With the Democratic Party continuing its steady march toward socialism, some of its more radical members have become more forthright in stating their intentions to fundamentally transform the U.S. into a completely different nation from what it was founded as.
Just this year alone, self-proclaimed democratic-socialist New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her “Green New Deal” initiative, which laughably attempted to cloak a complete socialist overhaul of the nation’s economy.
Other leftists, like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, soon followed, proposing their own government takeovers of various sectors of society.
Now, a top aide to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has tried to one-up the Green New Deal by calling for a democratic-socialist overhaul of the Bill of Rights.
“We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights,” Josh Miller-Lewis, director of digital communications for the senator, posted to Twitter on Wednesday.
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:
– The right to health care
– The right to education
– The right to a good job
– The right to affordable housing
– The right to a secure retirement
– The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism
— Josh Miller-Lewis (@jmillerlewis) June 12, 2019
Those so-called “rights” mentioned by Miller-Lewis included, “The right to health care,” “The right to education,” “The right to a good job,” “The right to affordable housing,” “The right to a secure retirement” and “The right to a clean environment.”
He concluded his tweet with the hashtag “#DemocraticSocialism.”
There’s just one problem: None of those things are actually “rights” that are fundamental to one’s freedom.
Rather, they’re needs and/or wants that a free person should have every opportunity to pursue of their own accord.
Indeed, the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, spells it out quite clearly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
You’ll notice that we’re guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but that happiness in and of itself is not a right.
Our nation was created on the concept that everyone has the opportunity to do great things, become successful or simply live a comfortable lifestyle of their own choosing.
Specifically, the amendments were designed to protect the people and prohibit the federal government from infringing on, interfering with, or otherwise impeding a person’s “life, liberty” or their ability and opportunity to pursue happiness.
These “rights” proffered up by Miller-Lewis are all things we have the right to pursue, but we aren’t automatically entitled to any of them.
Were the federal government to categorize these things as actual “rights,” those formerly pursuable life goals would essentially become guaranteed entitlements that taxpayers would foot the bill for.
In reality, all Miller-Lewis did was put forward a slightly updated version of former Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights,” which he proposed in his 1944 State of the Union address to Congress.
Roosevelt called for the right to a good job; the right to a “decent home;” the right to “adequate medical care;” the right to “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;” and the right to a “good education.”
Again, none of those things are fundamental to a person’s freedom, though they can be pursued and achieved to make an individual’s life and liberty that much more enjoyable and secure.
This is the exact sort of stuff being pushed by socialists like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and it gives us a glimpse into how, if given the power, they would impose the federal government even further over the lives of Americans.
If Sanders and his ilk were to succeed in transforming our nation in such a way as to make these wants and needs “rights” that are guaranteed by the government, there’s no telling what else they may suddenly decide is a “right” that must be equally provided — or conversely, prohibited — to all.