By what right?

[QuestioningStudent]

If one wants to say they care about individual rights, and desires to propound a platform of beliefs that don't possess an internal contradiction somewhere along the line, how is it possible to proclaim that there exists an intrinsic 'right' to anything that would demand a positive action of another? In other words, I completely understand the 'right to free speech': it requires only that another entity not interfere with us. But how CAN there be a 'right to health care' or a 'right to liesure' or any similiar rights? THOSE 'rights' demand that another entity be COMPELLED to give of themselves, regardless of their desires. In other words, the first right, the right to speech, imposes only a negative obligation: it requires only that no action be taken on the part of others; yet, the other rights I've listed impose postive obligations: they require that someone perform an act for my benefit.

I'm not trying to be a troll or an instigator or anything, I just don't get it. I guess this is the core of my problems with a lot of the things I've read here. If anyone wants to constructively contribute, I'd really appreciate it; I find many of your viewpoints sincerely interesting and I'd just like to understand them better.

Thanks.

Incidentally, AP, if you read this, I appreciate your constructive dialogue lately.

[trumad]

1. THOSE 'rights' demand that another entity be COMPELLED to give of themselv

I'm guessing you mean the Rich? Does it disturb you a bit that it's kind of the other way around? The Rich get from the poor and middle class.... It ain't the poor and Middle class getting anything from the Rich...

[QuestioningStudent]

4. Not the rich.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was referring to any particular group of people. It seems to me that there's a qualitative difference in the type of obligation imposed on someone in each case, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm right on that score. Incidentally, about the rich: I will say that making such a blanket statement about the poor and middle class not "getting anything from the Rich" isn't necessarily true; many people become rich through hard work that adds great value to society, whether it be through technological innovation (Microsoft, etc., although YES, that particular case IS debatable), or through bringing joy to people's lives (your favorite musician, perhaps?). Do ALL rich earn their money in that way? No, of course not. I just think it's unfair to lump all those with great deals of money together in that way. Thanks for your time.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

171. just to naive to know how the world really works?

You've read the Libertarian party pamphlet about "negative rights" vs. "positive rights".

It's mostly irrelevant as long as our tax money and our government charters and subsidizes corporations and regulates economic activity.

"Do ALL rich earn their money in that way? No, of course not. I just think it's unfair to lump all those with great deals of money together in that way. "

Rich people being oppressed? Get in the back of the line son.

[QuestioningStudent]

172. No pamphlets.

I have odd hobbies. Questions like this are one of them. Reading pamphlets is not. I feel they are boring. Please respect that.
Is there really a pamphlet about this topic?

I have said nothing about the virtue of tax support of business or economic regulation, although I have questioned the presence of a sound philisophical basis for such regulation and interference.

The quote is quite accurate. It does not, however, make any comment about the oppression of rich people, simply the validity of a particular generalization about them.

Oh, and I have an allergy to lines. Especially when I have to color between them. :)

[CosmicVortex10]

148. Its whoever has political power -- not just the rich

i.e. See the movie "The killing fields"

or see this too
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

[MassDem4Life]

156. ok, you really believe the the poor and the middle class

get nothing from the rich? And the rich get everything from the poor and the middle class?

Defend that

Doesnt the rich predominately pay the taxes that provide the social services for the poor?

Doesn't the rich predominately create the jobs that provide a living for the middle class? did you ever get a job that was created by a poor man? I haven't.

And just what do the rich get from the poor? The money that the poor spend buying the rich's products maybe? I cant think of anything else off the topp of my head.

I look forward to the repsonses

[politicaholic]

2. hmmm, this might be a dupe post, but here goes...

Maybe I'm missing your point, but all of the rights in the bill of rights require action. Those are individual rights so the actions of others aren't meant to benefit you.

The reason I'm skeptical of your post is because it's just like a republican to assess the value before understanding the meaning of...well...pretty much everything.

[QuestioningStudent]

5. Not a dupe either.

Just some genuine confusion. I appreciate your taking the time. SO, here goes:

How do the rights presented in the Bill of Rights require action on anyone's part other than my own actions (to exercise those rights)? Granted, the government must be there to protect those rights, but to have a legal 'right' the government must enforce it anyway, same way the government would enforce a legal 'right' to health care if we had it. So, how exactly do those rights presented in the BoR require other action than that of the person exercising the right (other than the government, which I'm considering a given)?

[ixion]

11. on a 'legal' right....

Just to interject here... don't confuse the Bill of Rights with the legal system. Although certainly related, there is a fundamental difference. A 'Right', in the context of the Bill of Rights, is, according to the constitution, inalienable. That means that it is inseparable from the individual, despite whatever the government might have you believe. That's what makes those documents so special. It wasn't a decree from King George, they weren't laws, per se, passed by congress. They are the inalienable rights of humankind, according to the Highest Power, and a government does not have the 'right', as it were, to take them away.


welcome to DU, QuestioningStudent... :toast:

[QuestioningStudent]

16. You're right, but here's my context.

Ah yes, my eternal flaw of not clarifying myself...
By legal right, I mean in this situation those rights which we guaranteed by the state, and which will be enforced by the application of legal force. All 'legal rights' MUST flow from the Constitution, either explicitly or implicitly, else they would eventually be struck down judicially. And while I might agree, or might not agree, that a given right enshrined in the Constitution or one of its Amendments (past, present, or future) is an inalienable right in the metaphysical sense, I don't think I can agree that such rights are necessarily legally inalienable. Since the Constitution can be amended, and it can be amended in such a way that rights are repealed--regardless of the likelihood of such amendment--I can't bring myself to say that we could not be _legally_, though not _metaphysically_, severed from our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

And hey, thank you! I also appreciate your words of welcome.

[HFishbine]

31. Student

Valid question, but I think you put the example of health care in the wrong context. When the phrase "right to health care" is used, I think it's a rhetorical statement that means something different from the inalienable right enumerated in the Constitution. It is more of a social compact.

Look at it in that context and it may make more sense to you. In our society, we have long recognized the governments role in enhancing our underlying Constitutional rights by providing services and infrastructure not directly related to inalienable rights, but which society agrees we can afford in order to further, albeit indirectly, the security of our Consitutional rights.

Let me draw an analogy. We put the government in charge of building roads. Our "right" to free movement is not denied if we don't build roads, but we build them none the less to facility our expectiaions (movement, commerce, etc). In that sense a "right" to health care is an attempt to undergird the right to "life."

A system of universal healthcare would no more compell someone to provide services or products against their will than road-building compells someone to provide services or prodcuts.

[Bandit]

46. I think you are confusing Rights with the role of Government

It is the role of Government to provide for the health and welfare of the nation. If the Government lives up to it's role it becomes the "right" of a citizen to be protected by our government both from foreign invasion and domestic unrest. Also from health hazards, so in effect by the government acting in accordance with it's proper role it is indeed our "right" to have universal health care.

[QuestioningStudent]

62. Rights ARE the role of the government, I would say.

If the role of the government is something other than the protection of the rights which we all share and possess, how can we justify the government's abrogation of our rights to accomplish that other goal? If the government's power is derived from a social compact, the basis of which is the CONSENT of the governed, how is it possible to argue that one would, or should, support a government which will pursue a course of action regardless of which rights it violates?

[HFishbine]

66. What

rights would be violated by universal health care?

[QuestioningStudent]

74. These.

My fundamental point throughout this thread is that it seems that the application of any right which imposes a positive obligation on another individual conflicts with that individual's right to their own life, which is the right to utilize and dispose of your own life in such a manner as you see fit, so long as you respect others' right to do the same. Universal health care, ie 'the right to healthcare,' is just a representative example of a 'right' which imposes a positive obligation, as compared to a right which imposes only a negative obligation, such as the 'right to free speech.'

Let me know if I wrote that too poorly to actually clarify anything.

[HFishbine]

160. Still Not Clear

"My fundamental point throughout this thread is that it seems that the application of any right which imposes a positive obligation on another individual conflicts with that individual's right to their own life..."

Yes, I understand completely that that is your assertion, but you fail to clarify how a "positive obligation" would be impossed on healthcare providers. Those who are economically incentivised to do so will provide service in exchange for payment -- no different that any other vendor who currenty provides services or products to the government.

Unless you can clearly show that someone will be forced to provide labor against their will, I think you have a false assumption among your premises, and as a result, your argument crumbles.

[QuestioningStudent]

161. Once more into the breech.

I must truly apologize to anyone who's read this whole thread and still finds unclear my fundamental points, for my writing is not all that it should be, and your patience with my attempts at elaboration is appreciated.

Now then.

My contention is this: a 'right' must be implemented by the government regardless of anyone's willingness to take positive action to fulfill said right. In other words, by my definition, a government program that directed tax dollars into a publicly subsidized payment program wouldn't be a 'right,' unless the medical industry was COMPELLED to accept the government dollar and provide treatment to an individual they would not otherwise desire to deal with. If there was some kind of...trust fund, or somesuch, pick your program, that just invested tax money, and used the results to pay for medical care, I don't think that would meet the standards of 'right' which I am using. If, however, a doctor had NO CHOICE but to treat whomever the government directed them to, regardless of whether or not the government paid them for the service, I would consider that to be a positive OBLIGATION which was imposed on the doctor. I argue for this definition--and I know, most of that was by analogy, I apologize--because any other definition does not allow for someone to claim their 'right to health care' or whatever other 'right based upon a positive obligation' was violated--the medical professional simply would have exercised their freedom of contract/association to not do business with the aggrieved individual. It is only when that freedom to contract is abrogated that a 'right' carrying with it a positive obligation would be imposed.


Did I make clearer my position, or just dig myself deeper into a verbal hole?

[HFishbine]

167. Yes

You clarified your position. But, you now point out the extent to which this discussion hinges on symantics. When people speak of a "right" to healthcare, it has a different rhetorical meaning than the one you define (and which I accept for the purpose of this discussion.)

Leave alone for a moment the fact that federal law already grants people the right to emergency care; in that hospitals are indeed compeled to provide care to anybody who goes to an emergency room with an emergency.

What people are really talking about when they use the rhetoric of a "right" to healthcare is universal coverage. In this sense then, the practical implementation of such is more in line with your understanding of a publicly subsidized program (for lack of a better description) whereby health care providers are not compelled to provide care but are economically incentivised -- in other words, compensated, but where they are not compelled to participate.

Considering your abhorance for compulsory service, you might consider that universal health care (which may sometimes be called a "right" in words only) would have the practical effect of eliminating the one area of health care where compulsory service is currently required -- hospital emergency rooms.

With this undertanding, I would agree with you that there is no constitutional right to health care. What are your thoughts on the policy implications of universal coverage?

[QuestioningStudent]

170. Same page! Wahoo!

I'm glad we got that worked out. :)

Hmm...IF we limit the discusssion to the implementation of a policy which does NOT compel performance from the affected sector, but rather simply offers an economic incentive in line with market prices (I presume, anything cheaper wouldn't be taken, anything higher would be a waste), which can be voluntarily accepted or denied, this could be fascinating. Does that statement reflect the type of policy we would be discussing?

[Character Assassin]

75. That's not the point. It hasn't been granted the power.

And that makes all the difference.

[Bandit]

68. What I gather you are asking is how can the Government tax the people?

If the government can tax the people for the purpose of protecting our rights why can it not tax to protect our health also since it's sole purpose is to maintain the "Health & Welfare" of the nation. If it means people have to aid in the role of government by paying taxes then it is consistant with a government "of the people, by the people and for the people"

[QuestioningStudent]

76. Not at all.

I am not asking for a justification of taxing; I readily concede the right of the government to do so, although I may dispute exactly what form of taxation the government ought to be able to apply to its citizens.

I question by what legitimate, self-consistent, lacking-in-internal-contradictions right the government could justify coercing someone to actually provide the service of health care, or the performance of any other positive action on the behalf of another person.

That's the root of my question.

Incidentally, if you are referring to the American government as having its sole purpose as maintaining the "health & welfare" of the nation, I can't find that reference anywhere in the Constitution. Are you drawing on an outside source for that, and if so, which? Or, did I just not pay close enough attention to the document?

[QERTY]

146. Check the Preamble

"Promote the general welfare"
Not a very careful reader, eh?

[CosmicVortex10]

147. Hows that suppose to be interpreted?

Couldnt ANYTHING be interpreted to promote the general welfare? i.e. see "Animal Farm"

[QuestioningStudent]

151. I sure hope not.

I present the argument here that the "promote the general welfare" clause of the preamble should be interpreted only in the strictest sense possible, unless a cogent, rational argument built upon sound premises can be constructed showing otherwise. The interpretation I have presented here is that the term "general welfare" ought be interpreted as "those rights common to everyone, whose application does not the violate the rights of another." In other words, rights like free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, privacy, etc. All these rights are similiar in the sense that they do not impose the negative obligations I speak of in my initial post, and it is a good argument for imposing 'rights' with corresponding positive obligations that I am searching for in this thread.

Gotten a lot of really good responses, too.

[QuestioningStudent]

150. Actually, I think so.

Check again, and see if the phrase we were discussing was in there, QERTY, that phrase being "health & welfare." The whole "general welfare" wording isn't in contention, it's the word "health," which to my knowledge isn't in the Constitution, at least in such a context. I appreciate you checking, though.

[Mairead]

25. You've been listening to Capitalist Libertarians, I see

The 'right' to healthcare comes from the same place the 'right' not to be beaten unconscious and robbed comes from: social agreement. No 'right' of any kind exists in nature (despite the claimed 'natural right to property' nonsense) because we can demonstrate that no human 'right' is enforced by physical law.

[Nederland]

33. Response

The 'right' to healthcare comes from the same place the 'right' not to be beaten unconscious and robbed comes from: social agreement.

I think you are missing the point QuestioningStudent is trying to make. The 'right' to healthcare and the 'right' to not be beaten unconscious may come from the same place, but they are very very different. Your 'right' to not be beaten unconscious does not require resources or time from anyone else in society. Your 'right' to healthcare does--it requires the time and resources of healthcare workers. That's why healthcare should properly be called an entitlement, not a right.

[Mairead]

48. Have another go, why don't you...that one misfired

What do you think the police, courts, and prison system are all about? They are the ones whose time and energy go to limit how often you're beaten unconscious and robbed.

[Nederland]

69. No misfire

You're just not seeing it.

In order for a person to have a right to safety, all that is required is that everyone else in society do nothing.

In order for a person to have a right to healthcare, what is required is that some other person devote time and resources to provide it.

See the difference? One is a thing that you have until its taken away from you, the other is something you don't have until its given to you. There is a clear and fundamental difference. The difference is also evident if we consider your example. Police, courts, and prison system are only necessary if someone tries to take away your safety. On the other hand, healthcare is not something you have until it is taken away from you, it is something you lack until doctors, nurses and hospitals give it to you.

[Mairead]

98. I'm not the one who's not seeing it

"In order for a person to have a right to safety, all that is required is that everyone else in society do nothing."

Sure. And in order for a person to have healthcare, all that is required is that some people in society want other people to be healthy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. You've just changed the subject

it was the right to healthcare. For that, some people, or the whole of scoiety, have to be willing to underwrite the costs of healthcare for all of that society. The wish for them to be heathly isn't enough.

It's something I'd support for a civilized nation, but I can see there's a difference between that and the right of personal safety. If you don't think there's any difference, would you extend the right to healthcare in one country to any person on the planet? If so, do you advocate a genuine world government?

[Mairead]

103. Rights are the product of social agreement, nothing more

If we agree the right to healthcare, then we have the right to healthcare! And someone will step forward to implement that right because we'll also agree a system of social rewards that will make it attractive to do that. Some individual might choose not to provide healthcare to other people, but that's okay--the right to healthcare doesn't depend on any particular individual sacrificing themselves.

Contrast that with agreeing that we've a right not to be beaten unconscious and robbed. What is our system of rewards that make it attractive not to do that? We don't really have one. What we have is a system of punishments that make it aversive to do it. Totally different. It suspect the difference is why many people have a much greater likelihood of being b.u.a.r than receiving healthcare.


One world government? I think we might be better off, though the better popular communication becomes, the more likely that is to be true. Right now I suspect a single governement could go into the oppression business too easily.

[QuestioningStudent]

117. Wanna bet?

Is there a special form of gravity that compels one human to respect the metaphysical rights of another? Not in the sense that you can look for some gluon variant and perhaps find it, but that doesn't mean there's no enforcement for metaphysical rights.

Are you brought into this world automatically possessing all the knowledge it takes to survive? Does formulating that knowledge require a process of reason? Does the reason one engages in a process of reason not have something to do with the incentive for a successful completion of that search, whether the reward be material needs or an ephemeral satisfaction? Do you seriously suggest that, if you completely violate an entity's basic right to their own life that they will see ANY benefit to resolving any problem requiring a process of reason in a successful manner? One could say, "do this for me, fix this for me, make these things I want, or (insert awful punishment here)," but if the individual you ask doesn't think life is particularly worth living, how does that MAKE them go "sure, massa," as compared to having them go "Hell no!" I will point out that the single largest bounds in the realms of technology and science came when individuals gained the opportunity to derive greater incentive from their creations and inventions--say, 19th and 20th centuries ACE?

How many people, and how well do those people, survive in this time period, as compared to those who lived, oh, say, even 300-400 years ago. We're doing a lot better, right? There's more respect for those basic 'rights' I'm putting forth arguments for, right? That little physical law you're looking for, it's called survival.

Mankind couldn't survive, at least not in any form other than in the strictest genetic sense, without his mind. Without reason. And without those rights that such a fact necessitates, man has no incentive to do more than barely survive, if that. Man requires rights is he to even desire to survive. Disrespect those rights, don't survive. Respect them, not only survive, but survive well. I think history, on the whole, bears me out there.

[Mairead]

149. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of 'metaphysical rights'

Until you do that, you're handwaving. That's a no-no.

[QuestioningStudent]

164. Proof.

Sigh...alright, let's hash this out.

General Question: What standards of proof are you looking for? If you're looking for an identifiable quantum particle, or somesuch, we'll never find it. If you'll accept historical law, we might get somewhere. What do you think?

Next, and as a basic question for anywhere we take this, would you agree that humans must use their grey matter, ie a process of thought, to pursue any action other than the most basic physical motions (walk, crap, possibly fornicate)? And if your answer is yes, would you agree that rational, logical, consistent thought processes are more likely to lead to success in an endeavor than irrational, illogical, inconsistent thought processes?

[Mairead]

166. C'mon, you know what physical law is. That's the standard.

Physical law is the term we use for characteristics of existence that apply to everyone/everything and cannot be cancelled by human agency. Gravity is an example of physical law.

As for thought, no I won't agree or disagree until you can give me a definition of 'thought' that isn't circular and that I can't poke holes in. For example, you seem to be implying that walking etc require no 'thought'. So what is 'thought'?

[QuestioningStudent]

180. thought

thought--the processing and integration of information; use of judgement and reason; cognition.

If you'll accept that, I'll move on. If not, please refer to the latest Websters, and I'll go with that. Either way, there you go.

In any case, the point I was attempting to drive at is that any human action, save those which could be argued can be done on the basis of mere instinct, all require thought; the success of any action more complicated than one that could probably be accomplished on an entirely instinctual level--and that list would be rather small, I imagine--would generally depend on the application of logical, consistent thought.

Will you agree with that?

...your thoughts? :P

[Mairead]

181. Your definitions are muddled then

Because as can be demonstrated, 'low-level' activities also require 'thought' (which is why victims of certain kinds of brain injuries must re-learn such activities).

Most people can point to physical-law stuff fairly easily; since we all experience physical law in about the same way, it's not hard to get someone else to agree, at least in broad terms, about how, say, gravity works. Since you're apparently not going to do that, I suspect that it's all going to come to nothing in the end, with you asserting a non-standard definition of 'physical law', or trying to pull a Skinner (the Burrhus kind, not the DU kind). But go ahead. I'll provisionally accept the definition that 'thought' is what's going on behind the scenes when we do something complicated that can't be ascribed to instinct. There are a lot of problems with that proto-definition, but we can put them aside for the moment.

[QuestioningStudent]

182. Let's fix that.

Actually, I'll gladly accept that all non-autonomous human activities require some level of thought. I ususally run into objections about that, which is why I went ahead and threw in the instinct caveat. I'm perfectly glad not to deal with it.

Now, accepting that human action requires a process of thought, would you say that a component of successful action is a logical, rational, self-consistent thought process?

[Mairead]

183. This isn't going to work, you know

Now, accepting that human action requires a process of thought, would you say that a component of successful action is a logical, rational, self-consistent thought process?

No. 'Logical' and 'rational' are terms we use to describe certain kinds of higher-order thought, not all thought. And I've no idea what you might mean by 'self-consistent'.

An infant learning to walk is applying 'mental energy'--thought-- to the process. But it's not 'logical' or 'rational' in the same sense that solving some problem in algebra is.

Norman Rockwell applied LOTS of thought to the process of creating a painting. But again, it was not 'logical' or 'rational' thought in the sense that mustering a solid argument is.

[ehmunro]

94. What?

In the city I live, the cops are a much bigger threat than the "crooks". Were drugs legal the "crooks" would cease to be a threat at all. You'll need try another way to convince us that government is the embodiment of all that is good and holy.

[newyawker99]

114. Hi ehmunro!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[paulk]

52. the right to not be beaten unconscious does require resources

and time from others in society.

Law enforcement, the police come immediately to mind -

on edit - crosspost

[QuestioningStudent]

73. In a different way, perhaps.

But NOT in the way that is crucial to my point, at least I don't think so. Here I go again, try to bear with me.

For me to exercise my 'right of free speech' I need not compel another to do anything at all--not listen to me, not publish my views, not agree with, nothing at all. However, for me to exercise my 'right to healthcare,' I may, if no one is willing to provide me health care on a voluntary basis, compel them to serve me. In other words, I violate their 'right to their life.'

The Courts, police, etc., are a societal construct created to enforce those rights which we possess as a matter of metaphysical necessity.

Do I need to restate/clarify/etc. any of that, or do I seem to be completely out in left field?

Thanks again for your response.

[Mairead]

99. There is no 'metaphysical necessity'.

'Metaphysical necessity' is handwaving. Our rights all derive from social agreement. Not one is enforced by physical law.

[Speed8098]

119. If they were forced to provide that care for free

I would agree with you, however, nobody is asking for that to happen.

We want universal health care, but we expect the providers to be paid for their services. Our goal is to have a candidate come up with a VIABLE plan to implement blanket health coverage.

So......the "right" to healthcare is not an imposition on anyone. They would be working in their field anyway.

I hope that answers your question.

[QuestioningStudent]

80. I don't think I agree. (With Post 25)

I take it that you believe people possess no inalienable rights? I mean rights in the metaphysical and not the legal sense. Do you believe that people have only those rights and liberties that they can get enough people to agree with so that those rights which are generally assented to can be enforced on yet other people? That WAS a terrible constructed sentence, I know and apologize, but I'm tired. Please have pity.

[Mairead]

101. Yes, there are no inalienable rights (sad to say!)

All our so-called 'inalienable rights' can be taken from us. A 'right' is not 'inalienable' in any more solid way than social agreement if people can take it from us.

You have the 'right' not to suddenly float away into the stratosphere and suffocate. That right is enforced by physical law and nobody can decide to take it from you. But your 'right' not to be coshed and suffocated by someone in a dark alley is social, not physical, and can be taken from you by the first big psychopath with a cosh.

[union_maid]

3. The goal of an evolving society should be to provide qualitly of life

We are a society. We all have to provide certain things. We provide roads, airports, some of our hospitals and myriad other things for the common good. Without those things our society would fail to thrive. The "right" to healthcare is not one that's been established in this country, but we're way behind other industrialized nations in that regard. It would benefit all of us if such a right were established. Not only does that provide a social safety net for each of us, but the way in which we provide it now is expensive and inefficient for all of us. Leisure - well, the labor movement fought for the 40 hour week. We've backslid badly in that area, but if we don't stand together to try to get some of our own back there, we all lose out. We are a society. Society is us. What we do for one, we do for all. What we do to one, we do to all.

[QuestioningStudent]

9. Not disputing possible material benefits....

But I AM questioning the philisophical aspects of the equation. If you want to talk about services like the roads, or national defense, or the courts, these things seem to have a qualitative difference from something like healthcare. Here's my thoughts:

National Defense/Police/Courts: These institutions take over for us the greater part of our right to self defense. Were it not ceded in this way to the government, the nation would become a mass of gangs, vigilantes, and petty warlords. By consolidating the right to use force in the government in these cases, we create an (ideally, hopefully) objective entity to resolve many of our disputes in a way that SHOULD protect our fundamental rights.

Roads: This would be an example of a service that I will readily concede likely could NOT be provided adequately by a private service provider, simply based on the difficulty of collecting fee payments, and the difficulty inherent in making money on it. If nothing else, I'd say that the proper functioning of the functions I talked about above would REQUIRE a functioning road system, and so this would fall under the province of government.

Health Care: While it is a desirable good that everyone should be healthy, this IS something that can be provided for by a private service. Will everyone have the exact same level of health care? No. But what is the rationale for FORCING someone to provide everyone the same level of health care? And what if, for some reason, everyone decided to say to hell with learning medicine? Would it be necessary to compel people to learn medicine in order to fulfill the right to healthcare?

As you may have noticed, you struck a chord; any elaboration you could give on your message is one I would appreciate. Thank you.

[HFishbine]

32. Toll Roads

Are the exception that disproves your assumption about roads.

Additionally, there are many governmental services that COULD be provided by the private sector. These come to mind:

- Food inspections
- Education
- Elections

We choose to keep these tasks under the purview of government because their effective and universal administration would likely be comprimised if profit enters the equation.

[QuestioningStudent]

61. One assumption, perhaps.

I might dispute the effectiveness of some of your examples: Education, for instance, is NOT a successfully undertaken state policy by any measure I've ever seen. If someone can provide me statistics that show the government actually CAN do that well, please tell me.

About roads: Yes, it is possible to fund a great many roadways by the use of tolls; that is one of the primary methods that developed trade routes in ye early days of both our country and many others, to my knowledge. I don't know that I would say, however, that toll roads would adequately provide a basis for all the necessary roads for our civilization; additionally, I still think that the national defense would demand the government maintain some system of roads for internal transportation of military supplies and personnel, if for no other reason.

Am I making sense there?

[HFishbine]

67. Exactly

"I don't know that I would say, however, that toll roads would adequately provide a basis for all the necessary roads for our civilization;"

Just as toll health care does not adequately provide for the necessary health care of civilization.

[QuestioningStudent]

92. Let me revise my opinion.

I will say that I think those roads existing for commercial and residential areas could be developed privately, in a profitable manner, but I will sustain that part of my statement that says some government establishment/maintenance of roads would be necessary for military purposes. This would, I think, limit the effectiveness of your reply.

[Sterling]

77. I think the fact that most of us can read

supports the idea that public education works. It would be interesting to compare literacy rates between countries with private education only and nations with public education systems. I have a feeling more children are “left behind” when education is not a state mandate.

[LeahMira]

36. Health Care

Health Care: While it is a desirable good that everyone should be healthy, this IS something that can be
provided for by a private service. Will everyone have the exact same level of health care? No. But what is
the rationale for FORCING someone to provide everyone the same level of health care? And what if, for
some reason, everyone decided to say to hell with learning medicine? Would it be necessary to compel
people to learn medicine in order to fulfill the right to healthcare?


I think that the universal health care system would not preclude anyone from paying for surgeries or whatever that are over and above what is provided by the government system. I think that a health care system just provides a base level of acceptable care for everyone.

I really don't think everyone is going to decide to say to hell with learning medicine.

[QuestioningStudent]

63. Would it not?

A national health care system would, I think, demand certain things of its citizens. If it is accepted that the role of the government is to provide health care, what if private practice is more lucrative than public practice? What if everyone decides yes, we'll keep learning medicine (I do agree that it's highly unlikely everyone will say to hell with it, but it IS interesting to ponder what the government would be forced into in that situation), but we'll only practice in a private market? If everyone makes that decision, and no one is working in the public sector for the government, would the government not be put in the situation of making one of two choices? Either the government says "Regardless of your wishes, you WILL treat these patients, at your own facilities, with your own resources," or the government says "You will come work for us, use our resources, our money, and treat these patients." If I'm not in err about that situation, wouldn't they be either the fascist or the
totalitarian-communist response? And isn't allowing people to choose what they want to do with their life a value of ours, a value violated in either one of those situations?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I would rather ask you...

why everyone should NOT get the same level of health care. Why is the life of Throckmorton Gotrocks more valuable than the life of Joe Janitor or Diane Daycareworker?

Furthermore, our current healthcare system is so screwed up that our worst enemies couldn't have thought of a worse one to foist on us, unless they completely destroyed all hospitals and killed all doctors.

Empoloyers benefit when their workers are healthy.

The general public benefits when poor people aren't walking around with tuberculosis.

Families benefit when they can have prenatal care, healthy children, and coverage for emergencies without spending nearly as much on insurance as they do on house payments.

Even the economy benefits from a rational, universal health system, because now one of the primary obstacles to quitting one's job and pursuing self-employment is the fear of losing health benefits.

My brother is a doctor in private practice, and his opinion of insurance companies, never high to begin with, is sinking by the day.

I'm self-employed, had health insurance where I lived before, but was looking for alternatives, because it had become nearly unaffordable. I move here and find that I have to make big upfront payments even to apply.

Now if I get gravely ill before I can make some sort of arrangements, there are two possible outcomes: 1) I'm not at the poverty level now, so I will be charged the full rate. I will spend the rest of my life in reduced circumstances paying off 5-figure medical bills that a member of the Gotrocks family could pay off by writing a single check. 2) I'm taken to a private hospital, but they won't treat me because I don't have insurance. They send me to the county medical center, which has to treat me, but if I can't pay or if I skip out somehow, the taxpayers and the patients who can pay end up with higher bills to cover the cost of my treatment.

Society is "forced" to pay, either way.

This is not the same as not being able to afford the same kind of house as the Gotrocks family. Living in an apartment as opposed to living in a twenty-room mansion on a ten-acre estate is not a matter of life or death. Getting cancer treatment versus just letting the cancer eat you alive is a matter of life or death.

When society doesn't educate its citizens or provide them with decent living conditions, we are "forced to pay" for higher prison costs.

We are "forced to pay" no matter what. It makes sense to pay to avoid problems rather than to pay to clean up horrible messes.

[noiretextatique]

106. the rationale is the keep people HEALTHY

this is also the reason why it's a good idea to force things like keeping the air and water as clean as possible. i think it's quite reasonable to guarantee every person a minimal level of healthcare, and of course, government already does that...just not for everyone. the VA hospitals, or hospitals run by local governments, or medicaid. the question is: why do some people have access to MORE healthcare options than they could possibly ever use, while others have limited options...or no options?

[Ardee]

153. Coming late to an interesting but libertarian thread

Government is a social contract wherein the individual cedes certain things (such as taxation)to the government in return for services the individual need no longer provide for h/herself. If you disagree with this assessment then nothing that follows is valid to you.

Govt arose because power and protection were important in a lawless world, because the individual could survive and the human race be advanced better in groups than alone.Government is really what that group decides it to be, our group has decided that it is what the constitution says it is, and that document is a malleable one.

The call for universal health care does not, as QS claims it to be, call for equal health care for all but for minimal standards of health care, noone is being forced to offer or to accept such care, but the general welfare is promoted by a healthy citizenry. My children are safer when I am certain that there is no unhealthy underclass spreading infection and disease.

There already exists an extensive health care industry, it is, however, privatized and expensive, thus there are those shut out from its services.Universal health care simply assures that the least of us is provided for, a rather small price to pay to ensure the general health and well being of our nation,imo.If QS was to suddenly come down with a case of West Nile Virus or the like h/she might suddenly wish there had been access to universal health care that might have cared for someone who was ill but too poor to see a doctor.

The contract between our government and ourselves is open to interpretation and ,as a living thing, it grows and evolves. As the rest of the civilized world has decided that some basic level of health care is necesary to the betterment of society I would imagine that resistance here in the US to this elementary concept is promoted by either greed or by an overarching desire to eliminate democracy in favor of anarchy, the old "Ive got mine you can get f*cked " concept.

[ewagner]

6. Re: an argument for "right" to healthcare

Start with the premise that, by law, all citizens are equally entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If inequality denies any of those basic freedoms then the law must impose the equality.

Therefore, if you are denied life itself because of inequal access to health care because of income status, you could logically argue that you have a "right" to access to that healthcare.

Generally speaking one of the major differences between Dems and Repubs is that Dems believe very strongly that government is the only rein on capitalism. Government is the great traffic cop who keeps the rich from exploiting the poor and the strong from exploiting the weak. You can apply that analogy to almost any issue facing the nation today and find the side that dems take quite consistantly.

all this, of course IMHO

[QuestioningStudent]

12. Ooh, this is interesting.

I think the crux of any debate here would be on how we define the rights in question, namely 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Granted, I think Locke's original 'life, liberty, and property' made more sense, but Jefferson wanted impact, right? I would say that I interpret the principle behind that statement as being something along the lines of: "I have the first and most fundamental right to myself, the right to the necessary liberties to exercise my right to myself, and the right to pursue my happiness in the form of whatever goals and values will bring me the most satisfaction and joy, with the caveat that my pursuit shall not allow me to infringe on another's rights." Long principle, I know. My defense of my interpretation is that it is inherently (as far as I can tell, please indicate any flaws in the argument) self-consistent. My rights get to coexist with everyone else's, without conflict. However, if I have a 'right to healthcare,' then I have the right to compel someone to perform a service for me, I abrogate their right to use their life how they see fit.

Am I making any sense?

And thank you for your response. You REALLY made me think about this.

[ewagner]

21. UUUmmmm...

I'm really tired so I don't know if I can do justice to your comment but I'll try.

However, if I have a 'right to healthcare,' then I have the right to compel someone to perform a service for me, I abrogate their right to use their life how they see fit.

If you are talking about the case where a Doctor would prefer NOT to provide health care to an individual and law forced him/her to do so, then, I would agree. But the difference, I think, is in that we are talking not on the individual level but on the collective, societal level, and in principle, not individual practice. In other words, the whole concept of the service being available to society as a whole and not on the basis of economic ability is the point.

Aha! (you say) but by doing so even on a societal level, you are forcing people to give up property (taxes) in order to assure my right, so the same argument still applies. That is where I make the argument of the social compact(as another poster did quiet well). For it is indeed in the interest of the society as a whole to assure the health of the society; rid disease from society, because a large segment of the society which is ill, infirm or disabled becomes a GREATER burden to the society because they can no longer contribute anything to the rest of the society.


Like I said, I'm pretty tired and will probably be suicidal when I see what I have written in the morning, but the gist off the idea is there.


:)

[ewagner]

22. btw

If you want to drive yourself completely crazy, ask these three questions:

1. What is the nature of man?
2. What is the nature of the state?
3. What is the proper relationship between the two.

Your question about rights lies somewhere in there......

warning: here, there be dragons!

[QuestioningStudent]

81. I'm trying. Might explain any...oddity...in my writings.

Are you asking for a concise answer? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
DRAGONS! DRAGONS! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
:)

[QuestioningStudent]

24. Justice schmustice.

OK, I'll leave the taxation argument for later, I'll try and go an unexpected route.

I put forth the argument that: Government ought not adopt a macro-level policy (right to healthcare) if it will violate individual rights to enforce that policy; in other words, if the application of a 'right to healthcare' violates another individual's 'right to their life,' even if in no other way than IN APPLICATION, the 'right to healthcare' is one that ought not be considered a right.

Does that make sense?

I need coffee.

[ewagner]

27. Good morning

I'm just starting on my first cup of coffee, so I'll become more lucid as things progress.

First, please elaborate on this quote:

'right to healthcare' violates another individual's 'right to their life,'

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[QuestioningStudent]

65. Clarification.

Oh that damned flaw of mine! Oh, for clarity in writing!

Okay, here goes, before I have to scamper off, and preface everything with "I think," OK?

Your right to life means that you have the right to decide for yourself what choices you will make as regards how you utilize your time and energy, with the caveat that you must respect other's rights to their life. If you decide to go into medicine, that should be your choice. Deciding whether or not to treat a given patient should, I tend to think, also be your choice, as if it was NOT your choice you would be being compelled/coerced (pretty much by definition), to act in a way that violated your right to dictate for yourself how to apply your time/energy/life.

That was really rushed, so that might not have been too coherent. But since you didn't kill yourself when you read what you wrote, I promise not to do the same when I read this. Is this a sufficient answer, or do I need to approach this differently?

[ewagner]

84. That's sort of what I thought you meant

If you go into the medical profession knowing that you had to treat all comers, then you entered into the profession with informed consent. You have exercised your right to enter or not enter into the profession with full knowledge and acceptance of the consequences of your decision. (not to mention that ethically a doc should treat all people regardless of his/her personal feelings.)

I've been playing around with this theory for a couple of years now and find that it fits our democracy very well and applies to a lot of circumstances. DU itself fits very well. You can express any opinion you want up here but you do so with the full knowledge that you may get flamed for that opinion. I enter into discussions in DU with full knowledge of the consequences of my actions, and exercise my right to post or not.

[QuestioningStudent]

88. Fascinating.

I have not approached the question from this angle yet. This thread is really paying off, my sincere appreciation for your conversation.

My *tentative* response would be to ask the following question to clarify your position:

Do you assert that the government may legitimately impose positive obligations on the practitioners of various particular professions as it sees fit, provided the practitioners are provided notice that this obligation will be levied on them prior to their entrance to the profession?

Sorry if the sentence was awkward.

[ewagner]

91. With obvious reservations,

Yes.

Generally, Government should be involved in setting those conditions in only the following cases:

Protection of Public health, safety or welfare

To prevent discrimination or abuse

Again, I think government only plays the role of the "traffic cop". I don't think it has a blank check to become involved in everything without reason. One of the dangers of too much government involvement or regulation is that government must operate on a macro level which means that one size must fit all. Individuals do not lend themselves to such easy distinctions hence everytime a case that does not fit the model is presented, the law, plan, policy must be amended to address that case. The resulting regulation is what we used to refer to (in legislative terms lol) as a "camel". A camel, of course is a horse designed by a committee. Much of our legislation and administrative rules try to cover so many contingencies that they indeed end up looking like a camel and do little good, or worse yet, create a bigger problem than the one they were trying to solve.

Also enjoying the conversation.

edited because keyboard can't spell.........

[QuestioningStudent]

93. Make me think, why don't you ? :)

Alright, I will agree that the government has the right to propose certain regulations of business and personal relationships. I will accept only the most minimal of regulation without seeing some supporting logic structures before accepting any statements of broad regulatory powers.

The first set of regulations I would accept would be the classically libertarian ones, those intended to prevent an abrogation of individual rights through the exercise of force or fraud; this activity seems to be one of the absolute bases of government. I will not claim, however, that this is the extent of all proper government regulations. That point has not been established either way yet.

Let's see about these reasons of yours, at first glance they seem decent.

Protection of Public Health: Depending on what you mean by this, I would tend to agree. I would, I believe, agree with an assertion that the government could impose requirements that a business not take an action intended to cause harm to its clientele, such as forbidding cola companies from placing arsenic in their products, or some other similiar activity known to have harmful effects. I'm not sure if this would extend to those situations where someone deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly buys a product which will cause them some harm. Whips for example...

Safety seems closesly related to public health, so I'm not sure if that needs elaboration; if you see a tangible difference between the two, point it out to me.

Welfare: This is the big sticking point. If by welfare you mean the promotion of those rights common to all people, absolutely. But it's the promotion of rights which place greater priority on one group of people than another which disturb me. Could you elaborate on your interpretation of this point?

[ewagner]

107. You gave me a lot to chew on there.......

First, on safety:

I'm not sure if this would extend to those situations where someone deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly buys a product which will cause them some harm. Whips for example...

I don't have a problem with people buying things that will cause them some harm with the following caveats:

1. The informed consent idea again. They have been warned that it will cause harm, and:
2. Penaties for causing harm to another with something that is inherently dangerous. That's why I think penalties for use of a gun in commission of a crime should be more severe than they are AND penalties for accidental injuries caused by negligence in the ownership of a gun should also be severe. Again: informed consent-- if you know the risks and buy it, then you accept the consequences.


The meaning of welfare . This is sooooo subjective! Having been a full-time, elected Mayor of a small City, I can tell you that I had to deal with this question in the sense you stated above, namely, protection of rights common to all those represented. But, like most things in life, it wasn't always that cut and dried. In a public forum like this, I won't get into specifics, but I can tell you that there were times when we had to act like a welfare agency instead of the broader public welfare which was completely and totally necessary. Believe me, life is full of contradictions like that,: we had to provide a subsidy to a specific group in order to protect the general welfare of the whole city.

Isn't that in fact the definition of classic liberalism? There are no absolutes! (with exceptions of course :evilgrin:)

[QuestioningStudent]

109. I think we're agreeing on this one.

I say that because the arguments I have presented here seem to imply pretty clearly your caveats. To wit, the 'Right to Life'(by need for logical consistency in application of rights) implies those acts of force or fraud (which is what I would consider failing to give someone the applicable information necessary to make an informed decision about the purchase of some good) are criminal acts--where I mean criminal not in a strictly legal sense, but rather as acts which are malum in se, not simply malum prohibitum--and therefore should fall under the sphere of government influence.

That was a terribly long sentence. Ugh. I should probably avoid those. :(

And then there's the 'welfare' definition. I'm going to start off on that issue on the strictest of grounds: Until--and I'm sure you'll find something, you devil--grounds can be demonstrated for the extension of the term, I will only accept the strict definition of welfare as the protection of rights common to all people. That seems to protect the internal consistency of the definition, which is why I apply that standard. If you could provide some justifications for an extension of that term, I would sincerely like to see them.

[ewagner]

112. Try this:

If you think of welfare as the largesse of the State (in terms of any government) being given directly to persons or groups to fill a defined need, then a lot of government grants to businesses, institutions etc is de facto welfare. Yet we do this all the time.

Why?

Because, we believe that by doing this, a higher public purpose is being served (e.g. the general welfare). We give grants and tax breaks to industries to create jobs because it is in the public interest to do so. In a sense, we give welfare payments to the least among us because it is NOT in the public interest to have people starving on the streets. The logic is that desparate people will be more prone to crime, prostitution, drug dealing etc., etc., and none of those things are in the interest of the broader "public welfare". In the same vein of logic, it is quite acceptable for a small portion of each tax dollar to be used for such a purpose because it is, in the whole, cheaper to fight poverty than to suffer the social/political effects of it. Sort of like preventive medicine.

I've been on both ends of this argument in very real and very practical situations. My positions may not pass the muster of serious intellectual scrutiny but they work in the practical world I used to live in.

No apology, just background.

Thoughts?

[HFishbine]

35. Student

I think you need to reevaluate your presumption that universal healthcare would somehow compel anything of anybody.

Healthcare providers would be no more compelled to provide their labor than road-builders are compelled to build state roads, or contractors are compelled to build courtrooms, or automobile manufacturers are compelled to provide police cars.

[papau]

7. "Social Contract Theory"- back to Plato, Grotius, Hobbes,Locke, Rousseau

Book 2 of Plato's dialog The Republic has a social contractarian theme, the first of which is offered by a skeptical character in the dialog named Glaucon. According to Glaucon, we all recognize that it is good for us individually to be unjust, although it is bad for us individually to suffer. We also recognize that if we do act unjustly, we will suffer injuries from other people. To avoid suffering injury, then, make contracts with each other by which we give up injustice and practice justice.

A social contract is made between citizens who institute a government to prevent people from occasionally violating natural law and showing partiality. A social contract is established to regulate social interaction. Social contract theory, then, will obligate me to follow moral rules only to the point where it is necessary to keep society together.

I have always tought of it as why the majority population - the poor - do not limit the acq of wealth to some nominal level - or just kill the rich.

It is a balance of greed - that I want for myself - with equity - that I want for society.

[QuestioningStudent]

13. So you're a 'Republican,' eh?

Just kidding, calm down! :) Been a while since I've read that little ditty, I should probably review it. Okay, I agree that we have formed a social contract with eachother, and have voluntary, though generaly tacitly, ceded portions of our right to self-determination to the government, etc. The compact exists. BUT, how far should that compact extend? What are the proper limits of it? That's what I'm trying to really wrap my head around.

As for the reason the majority population--the poor--don't just kill the rich, I've hoped it was for one of two reasons, or maybe both:
1. They--I guess I should probably say we, here--realize that would
be WRONG.
2. They realize that they benefit from a society that rewards ability
much more than they benefit from one that does not allow someone
the ability to achieve--and gain from that achievement--as much
as they can.

Thanks for your input. Any more thoughts, flaws with this counterpoint?

[karlschneider]

8. Some things have progressed from "freedoms" to "rights" because the

people want them. The preamble to the Constitution touches on this without specific enumeration - that is left to the articles and amendments. I would submit that practically every American perceives
a "right" to have their property protected from (or saved from) fire, hence we have institutions to deal with such unfortunate happenstance.

As to "health care", it hardly stretches the imagination to see how such a concept flows from "promote the general welfare" as delineated in the preamble. Why should it NOT be a "right" in a society where it is in the best interests of everyone?

I find your username more than a bit interesting; you do not write like most "students" do, at least the majority of them. With a modicum of trepidation, I welcome you to DU.

The fuzzy sphere is on your side of the woven barrier.
;-)

[QuestioningStudent]

14. Did you ever go by MSchneider?

I just ask because of the similarity in the name. Anyway...

As regards:
*Fire Fighting: My first impulse would be to say that this is a good that couldn't be feasibly provided by a private service, due to the awkward nature of fee collection (Oh look, my house isn't burning, but my neighbors is, but I didn't pay for my neighbors house to be protected, and now my house is burning, and oh drat, I should have just paid for my neighbor's house, it would have been cheaper than my house burning down and oh!) in such a situation. I'll think about this, though.

*Promoting the General Welfare: Frankly, I would call this a stylistic gaffe, more than anything, but that is a cop-out answer, and you don't deserve one of those. Neither do I. So my argument shall be that a proper and self-consistent interpretation of that provision is that it was intended to mean a promotion of those rights and liberties which are a fundamental part of the general, ie universal, welfare. As the existence of a right which necessitated the government's use of force to impose a positive obligation on another would mean that the right existed in opposition to the affected entity's right to itself, I would construe that such a right, imposing a positive obligation, would be in fact _not_ a general right, as it acts in opposition to one of the groups it purports to benefit, but a _particular_ right that sets one group as more important than another, thus violating the social contract which is understood to protect all groups and entities equally.

Should I rephrase that, or was I clear at all? Flaws & weaknesses?

Incidentally, I'm not sure how to take that remark about my writing. :P As for the name, if I'm not questioning everything, including myself, I'm bound to be wrong about more than I would like to be; and if, in questioning, I am not a student, what else would I be? Failing that wax of poetry, I just liked the name.

*Ping* Have a sphere of fuzziness.

[HFishbine]

37. Actually

Firefighting was once provided by private companies. When the problem of unequal service of what society ultimately deemed a social necessity became apparent, government took over.

Sounds a little like health care, no? (Unless you would argue that their is a greater sociatal need for the protection of property than there is for the preservation of health.)

[bigmonkey]

10. The "right" to property

Also requires a positive action, one of refraining from use of something that doesn't "belong to you".
Natch, I am not saying that the idea of property (especially distantly owned property) is wrong, just that the idea that it's natural is patently false.

[QuestioningStudent]

15. Another good one! Thanks for the Comment!

Actually, I'm not sure that's a problem.
Here's what I mean, 'cause I know that was NOT a clear statement I just made.

When I say positive or negative action, I'm using it to mean fairly specific things, and allow me to clarify that usage.

A negative obligation is one that does not compell anyone to utilize their right to themselves to provide another entity some service, product, favor, etc. A negative obligation DOES compell someone to respect your liberty to utilize your right to your life in a particular sphere of action in the way you deem appropriate.

A positive obligation is one that DOES compell someone to render to you a service, product, favor, etc., regardless of whether or not they would otherwise choose to utilize their life in that manner.

So, with that out of the way, I would lay out,briefly, the argument that because you have a right to your life, and that right is mutually possessed among all people, the only obligations that can be morally imposed upon another person _INVOLUNTARILY_ are of the negative variety; I would include the right to property here as a natural right because you have obtained your property through an expenditure of YOUR OWN LIFE in exchange for money or barter which was used to obtain your property. In other words, property you own has an intrinsic and potent connection to your life, and thus must be respected just as your right to life must. So, someone refraining from altering/taking/utilizing/etc. your property without your consent is just respecting an obligation of the negative variety that derives directly from your right to life.

As usual, if there's something wrong with that, tell me! Please, I really would like to hear if there's a problem with that argument.

[bigmonkey]

17. I think that's a silly distinction.

You _are_ providing a service to someone who owns property. You are adjusting your life to their assertions of control. Or you are paying them money for something they compel you, through property laws backed up by the same police you may be forced to pay for, to admit they control. Additionally, except in the mythical state of utilitarian equality you conjure up, a lot of people own stuff through manipulation of the legal system, or inheritance, or main force. Think of Halliburton and all that Iraqi oil that Commander Bunnypants said belonged to the Iraqi people. Well, now just a few persons in the ruling council, with military backing, are about to sell off that oil on behalf, supposedly, of the Iraqi people. But, lo and behold, the money will mainly stay within boundaries set by that same group. It's a land rush; seize and sell.

In practice, your example surreptitiously transfers an emotional attachment to an imagined personal relationship (namely this stalwart display of property earned with your own hands and its exchange with that belonging to another "equal") to aggressive groups, corporations, plunderers, pirates, and pimps. What's true in actual personal relationships is not true by extension in wide nets of property control. There is no way that Bill Gates earned all that money; he has it by virtue of inheritance (his family gave him money to invest), through the luck of being in the right place at the right time, and he maintains his control through continued manipulation of the legal system backed by police.

I read a book once, one of the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, and one of the characters says: Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Hmm.

[QuestioningStudent]

18. Let me try again....

First, I'd like to address the service that you (the person respecting another's property rights--and please, just for the sake of the conversation, allow me to use that phrase without fighting for it, pretty please :) ) are suppossedly providing. What do you claim the nature of this service is? NOT arbitrarily appropriating for yourself the property of another, at your whim? In other words, NOT taking an action that would be morally/ethically wrong to begin with, that would not be a valid, consistent application of your right to your life in relation to another's right to their life. I just can't buy that as a service in the positive sense that I described.

Now, just to make sure we're on the same page, before I really start addressing your complaing that my reasoning doesn't apply to the 'real world,' I would like to find something out: Do you agree that the reasoning I have presented thus far is erroneous, or is your primary complaint the fact that the legal systems we currently have simply don't offer people the adequate and necessary protections of their basic, fundamental rights--those I am attempting to describe--such that the avenue of fraud and oppression through legal strategems is readily available and, perhaps, an attractive option? I submit to you that, if the system existed that offered an honest protection of property rights, based upon the principles that I am describing--and which I have yet to have knocked out of my head as fallacious--the notion of a 'robber baron,' or one who attains great wealth and social power through the mechanisms of fraud, duplicity, or malfeasance would be greatly weakened.

Oh, yes, the 'imagined personal relationship :' Assuming I made the correct inference about what that statement was in regards to: If you are the direct possessor of the right to your life, and you choose to utilize that life in a specific way, and receive in return some compensation, and that compensation either is or is utilized to purchase property from a voluntary seller, how has some portion of your life not been traded for that property? And if some portion of your life has been traded for property, does it not follow that you should have a right to that property commensurate with your right to your life? And if you did NOT exchange some portion of your life for that property, where did it come from? I guess if you answered that question, it could clear up a lot of the difficulty I have with your argument.

Anywho, thanks for reading and posting. You people are great at making a person think! Although, granted, the quality of my thinking might be debatable!

[bigmonkey]

20. I can't agree.

One of the cruxes of your argument is that ownership of property is a right. This is what allows you to say that when person A asserts that they own something, then person B is engaging in immoral, unethical behavior if they interact with that "property" in a way that upsets person A. My beginning is that the idea of property is a negotiated, culturally determined idea. I can't grant you, therefore, "for the sake of the conversation" that ownership of property is a "right." This is the surreptitious part of your argument. It's circular- I have to admit that relationship to property is as bedrock as breathing, or you won't continue, yet once that's conceded, the whole "voluntary" chain begins. (That's another conversation- this whole notion that any and every purchase is voluntary.)


What I want to suggest is that the notion of property ownership is not unitary, that it's always contextually determined. For instance, I can't own another person. But people used to be able to own other people, which owned persons then had a diminished, "partial" human status.

No-one should be able to buy certain horrifying services, even the Resident would agree with that, even if they are "voluntarily " offered.


Money, a thing whose nature you also assume, can come from various sources, not all of which are the result of "spending your life", unless you count being born into a particular family a chosen act. Other trivial examples are finding money as you walk along the street, or having it given to you. When I say that you are extending an emotional attachment to a simple, visualized situation to extensive networks of ownership, I mean that you are attempting to conflate relationships between persons with relationships between organizations, political entities, corporations, etc. It's as if the relationship between persons, one which we can sympathize with, is being equated with Brown and Root's relationship with the Bush regime. The libertarian idealistically asserts that the act of purchasing is the atom of human relations. I'm saying it's not that simple, and to use these mythical stories (like Freud's Primal Horde, or the Story of Adam and Eve) to provide a context for literally all human relationships reveals the sometimes cult-like nature of the enterprise.

[QuestioningStudent]

23. I like you!

Really. :)

Before I dash off to work, let me drop some thoughts down to strengthen my position. BTW, I just meant that I didn't want to have to say 'the person in violation of what my argument would call another's alleged property rights,' I had just intended to identify the subject of the sentence. I apologize if that came out wrong, as it obviously did.

First, I would ask you if you agree with 'the individual has a fundamental (metaphysical, NOT necessarily legal) right to their own life?'

If so, I would first argue that in the legal sense, you are absolutely right in saying that some rights can be viewed as 'contextually determined;' I would then say that legal value of 'the individual's fundamental right to their life' has been in many societies' view contextually determinable, which is why such phenomena as slavery or other "certain horrifying services" have flourished in those cultures. Thus, by your (seeming) standards that a right be absolutely inviolate to be considered a true right, not even the 'individual's right to life' would be fundamental BECAUSE society can abrogate it BECAUSE society can simply exert more force against an individual than they could hope to resist. Finally, I would say that your argument against the right to property that such a right is only 'contextually determined' fails because, while you are accurate in pointing out that a fundamental right may not be enshrined in the law, you do not with that charge prove the right to property is not a fundamental right.

About owning someone else: I would argue that such an occurrence would violate another's right to life as the state of ownership implies the rights of disposal, usage, sale, etc. For another human to be deprived thusly of their right to utilize their life as they wish would, I think, violate one of the axiom's of my argument, namely that 'the individual has a fundamental right to their own life,' and thus would not be a valid adaptation of the principles I am arguing. It would allow a logical contradiction into the stand I am arguing by granting one entity absolute soveriegnity over another.

As for corporations, etc., and other such legal fictions, I will argue that they can be dealt with after we deal with these philisophical basics, to get us on the same page, as they are all merely legal entities that don't exist as such in the 'real world.' Have you ever actually MET a corporation? Neither have I. Might be scary.

I need coffee. And once again, I appreciate the critiques, they're really making me think. I'm probably gonna think about this all day at work...

TTFN

[bigmonkey]

71. The trouble with this Internet stuff

is that you have to juggle between it and another life. I can continue in about 5 hours, but no sooner. Darn.

[QuestioningStudent]

72. I agree completely.

Um...yes, I agree completely. See you later! Well, so to speak.

[bigmonkey]

89. You still there?

QuestioningStudent,

Looking at your original post, three elements stand out for me:

1) Caring about individual rights.

2) A desire to create a system without "internal contradiction"

3) Avoiding any compulsion, defined as a demand for a "positive", as opposed to a "negative" action.

I can say that I'm decidedly for the first, baffled by the importance of the second, and very suspicious that the third might best be termed "a distinction without a difference." (Not my term)

Unpacking those a little, the definition of an individual is only unproblematic, I think, within the same culture in unreflective conversation. It seems to me that the primal exchange you portrayed in post #15 calls up that unexamined definition in the audience's mind, then transfers the emotional attachment to a technical definition highly tied to exchange as the primary relationship in human life. Starting from that defined base, the train of logic usually leads to the assertion that any commercial transaction is voluntary, and thence often to the notion that when each individual persues their own selfish goals, then the greatest benefit accrues for everyone.

As to the second, I think this focus on a defined foundation and the building of a consistent theoretical system on top of it is actually the source of a lot of the trouble. I had an economics professor once who reminded us in our last class of the term that "the purpose of economics is to provide for human happiness". You could look it up; that's where all the textbooks start. My contention, following his emphasis, is that the thing should be approached empirically; if the theory seems consistent, but people are miserable, then the theory is wrong. It doesn't matter that it's consistent.

As to the third element, it seems based on a notion of individuality that is static, unconnected, self-sufficient in all things. There ain't no such animal! Humans depend, for their very upbringing, on other humans to engage in positive actions, as I understand the definition of positive being put forth. Provision of food, protection from danger, active transmission of language, culture, teaching of skills, it's a very long list. All humans demand positive actions of others in order to stay alive and grow, on a very basic level.

Somehow this is all forgotten in the example in post #15, where a person with no background, no debts of gratitude and appreciation to anyone, use skills that I guess he or she thought of entirely on his or her own to create something, then offers it in exchange for something another similar being has. This is the supposedly the pattern for all human actions in this "system", yet it's something that literally never happens. You seem to think of these supposedly "negative" demands as lighter than the "positive" ones, yet both are unavoidable if human life is to continue. Why the distinction? What's the difference, if both are continually needed?

[QuestioningStudent]

97. Very nice.

Due to a massive workload, I'm afraid that I won't be able to give this post the time it _definitely_ deserves for a little while, maybe a day. I WILL get to it, though, on my honor. *cross my heart...* This post definitely offers the greatest challenge to my arguments yet. A thousand thanks!

[QuestioningStudent]

111. First of Several, as I get the time.

First, about those three elements:

1)Yes, I agree, that does seem to be a primary element of my arguments.

2)Definitely. Otherwise, where goes the logic?

3)Not necessarily: I do however note that there is a difference between the varieties of obligation; that positive obligations _seem_ to violate the fundamental 'right to life' which I argue we all share; and that to maintain 'a system without "internal contradiction,"' it appears to be necessary that for a positive obligation to be considered valid, it must depend upon a fundamental right for its justification--which is just what I haven't found as of yet.

So I agree with your statement that my difficulties in accepting 'rights' which impose positive obligations is my necessity of having a consistent theoretical system.

The whole question about the necessity for consistency is one I'm going to hold off on until I can devote the time to posting an answer of such calibur as that question deserves, which is in my view really quite high.

I'm willing to restrict my arguments about the legitimacy of government interaction with people in ways other than those necessary to preserve those rights imposing only negative obligations to people of mature age and competent mind. I think that negates the upbringing argument, and restricts the debate to those who should be able to provide for themselves.

The last point I have time to address right now regards the nature of transactions. I limit all my statements to voluntary, uncoerced transactions. Any transaction occurring under involuntarily or under conditions of coercion necessitates by definition the presence of some application of force against at least one of the parties involved and would render the transaction 'criminal' in the sense I defined above, and thus null and void according to my premises.

[Yupster]

165. Just wanted to chime in and say

interesting discussion. I wish I could read the whole way down, but kid's got homework to do.

[Nederland]

30. Disagree

The "right" to property...also requires a positive action, one of refraining from use of something that doesn't "belong to you".

The phrase "refraining from use of something" does not describe a positive action, but a negative one. Hence the word "refraining".

[iangb]

19. From a country with no 'Bill of Rights'....

.....and a universal public health care system......and a fairly generous welfare system.

Those services are provided by Government(s), and have been for many years. At each and every election since they were introduced the major parties might undertake to 'maintain Medicare' and 'provide welfare for those in need', and at each election one of those parties is elected.

In other words the electors are regularly given the oportunity to weigh up the cost/benefit of maintaining these 'rights', and their 'obligation' to pay for them.(Medicare is funded by a 1% levy on income).

Despite attempts by some groups to have these 'rights' (and obligations) wound-back (or even terminated), there has never been popular support for such action.

Here it is accepted that such services are one of Government's primary functions.......and one of it's major expenses.

[Tom Arico]

26. A right cannot be at the expenss of another

You are absolutly right. I dont have the right to your bottle of asprin If I have a headache.

[HFishbine]

38. Do you

have a right to build a factory that pollutes the air I breath or the water I drink?

[Nederland]

40. No

Why would you think you do?

[HFishbine]

44. Because you do

to a degree we, as a society, agree to. It's an example of one pursuing an endeavor which is not a right at my expense.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jimshoes]

28. Fascinating philosophical thread ...

I see that there is much here that I have never really thought about in any practical sense. However in real terms, is there an argument for someone sending me unsolicited junk fax's (which cost me money in terms of toner and paper) and tele-marketers which causes me to respond to someone who has interrupted me in my pursuit of happiness? If not, why are these things allowed to continue?

[Nederland]

29. The correct term is "entitlement", not "right"

Rights are things that a person has until they are taken away from them, entitlements are things that a person may demand from their government. That's why you hear social security and medicare referred to as entitlements. Granted, many people abuse the term "right" when they say that people have a right to healthcare. I think its an honest mistake though...

[haymaker]

34. "I'm not trying to be a troll".........

OK, well that clears that up.

Do you think that civilization is a good thing or do you prefer the more manly, every man for himself, cave dwelling days?

Does a person have a right to food?

Does a person have a right to clean air? Does a person have a right to water?

I got to say it, your question was positively Jurassic.

[Nederland]

39. Missing the Point

With all due respect, you are missing the point.

QuestioningStudent's point was that the 'right' to healthcare is very different from the 'right' to free speech. The difference is that one (healthcare) requires resources from other individuals while the other (speech) does not. To ignore the fact that these two rights are in fact very different types of constructs is foolish.

[haymaker]

41. No, what's foolish is to infer that

only things that aren't comnpletely detached from anything and anyone can be called a right.

This whole thing is a bullshit red herring. Comparing the right to free speech with SOME peoples' desire to make health care a "right" is not only ridiculous, it stinks of ulterior motives.

It's called "evolution". Jump on the bandwagon.

[Nederland]

42. Confused

Are you saying that the right to healthcae and the right to speech are similar constructs?

[haymaker]

53. Don't be confused, it's rather simple,

this whole thread is a veiled attempt to minimize people's demands for health care, by comparing it with the right to free speech, which is universally excepted.

It's obvious.

And no, I do not think the health care and free speech issues are similar constructs, one is a basic animal right, the other is a far more evolved concept to which we are slowly realizing, some faster than others, will raise the level of our civilization.

Now let's compare the right to health care with the right to arm bears.

[FDRrocks]

54. Right to arm bears?

Christ! Don't they already have the advantage!?!

[haymaker]

58. Hehehehehe

Arms yes, ATVs, binoculars, GPS, Night vision goggles, scent maskers, etc., no, that would give them an advantage over the rugged, white American trophy hunter.

[camero]

137. The right to bare arms

That's good, because it's hot down here. Haha lol

[Nederland]

59. Let's

Now let's compare the right to health care with the right to bear arms.

Ok, let's.

The right to healthcare implies that if you get sick, you have a 'right' to receive treatment, regardless of how much money you have.

The right to bear arms means that if you have enough money, you can buy a gun.

Quite a bit different I'd say (unless you believe that the right to bear arms implies a government obligation to purchase a firearm for every citizen that desires one, a position I'm sure the NRA would love)

[QuestioningStudent]

87. Foolish? For shame.

Bullshit? QuestioningStudent shit perhaps, but definitely not bullshit. I am NOT a bull, and I would appreciate it if you did not insult them like that.

If you will re-read my original post, the 'right to healthcare' was one of several rights I listed under the category of those that impose a positive obligation on an individual. It just happened to be the example that everyone latched on to. I don't mean anything by selecting that 'right' in particular.

Incidentally, would you agree with the statement that "rights are not simply possessed intrinsically as a result of man's nature, but may evolve with the progress of civilization, society, and technology?"

[QuestioningStudent]

79. You confuse me.

Allow me to address you line by line.
---------------------------------------
OK, well that clears that up.
I should hope so. I want to be perceived as someone asking an honest question, and not just attacked as some people are by those who apparently feel that any question about a basic philisophical issue is high treason or some such.

Do you think that civilization is a good thing or do you prefer the more manly, every man for himself, cave dwelling days?
Anyone who advocates dwelling in caves for anything other than (perhaps) spiritual purposes needs to have their heads checked. IMO.

Does a person have a right to food?
A person has a right to such food as they earn by utilizing their life in a productive manner. Does a person have an intrinsic right to food without engaging in any productive behavior whatsoever? I tend to think not. And do keep in mind that I am referring to an able, mentally competent person of full legal age, alright?

Does a person have a right to clean air? Does a person have a right to water?
I'm not sure about the first; the second seems closely related to your third line, and for now I'll go with that answer until I give the matter closer attention.

I got to say it, your question was positively Jurassic.
What precisely makes a question about a basic philisophical issue that one finds confusing Jurassic?

Oh, yeah, thank you.

[leftofthedial]

43. a "right to healthcare", for example does not compel

any specific person to provide any specific service.

It requires society, collectively, to subsidize the cost, just as society collectively subsidizes roads, schools, law enforcement, defense and other services we believe should be made available to all citizens.

[Nederland]

45. Irrelevant

a "right to healthcare", for example does not compel any specific person to provide any specific service.

The fact that it does compel any "specific" person is irrelevant. The point is that healthcare requires resources from other people, free speech does not. As a result, the degree to which you have a right to free speech is complete independent of how much wealth a society has. Your 'right' to healthcare however, depends entirely on how much wealth a society has.

[Character Assassin]

49. Wow, we agree completely

[ewagner]

56. Well spoken n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. So what's wrong with requiring resources from people

for the common good, unless you believe that "every man IS an island."

[Nederland]

70. Nothing

So long as you have rules to insure that everyone must contribute to the common good.

Which is precisely my problem with many people on the far left. They love to list all the things that people are entitled to recieve, but rather silent when comes to listing what people must give. Furthermore, when you ask what should happen to a person that fails to give what is required, the silence is deafening.

[FDRrocks]

51. Garbled Gibberish.

I see your point. I agree with the aforementioned social contract, and I also think it is a question of humanitarianism. By what right do people deserve free healthcare? No right, per se, but wouldn't it be nice? Would you mind?

But that is speculative, as it is not the case in our country. Right now we have a huge medical industry. In fact, we publically subsidize R&D for many drug companies, who turn around and privately profit. By what right?

[haymaker]

55. To be precise, I don't think people necessarily want free

health care, as much as affordable health care. A system that will never bankrupt you if you fall ill, and one that will give you some form of basic, emergency, or catastrophic care in the event that you cannot work, or temporarily lose work.

[KittyWampus]

64. Insurance Companies Most Certainly DO Interfere

" I completely understand the 'right to free speech': it requires only that another entity not
interfere with us. But how CAN there be a 'right to health care' or a 'right to liesure' or any similiar rights?"

What you completely fail to understand is that Health Insurance companies prevent American citizens from attaining Health care at a reasonable cost. They interject themselves in the equation as middle men and then lobby the government from regulating their predatory behavior.

Same with pharmaceuticals... they get grants and funds for research for the government and extended copyrights but prevent any meaningful competive marketing of their products.

[Sterling]

78. The first post is based on a very flawed primise

The first post is based on a very flawed premise.
And can only be taken seriously if you live in complete denial of reality. You have to be of the mind that civilization is not a legitimate endeavor and we should all live by the laws of the jungle. Stupid right wing vomit that is used to keep Joe six pack from wondering why he can’t afford a doctor.

[QuestioningStudent]

83. Reply to #78.

You seem to have found a flaw in my argument, very cool. Now please help me to see the flaw if it is there! Bear with me, I catch on slow sometimes, k?

Now, you say my post is based on a very flawed premise. What is that premise?

Why do you advocate that a respect for rights and a desire for civilization are incompatible values?

Why must you call my post "stupid right wing vomit" when I am asking a question? I would much prefer to have you attempt to correct a misconception of mine than to insult me, and you would be slightly more persuasive if you took that tack.

But thank you, nonetheless, for your willingness to respond.

[QuestioningStudent]

82. I don't understand how that defeats my initial thesis.

The essence of what you are saying seems to boil down to:
1. We have rights.(I think you are agreeing with that point of mine)
2. The government ought protect those rights. (Even though we may
disagree as to just what constitutes those rights--not sure about
whether we do or not)
3. Some agencies attempt to influence the government to ensure that
it does not protect those rights.

OK, I agree with that completely. I'll respond with:
Let's institute a government with restricted/limited powers to interfere with those rights we possess. That way, even if some agency lobbies the government to corrupt its protection of our rights, there wouldn't be much it could do to us anyway.

Does that sound too off-base?

[Sterling]

85. No need to defeat a crap thesis.

It does itself in quite nicely.

It is based on the assumption that while people are entitled to turn a profit on another persons labor people are not entitled to receive the basic necessities from the system we all contribute to. That is only a tiny bit of what is ridiculous about your position.

In essence it is just more right wing double speak that would make George Will proud.

[QuestioningStudent]

86. Incorrect.

Your statement...
" is based on the assumption that while people are entitled to turn a profit on another persons labor people are not entitled to receive the basic necessities from the system we all contribute to."
...is patently false.

I will point out that I never said those words, nor did I imply them. I have made no comments about the relation of profit to labor. I have made some _limited_ statements about what necessities we are entitled to, that reference can be found in Post 79.

What I have questioned is the difference in the various types of 'rights' that are claimed to exist, that is, the difference between those 'rights' that impose a negative obligation and those that impose a positive one. My assumptions, as far as I can tell, are that:
1)The individual has a right to their own life.
2)Any rights derived from that starting position must be self-consistent when applied universally. In other words, all rights ought to apply equally to all people to avoid an internal consistency error somewhere in the chain of logic that led to the formulation of said right.

I think the 'principle' you stated in your earlier claim would have to be derived from these premises, and then I would have to agree to the chain of logic that led to that claim, in order for you to claim I ever accepted such a principle. If you can show me the passages that necessarily show that chain, I'll change my opinion of your claim. Otherwise, please do not put words in my mouth. My own are often quite foul enough for me to wish to put others in my mouth when I don't know where they've been.

Oh, yes, is it really necessary to insult me? I appreciate the responses I've been getting--I really, genuinely do--including yours, but I would appreciate it if you didn't find it necessary to personally attack me. Peace?

[bigmonkey]

90. Hello

Dear QS,

Not sure if I properly responded to your "dash off to work" post. See my post 89.

[camero]

96. Right on

The right to health care is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imbedded in our constitution.

[quaker bill]

95. Rights

The point is that we as a community of people can create the "rights" of our own choosing. It is all about the quality of a society we care to live in. Many of these created (non-intrinsic) rights are related to the long term survival of a culture.

Do people have the inherent "right" not to starve in the streets?

No.

Do I want to live in a society that fails to take care of the poor and sees to it that this does not happen?

No.

I choose to live in a society where the "common good" means something and we all contribute to the common good through paying our taxes. Taxes are the dues you pay to live in a society worthy of the term.

[FlaGranny]

102. Agree.

The questions boil down to, "Do we want to live in a civilized society?" and "Do we want to pay the dues to live in a civilized society?" A resounding "yes" to both.

We can fix our problems or we can ignore them. The cost to society for either choice is probably about equal. Therefore, I prefer we fix our problems.

Edit: We don't expect government services to be free - we expect each person should be taxed to pay for them according to his/her ability.

Obviously, it doesn't bother some folks to watch someone die of cancer because of lack of insurance, or to see homeless vets in the streets, or poverty stricken families without enough food. It seems fine to them as long as they have that extra few bucks buy new sportscars so they can drive quickly by without "seeing."

[undergroundpanther]

105. Rights?

To me I Know none of us chose to be born, none of us chose to be here where we can get hurt sick,traumatized exploited.WE made a "social contract" with each other to help us all cope with this life in an uncertain world.Animals have"social contracts" in thier herds and prides.A social contract is vital for survival as a species.
Competition,profit and authoritarians destroy social contracts.

A hurricane blowing me away,a sinkhole swallowing my family..this crap is bad,but humans have made things worse with thier delusions and beliefs, in persuit of domination over nature,each other ect,have done far more harm to quality of life than one would expect.

We are a sick species,we destroy what helps us survive .

We refuse to cooperate and forget to share what we have with others because compassion isn't cultivated beyond kindergarten in an artifically enhanced competitive culture like ours..where we fight against the well being of each other to get a bit of the illusions of security or power we destroy.

In reality if you strip away all the bullshit we tell each other,suffering hurts,and no kind of suffering hurts more than your own suffering. And We are equal, but different.
We need food,shelter.love,water,warmth..(if winter gets cold where you live)
And there are other things we need psychologically to cope with life in an uncertain reality no one can control.


We are not happy competing all the time.Our consumer culture relies on unhappiness for it's profits.


Private has it's root in the word deprivation.

The way we use our collective beliefs to harm ourselves is in how we allow a few to create deprivation,deliverate over the top deprivation of many.There is no survival value in this belief.


Reciprocal sharing and respect goes contrary to our social conditioning today.The sharing,of living space, skills,food,ect.with others around you can destroy profit motives and competition.I would rather help my neighbors and community than make a single person fabulously wealthy at my communities expense.Being involved with others as equals forms community solidarity,and "leaders" weho rely on exploiting human misery don't like this.When people share thier troubles hopes and fears and can identify problems with the way they are forced to live and are'governed',they become empowered to change the way they live.

You cannot make a better life for yourself or anyone else if that better life depends on another person's unwilling suffering and exploitation. In the Healthcare issue,sharing is not suffering, unless youv are greedy.Being deprived of profit is nothing compared to being sick and having no one to help,that is suffering,being an exploited number by the super wealthy Ceo of a hospital or insurance company is suffering..Exploitation backfires upon the exploiter because apparently greed is bottomless.It takes the force of self interested survival to stop the greedy or the force of right relationship to change them.

Sharing is a survival based ethical value that humankind needs and already does that our culture fears embracing because it has been taught the lies,anti-ethics and traumatized by the demands of competition, power-over and profit .

We can grow better together and resist exploitation as long as we have integrity,compassion or character..in it's collective spirit left inside us.
Some people really want to live in a better culture and are willing to give some of what they have and share what they know, with others because to them the quality of human life itself matters more than being a king for a day.Others rather be the king and will destroy anything to get thier way.One thing they don't get is,

All the money or power in the world does not bring security, happiness or peace when it is stolen from your fellow human beings,and built upon lies that reinforce thier collective harm,fear,deprivation,cocercion and suffering.

[QuestioningStudent]

113. Apocalyptic Prose.

Interesting sermon, and I do NOT mean that in a deratory way, but could you show me more directly how this relates to my initial set of questions? Great style, but I must confess I find it difficult to find the core of the substance through it. I must contribute this to some confusion on my part, could you help guide me through it?

[msmcghee]

104. After reading your well-stated premise (question) . . .

. . First, thanks for being articulate and taking the care to post it with complete sentences and no mispellings etc. It shows that you are smart and that you care about what you are saying.

Your statements remind me of when I was in my late teens / early twenties. I was very attracted to the pure logic of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. At the time it seemed that all of human nature could be reduced to a simple, blindingly truthful premise or two - and that any notions that did not extend from those could not possibly be valid. It felt so good at such a young age to believe that I understood the key to the human condition so much more completely than all those older folks - who just smiled politely at my rants.

Since then I have put in another forty years or so at this "life" thing - and as I feared might be the case, my views have changed. But having gone down that path, at about the same time in my life - let me offer this for what it's worth.

I know that those logical solutions seem so clear to you now - but try to be patient and open to the mysterious side of human nature. Life is more to be felt than "understood". Our feelings comprise our primary computing system - in humans and all animals. Learn to trust them.

Logic came along much later in evolutionary history and as such is an imperfect, not fully developed tool. It is a seductress. We want so much to be able to have a view that explains all the unknowns and offers us a path to fullfillment. But reason is just a tool - not an answer. It can be used to learn a lot about ourselves - but, divorced from our true computer, our feeling self, it can also be used to justify almost anything you can imagine.

Keep honing that sharp intellect but it's even more important to be kind and caring and trust in your feelings. You'll be much further ahead when later - you find that all along, you were right where you needed to be on the path - you just didn't realize it.

Cheers

[QuestioningStudent]

110. Ah, but for kindness!

Thank you, truly, for the kind words you have offered. I have found that there are some truly intelligent people on this forum, willing to offer advice, debate, and the type of constructive criticism which helps you to grow as a person.

Now, while I do appreciate the cautionary words--and I WILL keep them in mind, I try to now as it is--I am going to venture out, ask of you questions, and attempt to sound as respectful in print as I do in my mind (which, for a person of your courtesy and experience, is really quite a lot).

How, exactly, and please be patient with me, does this affect my original question? I will admit, because it would be an assinine thing not to do, that the conclusions that logic would dictate in some situation and the dictates of one's heart are not always the same; however, if one is RIGHT, then one IS right. What is right is that which is the truth--and I don't think I need to go out and attempt to prove that statement, it seems fairly obvious--and you really can't argue with the truth to my knowledge, whether or not you want to. So, regardless of whether or not you LIKE what logic dictates in some situations, doesn't it behoove you to do the right, the logical, thing?

How can't it? And wouldn't that mean we have exactly 0 ways to figure anything out in this life? If you can't depend on logic, on reason, on rationality, what precisely is the point of anything in the world? There would be no guiding light to illuminate the darkness we would find ourselves in, were reason not a reliable guide.

Incidentally, to cap this perhaps excessively melodramatic post, if reason's not a valid guide to our life, how can we even argue this?

[QERTY]

145. Gawd, I Hope I Never Am In A Car Wreck. . .

. . . and I have to rely on you to act as a good samaritan!

"I owe this man nothing, so why should I give of my life's work to help him"
"Since he has been injured and I have not, he must have done something wrong with his life expenditures."
"There is no logical reason to help, in fact, I have an obligation to not help. This separate entity is not me, therefore, any work I do to help him will necessarily detract from my life's work. There is no contract that I know of between he and I so I am justified in letting him perish."

[QuestioningStudent]

152. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

Disclaimer:
None of those quotes have actually been said by myself, feel free to check the thread.

QERTY:
I have said nothing about having respect for other people. I have said nothing that could be construed as having no respect for life. If anything, I think it is much the opposite: while my arguments in this thread may not lead to a conclusion you agree with thus far, they are based on, at the axiomatic level, a respect of and a concern for life. Please do not imply that these qualities lack in these arguments. It is my _respect_ for life that leads me to search for sound principles of governance, that respect individual rights, and only extend those principles in violation of individual rights when I see a clear logical chain in favor of that extension. If I seem anal or particularly stubborn in this thread it is because I want to see every side of this argument. Besides which, if you don't have a polite devil's advocate every now and then, how are you really going to sharpen YOUR arguments? So please, cut this person a little slack and just attack his arguments. Thank you.

[jbm]

168. hi questioning student...

If I were energetic I would challenge you on the absoluteness of any truth,but I'm not energetic so I'm just going to thank you for starting such an interesting thread.

[QuestioningStudent]

169. You're welcome.

But don't forget to thank all the people who actually MADE this such an interesting thread, including, but certainly not limited to:
HFishbine
ewagner
bigmonkey
devil's advocate
and many others,
all of whom have really contributed to this discussion.

Kudos, everybody!

[Liberator_Rev]

108. Where do we get "inalienable rights"?

I agree with Mairead's post # 103. To elaborate, when Jefferson introduced the Declaration of Independence (and of "unalienable Rights"), there was nothing metaphysical about his claims. This lofy statement is persuasive to people only to the extent that they see themselves as its beneficiaries. It certainly didn't impress the British.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men (which didn't include black men, native American men, poor men or ANY women) 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."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on behalf of America's founding fathers.

What we call "rights" and "responsibilities" are simply behaviors that we have recognized as such. The benefits of some of those we consider so obvious that we don't feel we have to codify them explicitly. Others we debate and then codify. Many of these mankind has mythologized over the centuries with stories that mankind has been told to do so by God(s).
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Liberals.

See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[Mortensen]

123. Voting booths, guns, tolerance, determination

I'd be careful minimalizing the concept of rights if I were you. Someone might get the idea you're arguing to get rid of them.

[Mortensen]

115. Health care and my dinero

I don't believe in a right to health care or any other form of materialistic gain that I pay for at gunpoint with my tax dollars. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness and that includes personal gain, but they don't have a right to make others foot the bill. Health care is like the government giving out shiny new tv's to people: sure it's great they have something to watch football on, but they don't have a right to make me pay for it.

[thebigidea]

116. so you're comparing watching football to potentially saving a child's life

through basic care?

Interesting analogy.

[Mortensen]

120. Do you know what basic care is?

Medical equipment, drugs, & the expertise of paid professionals = materialism. The Constitution deals with moral, philisophical, spiritual, or ethical rights. Not crap taxpayers have to pay for, although you could make an argument for defense being that.

And why are YOU comparing saving a child's life to a right? Sure, it might be a nice thing to do. But on what planet is that a right?

The right to criticize the president and not get killed is different from the right to get free crap while other people pay for it. One deals with "an it harm none do what you will" and the other is more along the lines of "I have a right to spend other peoples money".

[thebigidea]

122. more of a fan of Crowley's "do what thou wilt..." original, thanks

"the right to get free crap while other people pay for it."

you call keeping people alive "crap"? Yeah, that compassion stuff is for the weak. Where the fuck is my copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?

"Not crap taxpayers have to pay for, although you could make an argument for defense being that."

ah, I imagined you somehow would be able to do this. So do you classify the Iraq War as "crap" or "defense"?

[Mortensen]

126. There is a right to not be murdered.

There is no right to not be infected by germs and not have your leg broken in a ski accident.

[thebigidea]

127. though a government more concerned with healing broken bones

rather than breaking bones in far-off countries, seems like a less horrid menace.

libertarian, huh?

[Mortenzen]

130. Are you high?

Do you see ANYONE here supporting war in "far-off countries"? Huh what?

[thebigidea]

131. are you insulting?

and banned already?

Gee, wonder why.

And yeah, I'm high. Which makes me more of a libertarian than you, right?

[OKNancy]

133. OOOO after

you got tombstoned you come back with a name change...

[LTR]

118. Tax dollars

I'd rather my hard-earned tax dollars go toward something beneficial than to something like a pointless war that siphons away a helluva lot more money than health care.

This bogus ego war in Iraq could easily bankrupt the US. Weapons and soldiers aren't cheap, ya know.

Health care is a drop in the bucket by comparison, and I think it really leads to a better quality of life for all of us. Where are the priorities?

[Mortensen]

121. Ok, yeah, what's your point?

Yeah, I would rather tax dollars be spent on little Katie getting a new liver instead of some big-ass bomb, but how about this wild idea: I'd rather not have to foot the bill for either one. Crazy, isn't it?

The problem is that both sides are driving America into Depression, but the militants from both sides will never admit it. Drops in the bucket add up, and the road to hell and good intentions and all that.

[thebigidea]

125. its militant to want health care?

Am I extremist too?

[Mortenzen]

129. Do you want me to pay for it?

Then you're an extremist. Extremely naieve.

[thebigidea]

132. the word is "naive"

yes, I want YOU to personally pay for ALL of my health care, FOREVER.

What a ridiculous argument you make.

Good riddance to rancid rubbish.

[ima_sinnic]

134. back so soon?

what's the matter, is it too boring over in freeperville?
Mortensen--in this same thread, even--got tombstoned but you just can't live without us. buh bye.

[FlaGranny]

136. Ah gee - I'm talking into the wind - they're tombstoned.

:shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

138. they'll be back

sh*t always rises to the top.
I fully expect to see "newest member" "Martensen" within the next few minutes.

[FlaGranny]

135. It seems you would

enjoy an anarchistic society with no policemen, no firemen, no roads, no defense, nothing at all that you might have to help pay for. When you save enough, perhaps you could buy an island and live that way, far from people who want to live a civilized life. In the meantime, don't use any service you don't want to pay for - to get a taste of what your world will be like. Or, you might want to pay for each time you have to call a cop. Someone breaks into your car to steal something? Break out your checkbook and pay for a service call to get your cop.

Peace.

[ima_sinnic]

139. wow, excellent!

I really do want to send that to Neal Boortz! You crystallized the idiot quality of the freeper-libertarian argument.

[FlaGranny]

140. They do have a certain

idiot quality don't they? :-)

[FlaGranny]

124. That's nonsense - you are already paying

whether you like it or not. You are paying through the cost of your premiums and through your taxes to take care of people without insurance. The trouble is, you probably could get the same for less, if a percentage of your money did not go to executives in an insurance company.

Edit: And - just think how much more your employer could afford to pay you if he didn't have to pay most of your health insurance bill.

[camero]

128. To turn your argument around

We all have to pay taxes for police and firemen (and women). In this instance, I am paying for the protection of your life and property.

Why should I be compelled to do that? Because protecting your property and life indirectly makes the whole area safer.

The same applies to health care. When we keep people from getting influenza (which was a big killer not too long ago and highly contagious), we are also protectng your life.

Protecting one person's health indirectly makes the whole community safer. Health care is not a commodity on the level of oil and water.

As for compelling Doctors, they are already compelled by the Hippocratic Oath to do the very best that they can do for thier patients. (Oh, I forgot, that is so passe.)

[QERTY]

141. What About Minimum Wage?

Why should a young owner of an inherited company be forced by government to pay a minimum wage to workers? If the workers are willing to work for less in order to obtain food, the owner should not be compelled by government interference to pay them any more. And if they are unable to find food through any other "life expenditures", why should the owner be compelled to pay them at all? Perhaps they would work for dry biscuits and a small shelter. Also, what should prevent them from freely entering a contract where they exchange their "freedom" for subsistence? Perhaps they could enter a contract where they voluntarily sacrifice their life's work for immediate sustenance. I love philosophical discussions where acceptance of reality is optional!

[QuestioningStudent]

143. Indeed you do.

Obviously, you do love philisophical discussions where the acceptance of reality is optional; before now, we were trying to keep reality involved. Do you SERIOUSLY think any economy which possessed allowed workers to contract freely with their employer would ever result in a static situation of work for subsistence? Not gonna happen. No employer, especially in an economy with a rising level of technology, could possibly survive in that manner.

Sorry for that little outburst.

As to the part you're right about, you are correct in noting that minimum wage laws fall under the category of those 'rights which impose a positive obligation,' as a 'right to a minimum wage' would seem to violate the freedom of contracting which flows from the right to one's life. Am I saying that such laws are impractical? Not necessarily. Am I saying that I want to have a firm and clear philisophical understanding for any such law before I give it my firm support? Most definitely.

As I've asked other posters who were seriously interested in helping to cram this material through the exceptionally thick walls of my cranium, please show me where the philisophical errors in my reasoning lie, if indeed errors do lie there. Unfortunately, I'm just not capable of learning well from these mostly rhetorical comments--perhaps this is a failing of mine, but nonetheless it is a trait that I posses. Could you elaborate more to compensate for that?

[QERTY]

144. Your Assertions Are Unfounded

"Do you SERIOUSLY think any economy which possessed allowed workers to contract freely with their employer would ever result in a static situation of work for subsistence? Not gonna happen. No employer, especially in an economy with a rising level of technology, could possibly survive in that manner."
Completely unfounded BS
"As to the part you're right about, you are correct in noting that minimum wage laws fall under the category of those 'rights which impose a positive obligation,' as a 'right to a minimum wage' would seem to violate the freedom of contracting which flows from the right to one's life."
There is no justifiable philosophical rationale for fairness in the government's imposition of minimum wages except for "the common good", a concept incompatible with your cold and insincere outlook. So, evidently, you're against them.

I think your attempts at rhetorical cuteness are juvenile.
Perhaps you would be more prepared to understand if you were ill and unable to afford decent health care. Perhaps it's hard for a child of privelege to understand that, in the real world, some people are poor not because of wrong decisions or laziness, but because of life's hard knocks. And, again in case you haven't yet figured it out, life is not fair or completely codifiable.

[QuestioningStudent]

154. Ouch, you meanie. Let me get my butler.

For all those who missed it, that was sarcasm.

QERTY:
As to your first assertion that my claim that in a system based on strictly enforced property rights with the freedom to contract, wages will inevitably rise, is complete bullshit, I would like to know why you say that, since in every history class I've taken, every history I've read, that has happened. Maybe not without jolts, periodic regressions, etc., but those have never stopped the strong historical trend for higher wages and a higher standard of living. Please, SHOW me where I'm wrong, and don't just tell me that I am.

As to your second assertion, about the rationale for minimum wage laws: Total freakin' cop out. Are you really going to concede that logic, reason, and rationality would dictate AGAINST your position, and the only reason for adopting it is wanting to be nice? I KNOW you don't want to do that, and could do better than that anyway. Instead of denouncing me, try to explain to me the logic behind your position.

Okay, here is where I express a little anger, but I will attempt to be polite.

You may call me "cold and insincere" when you have met me personally. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you would stick to rebutting my arguments and not me. Incidentally, the next time you want to make a statement about someone's life, level of illness, access to health care, life of privilege, or experience with the real world, limit it to someone you know. Every now and then you might REALLY miss the mark when you're talking about someone you've never met.

Once again, if we could just restrict this debate to my arguments, and not attack each other, that would be very cool, and far more beneficial to the both of us.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

142. Why do so many libertarians demand that THEIR rights be protected...

but not others?

Consider this: You say that the "right to healthcare" imposes an obligation on others to give of themselves, and that such obligation is unreasonable, then you go on to say in another post:

National Defense/Police/Courts: These institutions take over for us the greater part of our right to self defense. Were it not ceded in this way to the government, the nation would become a mass of gangs, vigilantes, and petty warlords. By consolidating the right to use force in the government in these cases, we create an (ideally, hopefully) objective entity to resolve many of our disputes in a way that SHOULD protect our fundamental rights.

Now, according to you, compelling others to give of themselves in order to protect your right to life and property is justifiable.

What I want to know is why you deny that compelling others to give of themselves to protect others life is NOT justifiable?

For that is what healthcare is: the protection of life.

Why should I pay to defend you? For the same reason that YOU should pay to keep me healthy.

It all boils down to the fact that there are no such thing as "rights" in the way that you define them. You do not have a "right" to property, you have an "agreed upon right" to property.

If you doubt this, all you need to do is look into the past. We humans are in fact animals (no matter how much people hate to admit it) and our behaviours are essentially the same: the strongest survive. In our history the idea that anyone had a right to property never even occured to people - what mattered was survival. If that meant stealing from you or killing you in order to reduce your consumption of limited resources, then that is what would happen.

As we developed, we became "civilised". What this really means is that we began to recognise that collectively we were stronger than as individuals. We realised that by working together we could gaurantee EVERYONES survival. That is when man started to form communities rather than staying in purely familial groups.

Some animals have developed the same instinct (ie herding). In such groups, it is COMMON for individuals to give up some of their freedom in order to benefit from the protection of the group.

Libertarians such as yourself however want to benefit from the protection WITHOUT giving up some of your freedom. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

What you call for is a devoltuion back into the days BEFORE we realised how to better survive in a hostile world. You want us to go back to the days of everyone for themselves, the strongest survive.

However, there is NO GOING BACK. If you have the right to retain your freedom, then I can equally give up my part of the deal and decide to steal from you, or just plain kill you as being too competetive of the limited resources available.

In fact this is the underlying philosphy of Bush and his minions - they want oil, and they are powerful enough to take the oil. Or so they think. In reality they are not, because what gave the US power was not it's weapons, but its friendships. Now that it is backing down on its part of the deal, it is being abandoned by its friends who are saying "Who cares if the Arabs want to bomb US citizens - it's not MY problem".

In other words, on a global scale, Bush is learning WHY we turned to this pattern of cooperation instead of competition. No-one is as powerful as they THINK they are.

So, I can hear you think, what does this have to do with healthcare?

It is simple: healthcare is one of the benefits of modern society. It exists not because of individuals, but because of the combined efforts of generations of people and organisations collectively building the understanding of human health.

If you think that health care would be as good today if NOT for government subsidies, then I would ask you to remember that originally healthcare was exactly as you wish it to be - the rich had it and the poor didn't. Of course, the rich were being bled and trepanned to release evil spirits, and the poor were forced to resort to herbal remedies.

It wasn't until governments put the resources of the entire nation (and groups of nations) towards solving health problems that medecine made it's breakthroughs.

Now, here is some information you are not going to like:

The transition to today’s knowledge-based economy has been marked by a significantly increased global investment in research and development (R&D), especially in industrialized countries. Although public funding has long been a major driving force behind scientific research, in the last decades we have witnessed increasingly widespread private-sector participation (Figure 1). For example in the United States, of the US$ 247 billion spent on R&D in 1999, the private sector contributed 68.5%, the federal government 26.7%, and nonprofit entities (including colleges and universities) 4.7%.1§

Although in absolute figures US-government funding for R&D has never been higher, its relative contribution to R&D has fallen dramatically. Whereas government funding accounted for more than 50% of the total R&D budget before 1979, stagnating government R&D spending and steeply increasing private-sector spending (especially since the late 1980s) have now resulted in the lowest proportion ever for the US government. Within the federal budget, defense and space R&D account for approximately 62%. Health R&D receives 20% (about US$ 15.5 billion), ranking it first among non-defense government R&D funding sectors
http://www.neglecteddiseases.org/3-3.pdf

Did you notice that US Government in 1999 provided 26.7% of the money used for research and development of new healthcare methods and means? Did you also notice that this is the LOWEST share, yet HIGHEST dollar figure the US government has spent on R&D for healthcare?

So, to try and claim that healthcare is what it is today because of PRIVATE funding is false. In fact what we are seeing is once again the trend of trying to back away from the agreement members of society made. Most healthcare is in fact based on PUBLIC funds, and yet people today want to basically steal that publically funded knowledge and use it for their own private benefit.

In fact, in another post you talked of how the evolution of science has accelerated in recent decades, while forgetting that most of this evolution came about because of government funded R&D for war. For example, the modern computer is an offshoot of the desire by the US government to be able to accuratly model the ballistics of artillery weapons in a meaningful timescale.

Thus the first modern computers were actually government funded defense projects. Would computers as we know them have existed if not for this need? Possibly not. Can anyone doubt the impact this government funding had on computer research and thus society as we know it?

What my argument boils down to is basically this: if you want to renege on YOUR agreement to contribute to the overall benefit of society (even if this is at your personal detriment) then I want to reneg on MY agreement not to put MY survival over yours, and thus will be around to your house (metaphorically speaking) to take whatever I can get - after all, the only TRUE "right" is my right to try to survive. In fact it is a FUNDAMENTAL instinct.

[FlaGranny]

158. Great, great post, DevilsAdvocate.

Nuf said.

[davekriss]

155. Great question, QuestioningStudent

I've only had time to quickly read through the first third of this thread (about 50 posts), but I have to get ready for work. I attempt a response for you, cut&paste from a post I made on another board (U75, and to a different question, but FWIW...). You start, it seems, in the inalienable rights enumerated in the Preamble: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then seek justification from us for any explicit or implicit right that requires a positive obligation from someone other than the claimant to the right. You imply, I think, that liberty of the individual is the ultimate principle, and I agree -- but let's work through what this means (at least as I see it). Here's the cut&paste part:

--------------

“Liberty” is a funny animal. We are all always and absolutely “free” – but “freedom” is illusory. I am free, for example, to stand in the middle of the highway during the height of rush hour. But the freedom of others to drive home will quickly negate my freedom. On the other hand, I am free to drop a giant barricade up the road to secure my freedom to stand in the middle of the road. This “freedom”, it turns out, appears to be a Schopenhaurean Will to Power and is the final adjudication of many competing freedoms. Thus one person's "liberty" can be another person's "tyranny". So something else needs to factor into the equation before "liberty" is a good in itself. What can that be?

It is in our mutual self-interest to come together and agree to exercise our freedoms cooperatively. Using the example above, we can agree to take turns. Perhaps tax ourselves to construct and install a traffic light that alternately stops traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road and then stops pedestrians so traffic can freely flow. Such is the basis for the Liberal State. But as soon as the rights of one party supercede the rights of another, we introduce strife. For example, if drivers are allowed to speed through a red light without consequences if they feel they need to hurry. Pedestrians will plan sit-ins and obstruct traffic! Even throw rocks through windshields of passing cars! Revolution!!! Instead, to secure the highest liberty for all, a sense of justice and fairness must prevail. Otherwise the system will break down and instead open all up to possible dangers of tyranny. Equality, as in reciprocal fairness and justice for all, serves as the foundation of Liberty -- thus, I say with ****, Equality is indeed the highest principle.

<snip>

...Aristotle says, “All men seek the good”, and this is so. Trouble arises because of our varied and conflicting definitions of "good". Error and ignorance sow conflict; conflict leads to pain. But first things first: Is there any good we can all agree to strive for if it is not based on equality? I don't think so. You are absolutely right, my friend, Equality should be and is the highest principle. And our mission, how we choose to spin our brief lives, is to educate and motivate others to see that and seek the same.

------

In my example above, QS, "liberty" is achieved through recognition of interdependent positive obligations. The driver agrees to pay taxes to construct a traffic light that allows the pedestrian to safely exercise his or her right to walk across the road; the pedestrian agrees to pay taxes to construct the light that allows the driver his turn. Both cooperatively agree to restrict the full exercise of their individual rights in order to secure optimal liberty for all (they surrender the rights to retain earnings untaxed and fight in the streets for dominion over the road). For this compact to endure, the "gives" and "gets" need to be perceived by all parties as relatively equal.

The Libertarian probably agrees that we should strive for an equality of opportunity; I go a step further and assert that we should strive for a near equality of outcomes as well. Why? Because social asymmetry is an enemy to Liberty. It erodes the social compact and threatens optimal liberty for all by engendering chaos (rebellion). From this springs the rationale for progressive taxation, for social services -- for a whole paradigm of governmental services beyond securing the right to property (the latter which, notably, only advantages those with significant property).

The "right" to universal healthcare -- it would contribute to Liberty by diminishing asymmetry, by promoting equality.

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
--Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

[Clovis Sangrail]

157. faulty basis

But how CAN there be a 'right to health care' or a 'right to liesure' or any similiar rights? THOSE 'rights' demand that another entity be COMPELLED to give of themselves, regardless of their desires. In other words, the first right, the right to speech, imposes only a negative obligation: it requires only that no action be taken on the part of others; yet, the other rights I've listed impose postive obligations: they require that someone perform an act for my benefit.


Your query is based on the concept of constitutional rights imposing no positive obligations (other than on the govt. as you stated later).
However, the Bill of Rights explicitly imposes positive obligations on 3rd parties in:
Amendment III:
This places an obligation on civilians to quarter military in times of war as prescribed elsewhere in the constitution.
Ammendment VI:
This provides "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses" to defendents. Again, a positive obligation upon a 3rd party.
As we have civilian juries, compulsory action on 3rd parties could theoretically be seen to extend to IV and V as well.

Further, your assertion that a "right" to healthcare compels anybody to provide that service is faulty.
Yes, if there is a "right" to healthcare somebody has to provide said care.
However, if it is decided that healthcare is a right (as it should be IMO)then somebody who provides said care would be serving in the same capacity as the government, and there would be no positive obligation being placed on any 3rd party individual.
Just as individual police, judges, etc. etc. are engaged in a voluntary association, so are/would be healthcare workers.

[QuestioningStudent]

162. Not constitutional rights, per se.

I did use constitutional rights to provide examples for my initial and many subsequent posts because of their general familiarity to any English-speaking audience, but constitutional rights per se are not the foundation of my question.

I question the sound philisophical basis for ANY right, even those presently enumerated in the constitution, that imposes a positive obligation. I don't think I've made any qualitative statements about whether or not various 'rights' which impose a positive obligation have merit, although I may accidentally have. For instance, I've been having a great deal of trouble lately with the Amendment VI and VII rights guaranteeing counsel, trials by jury, etc. They are rights I tend to think are necessary for a just judicial system, but it's the rationalization for them, as they do impose positive rights, which has eluded me. I really don't want to resort to "I think we need 'em." Matter of fact, that's one of the key reasons I started this thread.

Incidentally, if the government has the 'right' to simply declare any person a government employee/official, would that not be a violation of the person's right to their life? Assuming, of course, you agree with my interpretation of that right--and if you don't, tell me why!
The reason I bring that up is because, to my mind, if we're going to justify one positive obligation (say, the right to health care) with another (the government can just deputize anyone with a skill the government wants provided as a 'right'), it seems we still need a justification for the initial right. Now, if we restrict the 'right' to healthcare, and say "You have a right to healthcare if anyone wants to come work for the government, for government wages, under the terms of the government contract, but only then," then I don't think I could argue against that on the basis of the arguments I've put forth in this thread, provided of course that the government didn't simply nationalize the whole medical industry, which would go back to violating the freedom of contract. Wow, long sentence.

Thoughts?

[Clovis Sangrail]

163. Social Contract

I question the sound philisophical basis for ANY right, even those presently enumerated in the constitution, that imposes a positive obligation.

In various forms, governments are instituted for the percieved welfare of the state... not just the rights of the individual.
I know of no system of government which does NOT place some positive obligation on its citizens.
Social Contract, not Individual Contract


Incidentally, if the government has the 'right' to simply declare any person a government employee/official, would that not be a violation of the person's right to their life? Assuming, of course, you agree with my interpretation of that right--and if you don't, tell me why!

You are correct that the government does not have this right.
You are incorrect that this was my assertion.
Judges, juries, police, city workers etc. etc. are all acting on behalf of government (hence functioning as government) , however none of the individuals have been compelled to perform, nor has any right to life been violated.

All of these people have entered a voluntary association, just as with any other job.

[quaker bill]

173. You must be quite young

To engage in such banal sophistry. It appears that you are seeking some natural law, some philosophical first cause to justify rights in a social setting. Your arguement is hyperattenuated from an apriori fallacy, and as such fall flat on it's face. Perhaps stepping back from the nihilism a bit would help.

With the perhaps debatable exception of hermits, humans live in social context. We share a common social and physical infrastructure on which we each depend to a greater or lesser extent for the essentials of survival.

Let me put it in simple terms. Have you ever washed someone else's dirty dishes? What right do they have to such treatment, such generosity on your part? Perhaps you did it to lubricate the wheels of social intercourse. But why? Perhaps because you live in a society, or happen to occasionally prefer the company of others.

Darwinism has come to grips with this under the math models for kin based and group based selection. The basic concept is that a stronger society improves the fitness of all. There may be some direct sacrifice in individual fitness from the efforts to promote the well being of the group, but the enhanced well being of the group returns in kind to the individuals, it balances and is a net benefit.

Social darwinism apparently has not caught up with the more advanced understandings biological evolutionary science.

[quaker bill]

174. You must be quite young

To engage in such banal sophistry. It appears that you are seeking some natural law, some philosophical first cause to justify rights in a social setting. Your arguement is hyperattenuated from an apriori fallacy, and as such fall flat on it's face. Perhaps stepping back from the nihilism a bit would help.

With the perhaps debatable exception of hermits, humans live in social context. We share a common social and physical infrastructure on which we each depend to a greater or lesser extent for the essentials of survival.

Let me put it in simple terms. Have you ever washed someone else's dirty dishes? What right do they have to such treatment, such generosity on your part? Perhaps you did it to lubricate the wheels of social intercourse. But why? Perhaps because you live in a society, or happen to occasionally prefer the company of others.

Darwinism has come to grips with this under the math models for kin based and group based selection. The basic concept is that a stronger society improves the fitness of all. There may be some direct sacrifice in individual fitness from the efforts to promote the well being of the group, but the enhanced well being of the group returns in kind to the individuals, it balances and is a net benefit.

Social darwinism apparently has not caught up with the more advanced understandings biological evolutionary science.

[quaker bill]

175. You must be quite young

To engage in such banal sophistry. It appears that you are seeking some natural law, some philosophical first cause to justify rights in a social setting. Your arguement is hyperattenuated from an apriori fallacy, and as such fall flat on it's face. Perhaps stepping back from the nihilism a bit would help.

With the perhaps debatable exception of hermits, humans live in social context. We share a common social and physical infrastructure on which we each depend to a greater or lesser extent for the essentials of survival.

Let me put it in simple terms. Have you ever washed someone else's dirty dishes? What right do they have to such treatment, such generosity on your part? Perhaps you did it to lubricate the wheels of social intercourse. But why? Perhaps because you live in a society, or happen to occasionally prefer the company of others.

Darwinism has come to grips with this under the math models for kin based and group based selection. The basic concept is that a stronger society improves the fitness of all. There may be some direct sacrifice in individual fitness from the efforts to promote the well being of the group, but the enhanced well being of the group returns in kind to the individuals, it balances and is a net benefit.

Social darwinism apparently has not caught up with the more advanced understandings biological evolutionary science.

[QuestioningStudent]

176. What the...

Before I actually reply to this, and I will, why is this same message here 3 times?

[JanMichael]

177. Um...It's a glitch, never seen one before?

They happen on boards every so often. Not exactly an unknown phenomina:-)

[QuestioningStudent]

178. Not here.

But then, I haven't been around here that long. For the most part I've been really impressed with the network coding. I haven't had a single problem, and that's very refreshing. And really off topic. Oops.

[QuestioningStudent]

179. Ah, judgement.

Gee, do I detect a patronizing note there? If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Alright, here's the usual battery of questions to help me understand and grow from your argument and our discussion.

1. What, precisely, is the nature of the apriori fallacy I have
committed?
2. How, precisely, would you say the presence of a social
infrastructure negates my initial question?
3. As to dirty dishes: Or, perhaps I wanted to, or agreed to. Just
because someone pursues a course of action from which another
person derives a benefit dos not mean that individual who derived
the benefit had a necessary RIGHT to that action. The specific
meaning of right I am applying in this thread can be found in my
initial post and my responses to ewagner and HFishbine.
4. As to any relation of biological evolutionary science to this
discussion:
*What populations are you using to provide that example?
*If you're talking about the "net benefit" to the majority of the
population counterbalancing the harm inflicted on an individual
or minority of the population, and ergo the harm being a
negligable or unimportant event, which is what I'm getting out of
your post, I have issues with that. It seems to have a complete
disdain for individual rights--I mean that in a non-hostile
fashion, it simply seems that there is no room for concern of
individual rights in the argument you have presented--and that
viewpoint seems to lead to acceptance of a model whereby no
action the majority approves of would be deemed abhorrent and
unperformable. Although I guess you could argue for restrictions
on society based on scientific findings in particular
disciplines; this would however necessitate that there would be
perhaps fatal flaws in the society--not even taking into account
the lack of respect for individual rights--as the approved
sciences weed out any mistakes or misconceptions in their
theories.
5. Is there anything wrong with nihilism when you haven't had your
coffee yet?

[PATRICK]

159. Cherry picking the socialist principle

That may be the major division between all entitlements and free speech.
Talk is cheap. Sharing fairly in the fruits, benefits and services of a society toward some common ideal is expensive. So like any good union contract I think the whole world bargains for various line items. They don't want to kill the fatted cat, the golden gooser who pushes a pyramid structure above the egalitarian masses. Money again.

The root of all non-rights. No man is an island, but one man can buy one.

So be grateful people just don't want the whole enchilada, come hell or
bankruptcy, but are satisfied for "basics" then enhancements. Nor does anyone enthuse about total free speech. And only loons are unrestricted in their wide open interpretation of the right to bare arms.

[kentuck]

184. I think you hit the nail on the head, Patrick..

The poster says; "...how is it possible to proclaim that there exists an intrinsic 'right' to anything that would demand a positive action of another?"

It's the old capitalist argument. I got mine fair and square. Yeah, I didn't pay as much in wages as I could have but that is my "right", isn't it? It's an agreement between the worker and myself. If he agrees to perform a certain labor for a certain price, what's the problem?

And if he gets sick, perhaps because of his working conditions, what "right" does he have to ask for healthcare? How can he demand a "positive action of another"? It's about equality and justice. Your "rights" as a capitalist do not supersede my "rights" as an individual. It is open to definition.

It is a struggle as old as recorded history. It's about the "haves" and "have-nots". The "haves" have always insisted they have the "right" to keep all the wealth they can accumulate. Society has no right to ask them for a positive contribution. It's the "golden rule". He who has the gold makes the rules.

But Abraham Lincoln had a good argument to counter such claims. He said about labor: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." So "rights" should be argued from a "labor" perspective, rather than from the "capitalist' perspective. It would be a more legitimate argument.

[QuestioningStudent]

185. Help me out.

As so many people on this thread have pointed out, I've got a die-hard hard-on for building a self-consistent, rational system of rights. Bigmonkey has an interesting challenge to the need for consistency higher up in the thread, and I'm having a fascinating discussion with mairead (I think I spelled that right, mea culpa otherwise!) about the existence of metaphysical rights--we seem to have oppossing viewpoints on the existence of a rationally discoverable morality--but this is the first comment I've noticed about the arguments I put forth as being written from a 'capitalist' perspective.

I see where one could derive a view of capitalism as the most just economic system from my initial premises; that is the proper extrapolation from them, I believe. However, I do not see what is intrinsically 'capitalist' about my starting premises:
1) Recognition of the individual's right to their own life.
2) A desire to create a system without "internal contradiction"
*from these premises, I derive the following conclusion:
3) If an individual has a right to their life, another individual may not violate that right, and vice versa; in other words, for an interaction or relationship to be philisophically acceptable, it must not involve any actions that violate any party's right to its life. This is where my distinction between positive and negative obligations comes from: a negative obligation is an obligation to refrain from taking an action--in this context, an action that would violate another's right to their life; a positive obligation is an obligation to take action--whether that action be the provision of services, goods, etc., to another. This is the same type of argument people often make when they advocate the legalization of marijuana and other drugs--that they have a right to do what they want with their body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Now, after all that, and I DID go on for a while, what is the 'capitalist' perspective of that argument as opposed to the 'labor' perspective? Which of these premises would be invalid or altered under a 'labor' perspective? That last question IS somewhat loaded--if you disagree with the existence of individual rights seperate from those which exist simply by fiat of having greater force of arms, it's moot--but what do you think?