Debate Now Hey you! Give Me My Rights!

You dont know what need means. Good thing youre not in charge.

All we, as the greatest nation, should provide the needy as temporary assistance is food, basic shelter, communication device and healthcare.

The rest of the stuff you listed dont qualify for my standard of what "need," is. But i see we differ on that, and thats cool.

You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies. :)

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

X doesn't have a right to do that.

Thank you. Now, if you are inclined to do so, could you explain why X doesn't have a right to do that for benefit of others who might not understand why?

Because in a free society, the government is not charged with "leveling the playing field". We are not a country built on income redistribution, because societies that ARE based on income redistribution are in fact oppressive and fascist.

Well please understand I'm not disagreeing with you. And I'm also playing devil's advocate here just a bit. . . so please don't take this as nitpicking. You just gave me an opportunity to dig a little deeper. :)

So if we go with your observation that the government is not assign authority to redistribute wealth, then is it safe to assume that you don't see government as having the authority to assign us our rights?
 
You forget where you're posting.

This is why these types of forums fail here. The leftists who post at usmb have no concept of how to make a structured (or intelligent) argument.

Off topic:

They don't fail if enough people are interested and determined to help make them succeed. And sometimes there is a learning curve. I doubt you intended it as such but your comment about leftists is also ad hominem and could be against the thread rules if I had extended that to political parties and ideologies. :)

The forum will fail only if we don't have enough grown ups at USMB who WANT serious civil discussions of timely topics. I don't want to dictate what anybody else's opinion or perception must be--I wouldn't participate in a thread where that was mandatory because I can't imagine anything more boring. . .

. . .But I love the ability to insist that they focus on a specific concept and argue it within the framework I specify.

I honestly don't understand why something new and different seems so threatening to some people, most especially if it only applies to those who choose to participate. I just don't see why somebody would bother to participate just to complain about it being there. But that's another topic for another discussion. . . .I think I'll start a thread to discuss it.

But if we don't have enough grown ups who want focused discussion, then you're right. It will fail. Not because there are leftists but just because there aren't enough grown ups who want focused discussions.

Okay back on topic. . . .

So KG, why does "X" have a right to require me to pay for his/her healthcare or whatever/

X doesn't have a right to do that.

Thank you. Now, if you are inclined to do so, could you explain why X doesn't have a right to do that for benefit of others who might not understand why?

Because in a free society, the government is not charged with "leveling the playing field". We are not a country built on income redistribution, because societies that ARE based on income redistribution are in fact oppressive and fascist.

Well please understand I'm not disagreeing with you. And I'm also playing devil's advocate here just a bit. . . so please don't take this as nitpicking. You just gave me an opportunity to dig a little deeper. :)

So if we go with your observation that the government is not assign authority to redistribute wealth, then is it safe to assume that you don't see government as having the authority to assign us our rights?

I know you're not disagreeing with me. My point is that none of the people who DO disagree with you are not capable of abiding by the rules of this forum.

I do not take my rights from the government..it is my believe that my rights are given to me, and all mankind, by God and God alone..government does not assign them but should protect them.
 
On the subject of property and Natural Rights, Locke said:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

The author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say on the subject:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)
 
On the subject of property and Natural Rights, Locke said:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

The author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say on the subject:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)

So putting that into your own words, what do you see as the lesson there?
 
On the subject of property and Natural Rights, Locke said:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

The author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say on the subject:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)

So putting that into your own words, what do you see as the lesson there?

That property is a necessary evil. It will necessarily restrict the movement and enterprise of others within the realm of privacy, but makes the dignity of the private realm possible. So long as all had access to a mediocum of dignity, what could be the cause of complaint?

And where indeed would complaint come from but from the innate sentiments of the governed, which is of course what Locke, and the republican founders saw as the source of Natural Law.
 
What people refer to as "God given" or "Inalienable" rights are simply those that result from an extrapolation based upon self-awareness.

People who are self aware imagine others as they do themselves, and so extend those basic rights to others that they wish for themselves.

Unfortunately, precious few people are aware of much of all, and so the collective society acts to establish that line where the right to swing the fist and the right to an intact nose happens to meet.
 
On the subject of property and Natural Rights, Locke said:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

The author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say on the subject:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)

So putting that into your own words, what do you see as the lesson there?

That property is a necessary evil. It will necessarily restrict the movement and enterprise of others within the realm of privacy, but makes the dignity of the private realm possible. So long as all had access to a mediocum of dignity, what could be the cause of complaint?

And where indeed would complaint come from but from the innate sentiments of the governed, which is of course what Locke, and the republican founders saw as the source of Natural Law.

Well stated and I agree. Jefferson especially was aware that if all the real property was concentrated in the hands of a few who passed it on to their progeny, then there would be no opportunity for others to acquire such property themselves. But in the end he adopted the personal choice to allow liberty and the free market prevail and, as it turned out, liberty and the free market showed his concerns to be unfounded. Those with more property than they could use found it profitable to sell it rather than hold it. Even though the population has grown from fewer than 4 million when the Constitution was signed to 330 million today, there is property for sale in every state and all of us can usually find what we are looking for somewhere. And that is in spite of the federal government confiscating and taking control of massive amounts of lands over the years.
 
What people refer to as "God given" or "Inalienable" rights are simply those that result from an extrapolation based upon self-awareness.

People who are self aware imagine others as they do themselves, and so extend those basic rights to others that they wish for themselves.

Unfortunately, precious few people are aware of much of all, and so the collective society acts to establish that line where the right to swing the fist and the right to an intact nose happens to meet.

I think this is probably an interesting concept but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you explain it a bit?
 
For me 'natural rights' that Jefferson described as "God given" rights and as such unalienable rights, are what we as human beings do to survive as does any other creature on Earth. And as an outgrowth of what we do to survive is a basic yearning and need for liberty to do what we must to survive and to pursue happiness however that is defined for any of us.

But in order for all of us to have our unalienable rights secure, it is necessary to recognize and protect them so that the stronger or more ambitious cannot take away the unalienable rights of others. The whole of the Constitution was intended to allow each person maximum liberty short of violating the liberty of the other guy.
 
Well, he said that it was "too soon yet" for such to be needed in America. He was not the only founder to recognize the danger that wealth posed to liberty:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from Common Sense (1776)

"We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves"
-- Samuel Adams; from essay in the Independent Advertiser (1748)

If only present day "conservatives" could also recognize it...
 
Well, he said that it was "too soon yet" for such to be needed in America. He was not the only founder to recognize the danger that wealth posed to liberty:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from Common Sense (1776)

"We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves"
-- Samuel Adams; from essay in the Independent Advertiser (1748)

If only present day "conservatives" could also recognize it...

You have to put selected quotes into the full context of the convictions of each man, however. Each to a man understood why rights must be secured to prevent the strong from taking what it wants from the weak. And each to a man saw property legally and ethically acquired as sacrosanct and untouchable by government or those who did not own it except in the most limited sense.

So that brings us back to the question: What gives X any right to property that Y has legally and ethically acquired?
 
What people refer to as "God given" or "Inalienable" rights are simply those that result from an extrapolation based upon self-awareness.

People who are self aware imagine others as they do themselves, and so extend those basic rights to others that they wish for themselves.

Unfortunately, precious few people are aware of much of all, and so the collective society acts to establish that line where the right to swing the fist and the right to an intact nose happens to meet.

I agree that it is mostly self awareness that informs us what our needs are. Certainly it is self awareness that informs us what our wants, needs, hopes, dreams, expectations are.

But self awareness informs us of what our rights are? Or what unalienable rights are? Is that self awareness or is that rational deduction?

Was it self awareness or rational deduction that made Locke or Jefferson or anybody else see legally and ethically acquired property as an unalienable right for the owner to have and use as he/she saw fit short of violating somebody else's rights?
 
What gives X any right to property that Y has legally and ethically acquired?

Now we are branching off into hypotheticals

Not at all. The question I pose is clearly defined in the OP. And though we are not using a specific event or person to discuss it in this context, it is a question that is not at all hypothetical in modern day America.
 
What makes the question so uncomfortable for some do you think? (And again, careful with the ad hominem here. :))

Some seems to have no problem understanding and answering the question straight up.

But others seem to try to argue almost anything else to avoid answering the question:

"What gives X a right to have Y pay for X's healthcare?"

And the second question is related: "What makes healthcare more of a right than being furnished food, water, clothing, shelter that are even more immediately necessary for everybody?"
 
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- from letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785)

Madison is advocating progressive taxation which is anathema to extreme conservatives and Libertarians. Given that statement he would clearly be opposed the first question posed by the OP.
 
Well, he said that it was "too soon yet" for such to be needed in America. He was not the only founder to recognize the danger that wealth posed to liberty:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from Common Sense (1776)

"We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves"
-- Samuel Adams; from essay in the Independent Advertiser (1748)

If only present day "conservatives" could also recognize it...

Again the Founder's quotations must be put into their full context to understand fully what they were arguing. The fact that they sometimes argued both sides of an issue--and many of them did as all good debaters do--does not change what they ultimately agreed on as the foundations of the U.S. Constitution.

So let's return to the question implied in the OP shall we?

What gives X the right to have Y pay for his/her healthcare?
 

Forum List

Back
Top