Editor’s Pick
MAY 12, 2011 1:54PM

Rand Paul is an Idiot

Rate: 29 Flag


            TinFoilHatArea    rand paul     TinFoilHatArea


Appearently determined to prove the Bush Theory -- all famous name sons of office-holding Republicans represent a generational degredation of genetic attributes -- Rand Paul has once again made a fool of himself.

Yesterday, during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, Rand declared that those who think there should be a right to healthcare believe in slavery:

"With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies," the senator said. "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," Paul added. "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."

"I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care," Paul continued. "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 health care would be."

If Rand was sane instead of Libertarian, the Miranda warning would need to be updated:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be enslaved and forced to represent you...

Miranda has been in force for several decades, yet I'm not aware of any incident where the police showed up at an attorney's house (whether involved in the case or not), beat down the door and dragged their captured slave to court.

Senator Paul must think the right to free speech means you can conscript anyone to speak for you, and the right to religious freedom means you can make the Pope attend your daughter's First Communion.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum and are seldom defined as absolute. Courts are often called upon to find a reasonable balance between conflicting rights. The only absolute in this story describes the degree to which a simple-minded Libertarian can make an ass of himself. 







Author tags:


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:

I had a city job once and it was my job to go and meet the real tin foil hat wearing people.These people were constantly calling in demanding city services to ameliorate their imagined wrongs and to rid the planet of miscellaneos aliens etc. I would take notes and listen attentively then ask that they keep it on the down low.
For the most part they were charming in an entirely weird way but appreciative of a kindly listen. So this piker Rand doesn't qualify.
Nothing any more surprises me when it comes to the thinking, or lack of thinking of the Republicans/Libertarian. I'm more surprised they have followers.
Rand Paul is just the kind of person who emerges when politics starts to lose control of people, when reality becomes so overwehlmingly miserable the system can't contain it any longer. Then the weirdos show up on the right, and the libertarian-right, and the imaginary "center," to lead us even further into denigration. "Ignore your own senses," should be their rallying cry. Not working too well this time, if the eruptions in Wisconsin and Michigan, and all over the Eurozone and the Middle East and elsewhere are any indication...
In the slippery slope department, no one can see so many and so slippery slopes as the randroids.
The benign benighted are fine. The problem comes when they have a vote in the Senate.
pat...that's the nice thing about Libertarianism -- it doesn't require much thought.

True. During times of national turmoil, the flakes rise up to be counted. The ideologues want to advance the idea that their particular dementia is the solution.

I figure Rand was on the clock when he made that statement, and if the red light hadn't lit, he wouldn't have finished until the Nazis were paratrooping on to Main Street, USA.

I'll be back later
He really shouldn't open his mouth until somebody else reviews what he thinks he's going to say...That whole rant sounded like some half-baked trial balloon in his head that just made it out of his mouth unconciously.
He really is an idiot. I read his remarks earlier and was left wondering what medical school this guy went to.
His daddy is just as crazy. They deny this but I don't believe them. Ron named his kid after the most vile writer of the 20th Century the naive, egomaniac, vicious bitch known as Ayn Rand. I love it when these supposed Libertarians become career politicians. They strut around lambasting the very government that writes them checks. This guy fits the criteria for one suffering from a severe mental illness. The fact that he is a leader in this country of over 300 million is proof that we have lost our way as a culture. He is a mean and petty con-artist.
I wouldn't be too quick to throw everything who believes strongly in something in with the tinfoil hat crowd, to which Paul definitely belongs. Seems to me, that's the way it works, in a larger sense: use the wackos to discredit the serious folks who have something other than the usual pablum to dole out. Same thing happens whenever I criticize Obama's stupidity to anyone. Oh, you must be a tea partier, they say to me, as they flush the reality TV out of their bloodshot eyes. No, fucker, think again. Think Bush III.
Yes, Rand Paul and Nat Turner have so much in common. They both inspired mobs of crazy white people. The difference is that Turner was fighting it while Paul encourages it, and that Turner was hanged for it while Paul gets to wear nice suits and stride the halls of the Senate.

Gotta go, my wife is conscripting me to wash the dishes.
I'm not sure I'd call Rand an asshole. They do stink, but also perform a useful function.

I was almost astonished at how utterly insipid Rand can be. I can't even make sense of it in a nonsensical way.

I don't think I'd want Rand operating on me. He might decide my burst appendix has a right to remain, and that my liver shouldn't be forced to function.

Dr spud,
Libertarianism either makes people stupid, or attracts stupid people because it's so painfully simplistic. I guess that applies to crazy people also.

I would never arbitrarily throw a tin foil hat on somebody, but this was a no-brainer any way one can interpret that phrase. This is a case where pablum would have served Rand better than revealing how shallow a thinker he is. I wouldn't use Rand to discredit Libertarianism, as doing that is easy enough without having to point to an even worse example of Libertarian thinking...if we can call it that. I'm not sure what that has to do with Obama's mediocrity, however.

The irony is that despite all the noise Libertarianism makes, implementing it even more than it has been leads to indentured servitude...just like marriage. If you want out of your forced dishitarian drudgery, take a cue from Ike -- not Nat -- Turner.
He didn't state that argument properly, although it is a fundamental question of in what sense precisely is healthcare a right, if at a all, and he should have used Adam Smith to think about it, and Smith so beloved of the Randians was not in fact a libertarian, and even worked for the government.
As a pragmatic matter, if you are bleeding to death, you feel the empathy Smith talked about in The Theory of the Moral Sentiments as the foundation of why we expend our resources on others, namely, that it is closely related to how much we feel we could relate to that condition; it is also a problem with capitalism, means that you will get treated, and cost will come what may whatever your ability to pay.
Emergency care, like an appendicitis, that can strike one out of fifty people I believe, and in which without medical care, you die, gets treated too. So do lots of conditions that ultimately present not at Rand Paul's door, if many times not very efficiently in terms of cost.There is no enslavement of doctors if they are free, which they are, not to take Medicare and Medicaid patients in general, if they are not free either to cherry pick among a government program that he is free to use or not, since it is not a condition of holding a medical license, which would be a concern, and because no one has to to be a doctor.
Congrats on EP by the way.
The Randman and The Rainman have much in common; both have a fixation on triviality that prevents them from perceiving reality. But while The Rainman was an idiot savant, The Randman is just an idiot.

By the way, I've been cooking up a post on The Randman myself; whatever his shortcomings -- and they are legion, he is an endless source of comedic material. But while he is a veritable punchline, the joke isn't funny.
While Paul's statement is silly, I think it is still possible to salvage an argument out of it.

The flip side of a right is obligation. If you have a right to X, then that entails that someone has an obligation to provide X.

If we say that everyone has a right to health care, that is another way of saying that someone has an obligation to see to it that everyone has health care. But who is that "someone?" And what is the nature and scope of that "obligation?" Who knows.

Thus I don't think it's very helpful to talk about health care in terms of rights. I think it makes more sense to see health care as a system, and talk about what kind of system we want, how it would work, and how much we want to spend on it.
I'm not one of those who thinks healthcare is a right, but that it could be if a majority wanted it badly enough. What it should be is a benefit of citizenship. The point is even if it was a right, that does not override all other rights, as Rand says, nor is it a path to slavery. If he had moderated his whine it could have been simple hyperbole, but he didn't. He flat out claimed it would lead to slavery, which is absurd any way you look at it, but is typical of Libertarian...uh..."thinking."
The EP was a surprise, and thanks.
The funniest thing about Rand, perhaps, is how he rode his daddy's name into office. I'm tempted towards the "best part of him landed on the sheet" comment. He represents the Tea Party "Conservative Libertarians," the political oxymoron equivalent of Jumbo Shrimp. Perhaps this attempt to combine oil and water is what causes his scatterbrained blather...or perhaps it's just that he is an idiot.
Apparently it bears endlessly repeating, but healthcare IS a right in this country, a right established in our founding documents:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Conservatives are more than willing to provide for the common defense, but they are much less willing to promote the general welfare in any form. But it is -- or ought to be -- inarguable that if we have a right to tax citizens to provide for the common defense, we have a right to tax citizens to promote the general welfare.

One may argue that healthcare is outside the bounds of general welfare, but that seems a specious argument at best. But regardless of one's opinion on that matter, the right to healthcare has been confirmed again and again by our courts. Anyone who doubts that is advised to look at the judgments levied against hospitals who turn away indigent patients in need of emergency healthcare.
While I can completely understand your desire to disagree with Paul's stance on health care - his argument is intellectually honest, and supportable.

To force an individual to supply a good or a service in return for nothing is a definition of either theft, or slavery - depending on the severity of the requirement. That's true. It may be a debatable point as to whether you agree with the compulsory delivery of products and services. But health care is a service industry. Someone has to do something, for free if health care is a right.

Health care is not a right. It is desirable. It is comforting. It is necessary for the continuation of life at some point. But none of that makes it a right.

Consider this little thought experiment. What if brick facades were considered to be a right. Sure, it's a ridiculous analogy, but so what? To achieve the goal, a service must be provided for free, and a product must be supplied so that the service can be rendered.

Is the bricklayer, the concrete mixer, and the laborer necessary to do the job compelled by law to show up at your house to install the facade? Why should they have to work for free to satisfy your personal goal? Then again, why do you have a right to their time and effort because of your political beliefs, but they have no right to yours, because you're not involved in the bricklaying industry?

You can be mad. That's okay. You can disagree. That's okay too, But you cannot deny that forcing someone to work without compensation equates to slavery. That's just dishonest on a very basic level.
Yes, that is correct. If it is a right, then there is an obligation. However, under our system...as designed, at least...the obligation falls upon the same people who created the right. So the right and obligation are the same, and self imposed. The public sets up the system, in this case insurance and regulations, just as it set up a system of public defenders. The "right" is individual and collective, and doesn't impose anything upon the system that changes its nature--making an individual's job into slavery, for example -- simply based on how it's paid for.
However, I think it doesn't matter if it's a right as long as it happens. Instead of being affirmed by amendment, it rises from a simple political act. Just do it, if I may quote a tennis shoe.
The choice of language was absurd, and in bad taste, so long as the government does not force people to take patients who are on Medicaid or Medicare, and even then, doctors are smart and more importatantly, socially respected, so they can earn a living doing something else, absent his literal scenario, which is nonsense, if they don' t earn as much money.
You hit whining right on the head, because people like Ron Paul make plenty of money, and he has billed out lots to the federal government, and he doen't have to do that, he can work in chemistry or pharmacy or drug sales, lots of alternatives.
Sorry, Paul, I have to correct you on one point. You suggest that the right and the obligation are created by the same group. That's incorrect under the American system of government. Our documentation (the instructions for running the US, you might say) specify that our rights are inherent. They are not given, and they cannot be taken away (unless we commit felonies, in which case bad things happen to us in the legal sense).

You cannot make the delivery of a product or service a right. It just isn't there. The freedom of assembly, the freedom to worship as you please, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure - now those are rights. And we know where to go look them up and evaluate the extent of those rights.

There is no right to rhinoplasty in the US Constitution. Similarly, there is no right to toenail fungus treatments, bypass operations, or colonoscopies. Those all involve products and services that are medical in nature.

And to be even more clear, health insurance is not health care. Health insurance is a financial plan. Health care is a service that can preserve or prolong your life.

Nobody anywhere needs health insurance. Nobody. Everybody has a need for health care.

Apples and haystacks. They have nothing in common at all.
No one will force the doctor to provide services. Like in the legal aid example, there will be a range of people providing these services.

On the counter argument, no healthcare is a forced death sentence. So, what is worse, having doctors be slaves, or giving half the nation a death sentence? Libertarian sophistry is a dead end.

By the way, Rand Paul: Paul declined to say how much money he gets from the programs, but he said approximately 50 percent of his income is Medicare and 5 percent is Medicaid. According to the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Paul has been paid $130,461 over the last five years through Medicaid. If that represents 5 percent of his income, then Paul’s Medicare payments over the same period would be more than $1.3 million or about $260,000 a year.
Jamie, then you have no right to safe highways, no right to safe flying, no right to safe water, no right to safe buildings, no right to safe practices, no right to safe trains. The list is endless. No right to street lighting. Nope, none of that was in the constitution. NOPE. You don't get it.

You know, that perfect overpass onto a highway, the one that does not kill 50% of the users, you have no right to it.
Rand's whine is neither intellectually honest or logically coherent.

You could grasp at coherent if you wish to arbitrarily (and it would have to be arbitrary) relate the "right" to healthcare to it being "free." But "free" is impossible as far as the service, so can only logically be limited to describing how it applies to only those without the ability to pay in any form--including taxation. Somebody, obviously, has to pay. One cannot, by definition, argue the impossible as logical.

Rand speaks of the "right" to have healthcare as meaning somebody has to be enslaved to accomplish it. At BEST, you can try to nullify the discombobulation of his intellectually garbled statement by pointing out that he ends it by switching the subject to the concept of "free," and free means nobody gets paid. If that's intellectually honest, then it's the first time I've heard sophistry described as an intellectual exercise beyond attempting to see if anyone can spot the disconnect.

You say:
"Someone has to do something, for free if health care is a right."

I can see why you think he's making a logical argument, as you perform the same erroneous logical leap.

You have a right to own a car. This, without having to pass any new legislation, so it exists as a right. Was your car a freebie?

Your closing statement, compared with the body of your response, mimics Rand's rant, as you say "right" means "free" and then conclude that working for free is slavery.

I don't wish to anger or upset anyone, but your comment was as disconnected from logic and coherence pretty much to the same degree as Rand's. You make assumptions where the foundation for such assumptions doesn't exist. GIGO.
Actually, without a fix in the healthcare system, we are more likely to create debt slaves of people who can't get insurance and needed emergency care at a hospital.

Beckett--- The right to services is separate from how that is funded. The government delivers a huge range of services --- even an army --- without conscripting anyone. If Ron Paul, who is, in all likelihood not a practicing doctor anyway, chooses not to work as a doctor, that's his choice.

Maybe you hate the word "right" but, I ask you, what kind of society are we if let people die of something easily cured because they can't pay for treatment? Do you advocate leaving the poor or disabled (and their children) to starve if they can't afford groceries one month?

Where is the compassion in compassionate conservative? Or have you abandoned the pretense of being compassionate?
If I were wrong you could correct me.
However, the only inherent rights are those listed in the Declaration --- life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (though legal positivists don't think they apply to the Constitution). Those "natural rights" are meant to serve as the inviolable (though all can be nullified under certain conditions) guideline for all other rights and laws accomplished through legislation and under the Constitution. The right to free speech, for example, was created by the 1st amendment. Even though it can be implied under natural rights, it was affirmed by amendment.

We, the Peeps can easily make the delivery of a product or service a right. If that wasn't possible, then we'd have no right of being defended, worshiping at a church, being secure in our possessions, etc. Those are all things that require some product or service, generally speaking, to deliver and maintain. We can make a right out of anything that is possible, unless forbidden by the Constitution, in which case it would require an amendment.

I never said healthcare is a right. In fact, I said it would have to be made a right to be a right. However, it is entirely permissible and possible to make it so, but I simply don't see the need for it.
Interesting addition. Rand has made himself a slave. The funny part is that is perfectly fine under some Libertarian interpretations.
Malusinka is right. Slavery, or at least debt peonage, is the result of a Right-Libertarian template. Privatizing all things means a privatized government, and unaccountable. Capitalism isn't a political system, unless you're Ayn Rand and have sucked down too many tabs of methamphetamine.
I disagree somewhat, but yours is a valid argument, and General Welfare is the basis for many programs, now and back in 1798 when the Founders passed that federal single payer insurance and hospital system act.
We can quibble about semantics, but it seems to me inarguable that the law has already established a "right" to healthcare. At the risk of quoting Wikipedia:

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay."

While it seems clear to me this law establishes the "right" to healthcare, it doesn't establish how that healthcare is to be paid for:

"There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment."

That glaring "oversight" is, I'm afraid, all to common with DC these days, where dictators dictate, but don't provide funds to take dictation.

IF, I say IF, we had grown ups in DC instead of bagmen and loonies like Rand Paul, we would have simply photocopied the Canadian system and been done with healthcare "reform". But alas, we chose to buy-off Big Pharma, the AMA, and health insurers with mandates.

Having borne painful witness to our healthcare "system" thanks to wife's cancer, I can attest that Alan Grayson had it right, save that the Republican plan is already in place:

"Don't get sick, but if you do, die quickly."
It makes me ponder the indentured police, firefighters customs agents, IRS clerks and the like. O for the freedom that comes from corporate employment.

But he's probably describing a society of entrepreneurs. Where everyone is a willing seller to a community of willing buyers. And if that doesn't work out for you, it's your own fault for not developing marketable skills. And if you wind up on the streets, well, you shouldn't be there in the first place and if you are, why should we cover your health care and your sustenance? You serve as an object lesson for others who "can't" or won't put their nose to the grindstone.

I'll close this off by extending my sympathies to all those physician slaves in Europe, Canada, Australia etc.
That's pretty convincing. I guess, as it stands, we do have a right to some care, just not comprehensive. So, yes, semantics, given the difference between a minimal system and a complete one.
Now, if only we had a right to as complete as service as is possible, or at least affordable access to one.
@Jamie Beckett - No one "forced" Rand Paul to be a doctor. That argument is absurd. It suggests that any service provided by the government is illegitimate.

Whether it's a "right" is one question. Tom C can argue it better than I can. Whether it's a desireable public policy is another. The argument you seem to embrace is that if it's not a right, it shouldn't be implemented. Perhaps I'm doing you an injustice because you don't quite say that. Do you mean that?

In any case, every other developed country has a much greater component of public health care. Are those who work under those systems slaves in some sense? C'mon.

And that brick-layer analogy is silly. If we're playing let's pretend, suppose that brick housing was a "right". Who is forcing anyone to be a bricklayer? Th government is offering money to bricklayers. If you think that makes you a slave, take up another profession.
The sad thing is the conservatarians are pushing for more privatization after trashing the economy and incomes of Americans. I don't know whether to call that cruel or stupid or both.
Okay, I made up my mind -- it's cruel and stupid...and I'll raise that with incompetent and destructive.
I often wonder whether any other group in human history has gotten as much use out of straw-man and red herring arguments as have American conservatives. Virtually every argument they make is based solely on these tactics. In this particular case there is the assumption that there are no doctors in the land that would participate in providing healthcare under a single-payer universal coverage system. Obviously, that argument is a complete falsehood. That fact necessarily arrives at the conclusion that their entire argument is false.

I have been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately and the one prevailing facet of their approach is divisiveness largely based on greed and self-interest. And, as I have already noted, their talk is always based on poor reasoning and logical fallacy. These people will be the undoing of anything good America might have to offer. They are, as you say of Rand Paul, idiots. And I think alsoknownas makes of valid point that this is perhaps an insult to the usual tinfoil-hat-wearers.
Tom - you seem to confuse laws with rights.
There are plenty things that can be claimed by laws but
that are not rights as defined in the Constitution.
There is a big difference. Laws are not rights.
If it were a right there would be no need for a law.
It would have been decided by the courts without a
necessity of a law. Not saying laws requiring medical attention is constitutional Saying that is is not a constitutional right.
You seem to think that everything we have passed a laws are proof
of our "rights".

Did the Bush tax cuts become anyone's "Right" to be taxed at a lower level? No, it is just the law for now. The law requiring medical attention could be changed at any time. It is not a right
unless the constitution is changed or if a court gets a case and
decides that it is a right. The passage of a law does not in any way
convey a right. It is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional
to have or to not have the current law until otherwise decided by a court or a change in the constitution.
@Tilapia - Jamie explains it clearly. If you think the list of things
like good water and good roads are a right you are just mistaken.
Has any plumber been conscripted to provide the plumbing for your water. No, he was either contracted by, or worked for the gov.
If all plumbers had no desire to work for the gov, regardless for the amount of pay, we would have to force it by law (and probably would). Has anyone ever forced you to provide a good or service
that you desired not to?
Theoretically, Paul i s correct. He is being conscripted.
In practicality, the combination of pay (determined buy the gov, insurance companies, etc)
and the desire of medical professionals to do thier jobs would
result in the job getting done.

But at what point is the pay too little. At what point does the
practicality turn into the theory. How little do the doctors have to be paid? How much do the tax payers pay?
The title is such a grabber, and I can't disagree. The real test of this silly concept by Senator Paul is that if government had designs on conscripting medical professionals, Kentucky would have done so long ago to care for the state tooth. When that one is gone, it will be applesauce and tapioca at every meal.
Ah ha, I got it now. While I appreciate the lecture on civics, I believe you have confused "privilege" with "right."

That's okay. Lots of people do it.

No, you do not have a right to own a car, any more than you have a right to own a bottle of Pepsi. You have the privilege to do business with someone who is selling those products. If you have the money to purchase them, great. You're an owner. If you don't, you can negotiate terms to acquire them. But you have no right to own stuff. That's a misconception.

I like this discussion though. As long as we're talking there is a chance that someone will listen. And that's good.

Incidentally, I don't believe I ever suggested that health care should be free, as you implied. Although, if it is a right, it is inherently free and cannot be bought or sold. This is true of all rights. But then, you have to know what a right is in order to see the distinction. No offense intended by that statement. But it is pivotal to the argument.

Rand may be a good politician, or he may be a bad one. I don't know. To be honest I don't follow him closely enough to have a clue. But in this case, he's correct - even if his position is contrary to a political position you hold dear. Rights cannot be purchased, sold, transferred, or abridged. You have 'em or you don't. There's not much middle ground on that point.
As an aside, I feel I must point out that I'm politically pretty far off from what would be considered a conservative. That's not me. Not even close.
If there is any truth to the statement "you are what you eat" this guy has been fed a diet that consists exclusively of assholes. No surprise that Kentucky elected him.
Here in Canada universal health care is a 'right' or a 'benefit of citizenship' or whatever. Doctors are not slaves - they are independent contractors who are free to accept the compensation offered by the government or go into some other line of work. They have an association (union by another name) and can negotiate better rates, if they wish. But by and large they seem content...they have income among the highest in the country. I notice my doctor is a corporation, which I daresay brings him some kind of tax breaks.

As for this forced-service thing - how about looking at health care the same way as police and fire services: people working in the latter professions do no have the right to pick and choose among prospective 'customers' - they work for the common good and are paid out of common money (taxes). As far as that goes, the humble store clerk does not have the right to pick and choose whom s/he will serve - s/he only has the right to continue employment at that store or go elsewhere.

This mindless repetition of slogans derived from the soulless Ayn Rand is moronic.
a play from Walker's play book - flipping an issue to victimize himself when some live and die by his immoral policies...shame. shame.
Also - is America a country/society/culture with material and human infrastructure...or is it a bunch of rugged individuals who happen to live on the same land mass where they compete with each other?

(Answer, simplistically, is both, I guess. And if that's simplistic, it's at least more complex than choosing one or the other, i.e. Soviet style communism or ... or ... not any kind of human aggregation that I'm aware of. Even families have (or used to, enshrined in law) a government.)
I wish we all slept at the same time. Much has happened here while I did.

Rick, I agree. If there weren't so many comments to answer, I'd expand.

I think I can respond to Cole and Jamie as one, more or less.

Ah ha (had to borrow that), you guys are confusing legal rights with privilege. That's OK, I guess some people do that when they have more enthusiasm for their own thoughts than knowledge.

"Natural rights" are foundational and meant as universal, per Aristotle (as we know them in the Declaration). Legal rights are those statutory things that follow as a consequence of law.
When I say WE can make H-care a right, it's because legal rights (not privileges) are established through law. There are no available weasel words that defeat that basic fact.

If the law says or implies you have a right to own a car, then owning a car is a right. "Right" obviously doesn't mean you're forced to own a car, but that you may own a car sans deleterious legal consequence. "Right," again, as above, also doesn't dictate that the car is provided free of charge. We'll call that faulty assumption the Rand Conniption.

Per Joseph Cole---
"Did the Bush tax cuts become anyone's "Right" to be taxed at a lower level?"

Answer: Yes. If the law sets the tax rate at a certain percentage, then you have a Right to be taxed at that level.

More Cole:
"The passage of a law does not in any way
convey a right." Cole is Wrong.

To be balanced, here's Jamie:
"No, you do not have a right to own a car, any more than you have a right to own a bottle of Pepsi." And -- "But you have no right to own stuff. That's a misconception."

Both of those statements are Wrong.

Jamie, I might accuse you of being wrong, but I'd never hurl the "conservative" insult without firmly establishing one as 'conservative." You're not conservative, you're simply wrong.

Good ol' Wiki offers enough information to show Cole and Jamie their errors --

Note that the two are different, but they are both RIGHTS.

'nuff said, unless somebody wants to assail the unassailable.
Bill Beck and bobbot--
Funny. Thanks for the AM chuckle.
You say:
"These ideas may be pure garbage, but they are not idiotic in the sense of being unique to RAND Paul."

No, I establish the ideas as idiotic based on logical incoherence and factual absence.

It is true that many have bought into Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but, as I'm sure you realize, that is no indication of the validity of her ideas. Argumentum ad populum can be used to prop up many horrible acts and consequences, and is fallacious when used to establish validity.

I should pick on RAND Paul, neilpaul, as I would anyone who thinks that objectivist garbage OR (and sorry about this one, but..) that Right-Libertarianism is congruent with the system established by the Founders and the Constitution...and thus the American concept of Liberty. The irony is that those objectivist-libertarian ideas are actually in service of the form of slavery one could call debt peonage, and a ruling system of elitist authoritarianism.

But I'll chop on Libertarianism in a longer form on another day.

Let's harmonize now--
You say:
"Also, it is slightly disingenuous to compare a right that arises under our constitution ...(etc)

Your point being some rights are rather lame, or inadequate, or weak. I agree. Your examples aside, I point to the part of Tom's example that says we already have a right to healthcare because one cannot be turned away from an emergency room. True, and a legal right, but inadequate to the overall issue of a competent h-care system.

When you say h-care can become a government expense that could involve half of the economy, I reply that that expense is there regardless of what entity is paying, and that government and the citizens are meant to be the same entity in our system. Therefore the valid idea seems to be the one that keeps that cost as low as possible, and that's what private insurance cannot do--and we've proven that through decades of application.

The alternative to that is we let some people rot, and actually incur a heavy price for that. It seems that paying to maintain our health might cost a great deal of money, but that amount should not be considered without factoring in the cost of not doing so.
Paying to maintain health is avoidable, but the costs of not doing so aren't.

I compare indigent legal representation because it has existed long enough to observe any "slavery" consequence Rand says will follow from a "right." I don't see it as problematic, but illuminating.
Rand said it, I refuted it, and there is no hint of being disingenuous in that. Had Rand elaborated on the source of his incoherent blathering, then I would have offered an assessment of the larger set of issues, but still would not be obligated to do so.

In a government of We, the People, there is no difference in the two entities (in theory...it's We, the Peep's fault that it has slipped out of our control). Yes, availability will call for an expanded infrastructure, and demand will effect cost, but so will economies of scale. I don't have the answer to how that plays out, but that those are factors to be considered.

The "solution" (I prefer resolution) may be mish and mash, and cost cash to flash and issues to hash....but we already have that in the system status quo.

Change must happen regardless. How that plays out depends on how much active attention people pay and the level of integrity of our representatives...so, yes, we may be re-screwed, but at least a new and different screwing.

Those "normal" Americans who have the same ideas are an extremely thin segment of society. Put those ideas up to public scrutiny and they'd be roundly rejected.
I think you covered the issue fully.

As far as the solution to health care in the US, prepare to see it offshored to Cuba.

Most Cubans are cab driver/Doctors. We have a huge cohort of aging people with not enough money.

A solution made in Heaven (or Hell).

Rand should suck on that.
And while I'm at it, Fuck You, gucci womanshoes.
Thanks, and I effed Gucci woman's shoes already. I blame the spam on some group of OS readers who buy that crap. Not you or me, obviously, but some numbnuts peckers are propping up the spammers. Let's get 'em!

Unfortunately, like many people here, you’re mis-informed about the ins and outs of the the health care system up north.

You write “Myriad, the Canadian system seems reasonable. But I'm not sure Americans want to take whatever doctor is sent to them or is standing in the clinic when they arrive.”

You see, you have the same free choice of the selecting the doctor you want. The only difference is that your doctor deals with one insurance company rather than many (as it is done here). How do you think this influence overhead costs? You can find out here, as I wrote on that exact subject:

Health Care Comparison: Universal vs U.S - Part II

Note: I have to do this in two parts, since my initial comment did not work.
You write "An American version of universal healthcare will be about five million times as expensive as a result. This has alread played out over the past three years as we try to reconcile disparate ideas of free choice and universal coverage. The price tag on having both is horrific."

Actually, this is the complete opposite, as I discussed in numerous posts:

The case against the U.S. health care system

Let's compare Public and Private health care costs, eh?

Let's Spread the Risk! (I mean Health care; Not Flu.)

I wrote other posts and you can find them in links provided in the posts above.

When one follows a bad ideology, you get this:

GMs Healthcare Double Standard: Bad ideology trumps good business
Now that the more provocative comments have been answered...
Yes, Straw men, red herrings and demagoguery pretty much describe the overwhelming bulk of what passes for conservatism's bitchy whining "intellectualism."
Conservatism has wandered so far away from what "intellectual conservatism" represents it shouldn't be called conservatism. But that's how the wing-dingers describe themselves, so calling it conservatism is unavoidable if the message is to be properly directed.
I'm guessing their tinfoil hats are made in China -- the only economy to have benefited from the conservatarian policies.
I'm glad you showed up, as this issue is in your ballpark. Thanks for adding your links. Also, thanks to Myriad for adding her opinion.
@Joseph Cole
Despite the fact PJ has already debunked your arguments, I am compelled to respond because you once again prove Randian Libertarianism is a house of cards built on the not so firm foundation of sophistry.

To suggest that a law does not convey rights is absurd. While you are correct that subsequent laws can take away some rights, the tendency throughout our history has been to extend rights, not take them away.

One glaring exception is the ruling in Citizens United, which in effect takes away -- or at least substantially abridges -- the rights of citizens by granting inalienable human rights to pieces of paper -- which is in essence all a corporation is.

While that ruling does not effect an individual's voting rights per se, it's practical effect is to grant wealthy citizens a much more substantial say in who an individual gets to choose from. The proof of that assertion is the wave of Rtwngnut Republicans who, thanks to the deep pockets of the Koch Bros, gained control of several state legislatures and governorships in 2010.

The rtwing nuttery that has spewed from that election -- including the election of Rand Paul -- will haunt thus country for decades to come. But we can all hope -- and pray -- the many recalls going on are a sign of better things to come.

Do deep pockets always guarantee getting elected? No, just ask Meg Whitman. But corporations spend billions, if not trillions, on advertising, so they must believe it works.

One more thing -- sorry, PJ, even our vaunted First Amendment rights can be abridged or taken away under certain circumstances, such as the declaration of martial law. And as history proves, all rights -- including those pompously and falsely declared inalienable by the Founders -- can be taken away by revolution or by conquest.
As I said above -- "Those "natural rights" are meant to serve as the inviolable (though all can be nullified under certain conditions) guideline for all other rights and laws accomplished through legislation and under the Constitution."
I have made that point many times, also reflected in my statements about rights not being absolute.
Mea culpa redux. My "sorry, PJ" above was not intended as a correction in your direction, but as an apology for rambling on so on your post -- particularly when that rambling is so obviously wasted on its intended target.
A wrap-up to clarify.
There are Natural Rights -- Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
There are Constitutional rights -- those codified in the document.
There are legal rights that present as a consequence of law.

We could amend the Constitution to ensure a right to h-care.
We could pass a h-care law that would ensure that right for as long as the law stood.
We could do either and be well within the natural law.
Ramble on, Tom. Rambunctious rambling is righteous and reasonable, and only redundant if one does it while driving a Rambler.

PS--Amend natural law above to natural rights...pretty much the same, but slightly different. Jefferson's D of I describes them as rights.
What? I missed something. Neilpaul thinks we Canadians go to some clinic and get seen by whichever Randian slave-doctor is on duty? Not at all. We can go to any old doctor we want. They mostly have their individual offices and practices. Tho there are walk-in clinics for those who want to see Whoever's On Duty.

Okay, found it! Jeez man, assumptions, assumptions! Americans have weird ideas about our system...w.o., like, looking into it. Too much anti-*socialist* propaganda affects even keen legal minds, apparently.
Sorry Tom but just because you proclaim that PJ has debunked me you are not correct.

"To suggest that a law does not convey rights is absurd. While you are correct that subsequent laws can take away some rights, the tendency throughout our history has been to extend rights, not take them away."

I find this to be an incredible statement. Do you have statistics to back it up. I could go on forever how many laws restrict our rights or behaviors. I don't buy that it the tendency is to extend behaviors. I think you and I could find countless examples
in both directions. Of course you know that and I call bullshit as usual on your refusal to play your own devils advocate when you
say stuff. You know what you say is not the whole truth and you say it anyway.

Even if Obamacare survives as constitutional it will not become a right. There would be incredible consequences pertaining to the commerce clause, but that aside, it is NOT a right.
Even surviving a constitutional challenge, it could still be repealed
later by congress. That is NOT a right. Surviving the Supreme Court does not mean Obamacare has to exist. It simply says it can exist.
If repealed, I would love to see the court challenge that says
"it was unconstitutional to repeal it."

In Austin the laws concerning smoking in public places have changed so many times that I cant tell you what it currently is. I would love to think I have a right to a smoke free bar, but what I have is privilege of it for now. Until the city council changes it again.

And to PJ or whoever wrote that diving is a right, the courts have held clearly that it is a privilege and not a right and there is a huge difference.

And Tom, as I have read further, you can keep quoting the preamble all you want . You opinion does not make it fact.
You are not the sole interpreter of the preamble. But you sure act like it is just pain obvious, to all but morons, that your opinion is correct. It is your opinion. That's all. And about half the country disagrees with you.

If driving were my Right someone would have to provide me a car.
Driving is not a right but is allowed by law. I can drive if I have a car. I can't drive if no car is available. So how can it be a right
is no car is provided.

I say the above not as totally literal/legal fact. But I a damn sure that if the constitution said simply "it is a right to drive a car within the physical/medical restrictions determined..."
then liberals would immediately interpret that all must be provided a car because it is a right. And the court case would shortly follow requiring all to be given a car.

You can says health care is a right. You should have a right to provide yourself all the health care you want (unfortunately you cannot do most things without a doc by law), but there are a great deal of things you can do for yourself with over the counter drugs, testing and your own education. The questions is who HAS to supply the service or good. If it is your right to it, the band-aid and aspirin must be provided because it is your right. But it is NOT. It is your choice, within the law to self treat with your own resources. You can make your own aspirin; you can buy it. You cannot demand it.
You can rip out your own kidney, in secret, if you want, but you cannot demand someone do it for you.
A Right implies that either no service or good is needed or if one is needed it is provided. Like the right to a lawyer as mentioned before. What good would the right to a lawyer be if it were not provided?

Well what if no one wants to be a doctor anymore under Obamacare. As for as I know Obamacare or any other law does not stop all doctors/hospitals from simply going out of business. Then there would be a clear move to force doctors to work.
If and when that happens I would agree that a law is now indistinguishable from a right. And that also when I could care less about living in this society. You have my permission to shoot me in the head. And I don't even care if you are not a doctor.

yep. I think I'm allergic to nuts afterall. Rand Paul give me hives...I think my throat is beginning to swell closed. Good post. r
I understand your argument tactic--you think that if you keep arguing it means you haven't lost.
In the real world, you lost your argument. Or, if you prefer, your argument failed due to the fact it is incorrect.

Anyone meeting the legal requirement to drive has a right to drive. Right does not mean in any sense that something is provided free of charge. An indigent defendant has a right to free legal service, but that isn't because it's a right, it's because it's a right to free legal service for indigent defendants. Those with the ability to pay have no right to free legal service.

I'm not sure if this response is the proper one. I'm beginning to think we should take you back to learning the alphabet and slowly move forward from there. Slowly, because you will argue A isn't A, ad infinitum.

You were wrong. You are wrong. I see a trend developing that leads me to believe you also will be wrong in the future.

Maybe you think this will work in your favor, as I would not be surprised if you think two wrongs don't make a right, but that three or more have a pretty good shot at it.
WOW! Lots of discussion here. Unfortunately, so much of it is in response to right-wing misconception of reality, which seems to be the prevailing political strategy of Republicans at this juncture. On another level, though, I’m especially glad to see the OS Canadians weighing in debunking the ridiculous misinformation about the Canadian system; misinformation that is absolutely essential the entire right-wing argument regarding healthcare.

As I said above, straw-man, red herring, logical fallacy in general is all they have to work with anymore in supporting their arguments; they are completely reliant on the incorporation of “to hell with truth and facts and reason”. They don’t seem to grasp the idea that an argument founded on false premises is false, and that circular reasoning (the idea that you make it true just by saying it's true) is not a solid basis for good policy decisions.
Paul - first, only in the world of salon do i lose. and yet i don't. Also i am tempted to drop an f bomb on you because you know your argument about my typing is bullshit. so I cant type. I will out debate you ass verbally any day. I am not only a bad typist, but it takes too many written words to communicate this way for my time and patience and the discourse it to slow. So get over your fucking petty criticisms and stick to the point. You really want to debate get on the phone with me and lets see who is so damn smart
and who is stupid. I would openly debate any of you regulars here in any public forum.

You are simply factually wrong about driving. It s NOT a right as established by law and the courts. That is a FACT. I don't happen to agree with it. I think it should be a right as long as conditions are met. I did not decide the case. I am just pointing it out. I am right and you are wrong. Do you think for a second that local or state govs can't restrict you right to drive beyond the obvious physical requirements. Wrong. In fact you liberals are the most likely to do it. In the name of pollution, traffic jams, road maintenance costs.
etc. So don't argue when you know this could easily happen.
Of course you will call it the right to drive except when you don't have the right for the greater good. That's not a right in my book.
THAT is the difference between a right and a law. Rights are not at the whims of quick law changes, especially buy local govs. Privileges are.
Yes you are right about lawyers. But why not have universal lawyer representation?
How is it any different than health care. Who says who can afford it.
Here is a thought provided by the instructor of my CHL class in TX.
Think hard about defending your life. Kill someone in total justified self defense and you are still going to pay huge legal bills because there WILL be a least a grand jury.
So I kill some asshole that tries to kill me or someone else and I spend 100K on a lawyer. Why do I have to be indigent to get a free lawyer in this situation. This instructor actually has scared me out of defending myself in a life an death situation. I think we all deserve free lawyers. Why not?

And you do not address what i said. If the constitution said driving was a right I know damn well you liberals would interpret that as a right to a car. I'd bet my life on it. You would take it to court in a heartbeat and hope for a liberal majority to mandate it and you would be happy about it. For my right to walk you would provide shoes. there would be no end if you guys had it your way.

You want to force docs to work. Go ahead. Good luck when you are in the trauma center and the doc is pissed and disgruntled.
Here is a fact for you. I know it first hand from my cousin who is an anesthesiologist. Under medicare a cardiologist performs pre-care,
a triple bypass surgery and 90 days post care and gets paid $1500.
The is horrible pay for that service. Especially is this guy is a great surgeon only because he elects to be. Why do you get to command his expertise and hard work for free to you and for too little pay for him. Only because he has the integrity to do a good job for poor pay. Only because he has essentially, as Mr. Paul says, has been conscripted. Does he want to save a life, Certainly yes.
Does he want to be paid more that what could amount to about $50 -$100 per hour for his time. YES. Does he want to be a civil servant. Maybe. Probably not.

Keep with your attitude to make people deliver for you. In the end you will get a lazy inept doctor. Good luck in the ER come 2014 and beyond. Good luck getting kids to borrow tons of money to go med school and pay those loans for the rest of their lives. Oh yes, subsidize them to go to med school. Its just more taxes. Its just more corruption. Which school gets the money? Which kid gets the loan? Not the best one you can be sure. The best wont do it.
"Maybe you think this will work in your favor, as I would not be surprised if you think two wrongs don't make a right, but that three or more have a pretty good shot at it."

Yes, this is exactly the group non-think following here. A multitude of wrongs make a right. You all come here and high five in agreement without a bit of thought. Almost every posting here
are so easily seen to be flawed. But then no one here really expects
a real argument. All you expects is ratings and group cheers.
"Yes, this is exactly the group non-think following here. A multitude of wrongs make a right. You all come here and high five in agreement without a bit of thought. Almost every posting here
are so easily seen to be flawed. But then no one here really expects
a real argument. All you expects is ratings and group cheers.

Paul, I think you re-title your post as follows:

Joseph Cole in an Idiot

I'm wondering which one of the two, Rand and Joseph, takes the prize.
Oops: "I think you should re-title..."
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123
At first glance of RP in the tin foil hat I thought i saw Bill Murray.
Bill Murray could play in the bio pic of RP!
I love Bill Murray.
@Paul - when I googled the last sentence of you post

"See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123" I got to this page:


It goes on and on with state court decisions and other statements that I do not know what the source is.
The are many statements that seem to contend that driving is a right
, but the statements are in contradiction with what is true today.

I read most of it. Here are just 2 of the many examples that when read, I would have to say it is a right. But the problem is that the reality does not agree with the statements.

"88. Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since traveling on the streets or highways in the 50 united States of America is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require this Sovereign Man to be licensed to travel. "

Yet a license is required.

"4. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHT to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22."

5. "Regulated" here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

When 4-5 are read one would certainly think it is a right. Except that 5 is clearly not reality. "licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.." All are true in every state as fa as I know.

So what I see are a well written lot of arguments and court decisions
that say it is a right. But these court decisions are obviously not
reality today. This would lead me to conclude that these arguments and decisions, while sound good, have not been upheld.
So I have to assume there has been a subsequent decision to all this
text that has struck down these arguments and decisions.

I have said I believe it should be a right but my memory tells be it has been decided that is is not.

I cannot find what I am looking for to prove my point. I a going on
memory of a news report a long time ago that I believe was a Supreme Court decision. I still think I am correct.

At least in Australia I am

Despite the argument that neither man nor God was offended the judge clearly says she has no such right.
Your mistake was thinking a saying applied to 16 year old drivers was some sort of legal opinion. The only time driving is a privilege is when a parent controls it, or a court gives a DUI driver a limited "privilege" to drive.
Point being you were wrong.
@Kanuk - So I am an idiot. Well let me more concisely state what is my real point. Right to health care. Lets see if you can follow this idiotic augment.

We all agree we have a right to vote, bear arms, speak , and I will concede for argument, to travel. These all have 2 things in common.
1. they come with restrictions and can be taken away
2. They come at no inherent cost to t h hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhe gov. They are things you can do but not that the gov has to do or give to/for you.

In fact if you want to speak in a manner of protest, assembly, parade etc, you need a permit and probably have to pay for it yourself. There may be a city some place that uses taxes to provide public speaking forums, but it is certainly not required by the Constitution that all cities must do so.

So is health care a right? Well yes, in the sense that you have a right to seek it and get it and that it should not be restricted for no less than a very good reason (and I cant think of any good reason that a person should be not allowed to procure care).

But to put it the way that that is is debated today; that a right to
it means it must be provided to everyone is a different thing.

To be interpreted in that positive way, would be the same as saying my right to bears arms means the gov should give me arms.
My right to travel means transportation must be provided.

How does a right to health care mean a requirement for the gov to provide it. If I tried to stop you form going to the doc, I would be violating your rights. But where is the positive assertion that health care must to be provided to you for free does not fall in line with other rights.

Yes there is a right to a free lawyer, but that is because the gov is charging you with a crime that is attempted to punish you
for the alleged crime.

When you get sick you have broke no law. No crime is charged.
You are not at risk of going to jail if you don't have a doc.

If you want to call a law a right, then I guess people in Canada have a right to health care. And I guess Obamacare is a right in some sense. But the notion that without the passing of Obamacare, there was already a built in right in the Constitution requiring that health care must be provided, in incorrect in my opinion.

If Tom's interpenetration of the preamble is correct, than gov provided health care should have been available the day after the constitution was ratified. The LACK of it for the last 200+ years has always been unconstitutional according to Tom.

It logical follows that the lack of providing me a gun on day one was also unconstitutional

Now please tell me what is idiotic about that argument.
"Senator Paul must think the right to free speech means you can conscript anyone to speak for you, and the right to religious freedom means you can make the Pope attend your daughter's First Communion."

P.J. O'Rourke is an idiot, if he can't see that the right to freedom of speech and worship do not impose obligations upon others, and could in fact be exercised by a shipwrecked sailor on a deserted island. But what an idiot (there's that word again) the sailor would be if he stood up and demanded of the coconut trees and mosquitoes that he had a right to free medical care and prescription drugs!

The shipwrecked sailor could, however, pursue the betterment of his own health according to his desires and means, even taking it upon himself to seek out and utilize medicines not approved by the coconut tree-and-mosquito FDA. Ironically, this freedom -- which encapsulates the only genuine right to health care -- is the one denied by the idiots like P.J. who think the government must tell adults what we can and can't do, and rob us to pay for it, too.
@Paul - some of that long lst of citations and arguents and decisoons go back to 19 20's.

Here is a decision from 1986


And one paragraph from it:

Ms. Port attempts to extend this fundamental rule, alleging she has a right, rather than privilege, to operate a motor vehicle upon public highways and streets. Consequently, she claims RCW 46.20.021 is unconstitutional as it makes the exercise of that purported right a crime. "Right" and "privilege" have assumed a variety of meanings, depending upon the context in which they are used. As used here, "privilege" means a qualified right or a particular advantage enjoyed by a class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens, Black's Law Dictionary 1077 (5th ed. 1979); see also R. Pound, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law 468 (3d ed. 1927), whereas "right" connotes an interest belonging to every person. Black's Law Dictionary at 1190; Pound, at 467-68; Compare 72 CJS Privilege (1951 & Supp.1985) with 77 CJS Right (1952 & Supp.1985). Hence, driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination. RCW 46.20.031; .120. [FN2] This privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wash.2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel); Crossman v. Department of Licensing, 42 Wash.App. 325, 328 n. 2, 711 P.2d 1053 (1985) (privilege to drive not a "fundamental right"); State ex rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Ct., 32 Wash.App. 49, 55, 645 P.2d 734 (1982) (driver's license is privilege granted by State). This is because the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [FN3] See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27:

I still believe that this was eventually decided by Federal court.
If only Rand Paul were the only idiot. Sadly, he has plenty of company. As Will Rogers once said: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
Not everyone is aware that the "Rand" in Rand Pauls name is for "Ayn Rand" who authored Atlas Shrugged. Ann was an immigrant who failed as an actress but scored an American hubby and learned how to write words right-wingers ate by the dozen.

According to Josh Holland

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them
January 29, 2011 |

Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Hmm it seem the land is full of aliens suffering from cognitive dissonance. While my neighbor or most commenting here would never force me to fund their dreams, schemes, wants, desires, pleasures, bailouts and so on, because to do so would be a criminal act and simply wrong to commit robbery; in fact the same does occur when we allow legislation and courts to legally do what cannot be done personally. So we are a social culture that allows legalized stealing\robbery, but not personal stealing and robbery. And while no such permissions could be viewed as intended by the founders of the law of the land, we are mostly a culture of the left and right trying to get a bigger piece of the plunder than your opponent.

Mischief makers, tyrants and lords have always been able to justify "legally" the harm they do to people. Here in America we vote in our misery against each other and call that progress as well as liberty and freedom.

Well in one sense that does make many of the aliens of the land equal to tyrants and lords. Except only that the mischief makers today have your power and your money. And that's OK if you don't think about it to much.

Who's the real idiot?
With your final line you prompt a timeless question:
For whom does the bell toll?
You provide the timeless answer in many ways.
Most of what you say is superfluous, for if you knew the subject better you'd not have to make silly assertions and ask what should be answered questions.
Jefferson's Natural Rights are inalienable in the sense of Natural Rights as essentially axiomatic as the basis of the philosophy. It is true because you claim it's true without any experience beyond the claim-- a priori, not a posteriori.
That civil laws conform isn't the point in every instance, as even sanctions removing life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are allowed under civil law, and it's not the same thing.
Mass deletions of liberty can be considered under either, but it helps to know the difference. You don't "get it" yet, but you do embrace the a priori presumptions of liberalism, so that's a start to understanding American liberty.
well, rp is right. he didn't mention however, that he has a right to visit your bank account and take out enough money to make him comfortable with having to treat you.

currently only britain has a genuine socialized medical service, and the doctors in it are collectively forced to work in it for relatively low wages. strangely, they have notably high esprit de corps, and are strongly resisting tory attempts to strangle the service.

the rest of the western world gets along with socialized insurance, and the only people who complain about that are insurance companies. you can imagine how much sympathy they get. so they grit their teeth and make a living.

then there's the usa: paying twice as much for inferior service through a dog's breakfast of a system.
al, very good points and a great way of looking at it.
And he's still an idiot...