Trending
How to answer call for human rights
To the Editor:
In Switzerland last June, a gigantic rock slide came thundering down a mountain, only to stop next to a village, instead of obliterating it. For some ladies in the village, that luck was not enough for them. They deduced that there was a continuing threat of such a disaster that would wipe out their happy homes and that they therefore should sue somebody to keep it from happening. So, they sued the government for failing to meet its carbon footprint obligations that, they said, had permitted climate change to loosen the rocks enough to come down the mountain. The case took its way to the European Court of Human Rights (whoever they are) and the court, in agreeing with their claim, declared that there was, behold, a new human right - that of climate safety.
Wow! If some government declares there is a human right, then they will do everything to see that it is achieved, right? So, then I no longer will have to worry about hurricanes, tornados, or floods, for example. I hope Mother Earth is reading the papers, because then perhaps she can deliver a climate whopper that will demonstrate to these environmental activist pipsqueaks that they are powerless in the face of her anger. How about another 40-day flood? That should do the trick, and that guy out in Kentucky with his Noah's Ark will suddenly get a lot of customers for the first time.
But that's not the goal of the European Court of Human Rights, whoever they are, with their new declaration. What they mean is that, because of climate change, rich countries have resources to fight it, while poor countries on the south part of the globe (mostly in Africa) don't. Therefore, of course, it's a moral obligation for rich countries to give help, i.e., big bucks, to those countries, to be spent who knows where. We end up with classic socialist doctrine that all should have equal outcomes.
Which reminds me of another call for a human right, that of healthcare. I'm sure that Bernie Sanders declared it a right (and probably Schumer, too) when Obamacare was being debated. However, how would that goal be achieved? Let us consider that our society is what scientists call a closed system, that is, we have a fixed number of people and a fixed amount of money. Now, a right for an individual creates an obligation on others: for example, if we have the right of freedom of speech, then others are obliged not to censor what we say. Likewise, if I have a right to healthcare, that means others have to pay for it. And, if we have a closed system, that means that you pay for my health care, I pay for your health care, and everybody else does likewise. And, since there's an administrative cost for transferring money, the simplest and most efficient way to achieve universal healthcare is for everybody to pay for their own.
I wonder if Lyndon Johnson considered that we have a closed system when he created Medicare, because a right of healthcare would imply that people under 65 would pay for the care of those over 65. Well, it hasn't worked that way. For that goal to be achieved, a lot of new money, borrowed, has had to be inserted into the system; a tiny hole has been made in the financial hull of the good ship USA, and the borrowed money that is flowing in that hole to create healthcare for those over 65 means that our ship is sinking at an accelerating rate and will founder not if, but when. An existential economic error has occurred, and, along with other government promises, it has created a debt that will never be repaid and will require a refinancing of bonds for the life of the republic. I am surprised sometimes that so many people are willing to buy those bonds; I wouldn't.
With a growing economic problem and social unrest that seems to be increasing, an atmosphere has been created that resembles to some extent past occasions in history when a strong man appears and takes charge and things change, usually for the worse. This is why the Democrats say that electing Trump would create such a dictatorship (and he does himself no favors by blabbing that he would be one on Day One).
What kind of leadership system do we have now? Our leader made the catastrophic error of opening the border, and no one was able to stop him. He unconstitutionally forgave student debt, and the Supreme Court was powerless to stop him; and he has arrayed the engines of government in the attempt to eliminate his political rival. We don't have to worry about whether there will be a dictator because we have one already - Joe Putin, er. I mean, Biden.
John Brittain