion" created life, you better love that life passionately. End of story.
And as for the Court upholding the individual's rights to draw a moral line that really shouldn't need drawing, good for them. But even if they didn't, there is still a right for people to not murder. But it would require the good form of rebellion to stick to it.