Now that we have disposed of or, at least, clarified the two terms we will rely on for this discussion, we can proceed with the argument. The argument, that is to say question, is: Exactly to what "rights" are Americans entitled to. According to the Declaration of Independence, we are entitled to the natural, innate, endowed "inalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, we are entitled to several other rights as well. These include but are not limited to:

• Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
• Right to keep and bear arms
• Protection from quartering of troops.
• Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
• Guarantee of due process, trial by jury, protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.
• Civil law trial by jury.
• Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
• Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Notice, if you will, that these "rights" are, in their most fundamental form, of no encumbrance on fellow citizens. Certainly, if one is accused of a crime or in a civil matter, there are the costs associated with a trial by jury, et cetera. But, aside from the occasional nit one might choose to pick, they impose no unreasonable expense on one’s fellow countrymen. They are merely protections - guaranteed by government and sanctioned by society - principally to ensure no abuses may be inflicted on individuals by an unfriendly citizenry or hostile legislature.

Notice, also, that there are, likewise, no exclusions that deny these rights (at least in the modern expansion Post Bellum and in 21^st Century) to any citizens. In our modern day and time, these rights are universally enjoyed by all citizens. There are no "special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste." Thus, they are "rights" and not "privileges." We must be consistent with our definitions as it is important.

If we refer, once again, to President Roosevelt’s "Second Bill of Rights" speech on 1944, we can - with our definitions in mind - clearly see that his "rights" are certainly not gratuitous. Therefore, we can also categorize these not as "rights" but, more correctly, "privileges." They offer distinct privileges for some. For the worker without a job - whether it is due to whatever shortcoming of the world or ill of society - to bestow upon him "the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" is clearly to allow special privilege. And, with privilege, will come expense to government and, ultimately, to those who fund that government: i.e. we, the taxpayers.

FDR extended his list further: "The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation." One leaps to ask for clarification for the nebulous "adequate" and, of course, "recreation." For some, "adequate" might mean merely sustenance sufficient to prevent starvation. For others, it might mean much more. "Recreation" to some might mean adequate time to bar-b-que in the backyard and share a picnic with his family. For still others, it might mean something entirely more. Are we to assume that if a head-of-household in unemployed, it is his right to not simply be employed but to be paid a wage that is not dictated by the value of his work to his employer but should be sufficient to provide him with food, clothing and recreation? The most relevant question makes itself abundantly clear at this point of the analysis: Who is to bear this cost? The employer? Surely, we cannot ask employers to pay their workers more for their labor than the value of that labor to the employer’s business. If labor costs were raised in these arbitrary terms - i.e. to give employees "adequate food, clothing and recreation" - who defines what is "adequate?" And, if these labor costs produce a fall in profit margin and the business goes bankrupt, is the employer to be, in turn, compensated for his losses? As you begin to see, when one begins to assert "rights" with real economic costs, the wicket becomes decidedly sticky.

But, let us look to the single "right" of Roosevelt’s doctrine that is likely to receive the most traction in the upcoming: "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." Where to begin? This clarion call for "free" (Economics 101: Nothing, save the lick on your hand from a puppy, is ever free) health care for all citizens can be traced all the way back to architect-turned-social philosopher Herbert Croley, to FDR and, most recently, to Bill Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton in his 1992 address at the Democratic convention unilaterally declared that "health care is a right, and not a privilege." The enormity of this endeavor by this government to provide this privilege - and, remember, this would be truly a "shared-cost endeavor" and, thus, a "privilege" - is mind-boggling. And, since it would be a government subsidy, what are the chances that it would be a cost-effective one? I challenge any reader to provide one example where the U.S. Government has undertaken a national "service" which has proven to be cheaper than that provided by private enterprise. The U.S. Postal Service has grown to be such a bloated, inefficient and progressively cost-prohibitive "service" that alternative commercial ventures - Fedex, U.P.S., et cetera - have popped up all around it. The public school system - a government "service" - is an economic black hole. More and more money is thrown into the abyss and students with lower and lower test scores are pumped out. The growing popularity of "charter schools" and private education attest to the inefficiency and inadequacy of "free" public education. Indeed, the only factor that has stopped private schools from totally taking over the education "market" is the simple fact that the political clout of the N.E.A.’s and A.F.T.’s funding of a massive lobbying group holds school voucher legislation hostage to their influence.

The U.S. Government - frankly, any government; see world-wide statistics - simply fails when it becomes a "service provider." The only clues you need as to why this is irrefutable is to compare your treatment at a government-run agency with that provided by a similar commercial provider. I can speak with some experience on this topic. For 12 years, I was a physician in the military and provided health care at both medical center-level and community hospital-level military (government) hospitals. I have been in private practice, providing the same health care for nearly 20 years. There are huge differences and they, owing primarily to human interests, are the main reasons why government systems cannot compete with private systems on any level. I can sum up the differences in a single word: incentive.

Man, for better or worse, is driven principally by self-interest. When one’s job is protected (by his labor union) and his wages guaranteed (by law) independent of his output (by government), why should any worker exceed the output of any other worker? I saw this continuously in the military health system. The typical government physician would work his required shift and, at the chime of his final hour, go to his home. Why would he not? Would he be compensated for his overtime? No. One might argue that a worker might have sufficient "pride in his labor" that would drive him beyond personal monetary gain. I would answer: "Yes. That, surely, does occur. But this is an exceptional case and never contributes significantly to the overall productivity of the whole." Particularly, when such "off-the-books" work is discouraged by his union and, often, by his coworkers.

There is another reason why government-provided national "service" is invariably cost-ineffective. It is, once again, called by a single name: bureaucracy. The constant inefficiency of government contract bids (controlled by labor unions and special interests), required percentages for "diversity’s" sake, massive "block" purchases that end up sitting on warehouse shelves past their expiration dates, and the clerks and "oversight committees" that clog up pipelines to efficiency are just some of the reasons why the government can sometimes govern but never effectively provides. On a personal note, I tired of the bureaucratic inefficiency long before I tired of the "job" aspects of military (government) medicine.

Max Gammon provides us with a "law" that is both descriptive and predictive. To quote David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute:

"Dr. Max Gammon was a British physician who sought to solve a public policy riddle: In the 1960s, the government spent significantly more on health care than it had previously, but the National Health Service didn't seem any better for it. After an extensive study of the British system of socialized medicine, Dr. Gammon formulated his law: "In a bureaucratic system, increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production."

Dr. Gammon reasoned: "Such systems will act rather like 'black holes,' in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of 'emitted production.' "

Gammon’s Law applies across all international boundaries and, in point of fact, can be applied in the United States across the ever-wandering expanse of government "services." We will examine these and other issues in the next part.