Mackey is Wackey!

I don't know which is used more the word 'right' or duct tape.

When wire taps and net neutrality were the order of the day, it was the 'right to privacy.'
Now, when healthcare overhaul balloons over the horizon like a Zepplin, we hear about the 'right' to healthcare.

In a controvertial and probably unprofitable move the other day, John Mackey, CEO of Wholefoods alienated a huge contigent of his clientelle's political sensibilities when he denied that healthcare was a right in an op-ed for the WallStreet Journal. His argument is that this 'right' cannot be found in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. His reasoning is flawed, as is the reasoning of his opponents who employ the word on their side.

A right is like the 'right of way.' What would happen if no other human being got in your way? What would you do? If no one got in your way, you would go on through the intersection. In the minds of creators of limited government and a free society, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Jefferson, Jay, and Washington, a right is what a human being does if no other human being gets in there way. For instance, we all will breath, we all will move around at our will. Hence the rights of life and free movement.

The sad truth is niether privacy nor healthcare are a right, and the word is employeed in their favor incorrectly and ends up destroying a concept central in all philosophies of freedom and justice.

What we do not, or cannot do on our own is either called a privaledge or a service. Healthcare, Mackey rightly concludes (but wrongly argues) is not a right, but a service that ethically ought to be provided to all. Privacy is an example of a privaledge that ethically ought to be assured to all. Services are best provided by unhindered, transparent, and fair human cooperation. Privaledges can only be assured by good government--that is laws, police, and judges who work to stop people and instituitions from troubling each other. The fourth amendment to the constitution, against unlawful searches and seizures (by government) of people's papers and effects, is a wonderful example of assuring the privaledge of privacy, but it only serves to protect against government's invasion of citizen's privacy.