IS ANYTHING THE RIGHT OF *ALL*?
Updated: Sep 25, 2020
The general public (non-upper class people, both conservatives and liberals!) overwhelmingly agrees with the egalitarian principle of "From each according to reasonable ability*, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need."
If society were FULLY shaped by this principle, then the liberals who respond positively to the slogan "Medicare for All" would be completely happy. And the conservatives who don't want their taxes being used to provide things to freeloaders (a freeloader is, by definition, a person who does NOT contribute reasonably according to ability but who still insists that those who do so provide him/her with the fruits of their labor) would also be perfectly happy because the egalitarian principle is clearly NOT freeloader-friendly. The ruling class FEARS the unity of the general public that this egalitarian principle makes possible. This is why the ruling class CENSORS any explicit expression of this principle in the mass media and elsewhere. The ruling class very cleverly provides us with two types of divisive slogans, each divisive because of a rejection of one part or another of the egalitarian principle. The first type of slogan is designed to appeal to liberals and anger conservatives and the second type to appeal to conservatives and anger liberals. The first type of slogan is "X is the right of ALL" where X is something like health care or a universal basic income, etc. The "right of ALL" words anger conservatives (very understandably!) because they mean that even freeloaders have a right to the fruits of the labor of those who contribute reasonably according to ability.** The second type of slogan is something along the lines of "X is theft, and immoral." This is what Ron Paul says in response to "health care is the right of ALL" in a video comparing Ron Paul's view on health care to Bernie Sanders's view.  This slogan says it's wrong--it is a form of theft--to force health care providers to work for people--to provide them with a service--who don't reciprocate in any way with those providers. Sometimes the conservative slogan is "X is Slavery," which is how Rand Paul (Ron's son) expresses it. It's the same point. This slogan angers liberals (understandably!) because it is used to defend a status quo in which deserving people are denied what they deserve to have. The ruling class knows that by using these two types of slogans it can pit one half of the general public (the liberals) against the other half (the conservatives.) All it has to do is make sure that anti-egalitarian slogans dominate the public discourse. This is why the ruling class censors the egalitarian principle in the mass media it controls--our rulers fear the tremendous unity it would promote among the general public. If we simply choose which of these two types of divisive anti-egalitarian slogans to embrace (and express anger at the "other side" for not embracing it) then we will be falling right into the TRAP that the ruling class has so cleverly created for us. How about we expose the trap for what it is and advocate the egalitarian principle?  --------------------------- * Egalitarians, being reasonable people, will no doubt count children and retired elderly and people physically or mentally or for any other reason unable to work as "working reasonably" even though they do no work, and likewise deem it "reasonable work" when people care for their own or other children or for other sick adults or attend school or apprentice programs to learn skills so as to be able to work in the future.
** Just because a person has no right to something, meaning no basis on which to demand that other people provide him or her with it, does NOT mean that there may not be some other very good reason for people to provide a person with it. One obvious example of this is that a very good argument can be made--and most egalitarians would likely make it--that everybody--no matter if they have a right to it or not--should be provided with sufficient health care to prevent a public health hazard. Another quite reasonable argument could be made that everybody no matter how deserving or not should be provided with sufficient health care to prevent those who do contribute reasonably according to ability from experiencing the emotional distress of seeing people "dying in the street" so to speak. Another sensible reason why egalitarians might want to provide something (not just health care but anything else) to everybody no matter what is that it would cost more in terms of labor and resources to check who is deserving and who is not, than would be otherwise given to undeserving people. (I heard that this was in fact the reason that the British National Health Service provided free care to anybody, even a foreign person who just happened to be in the UK when sick.) There are all sorts of good reasons why egalitarians may want to provide this or that to those who do not contribute reasonably according to ability, but the notion that such people have a right to this or that is not one of these reasons. 1. Watch the video embedded here, at time point 1:37 : https://www.realclearhealth.com/video/2017/04/27/is_health_care_a_right__bernie_sanders_vs_ron_paul.html 2. https://www.pdrboston.org/is-health-care-a-right-for-free-loaders