Morally Bizarre

[dblack]

OMG the usual whining, half truths, and total BS from the 'can't do American right wing.' You guys are such cry babies I wonder how you even have time to post your nonsense? Don't tears get in your sorry eyes? The right is the right to buy health insurance and that is what the ACA does, it provides affordable options, something you wingnut corporate tools wouldn't understand. Cry on losers cry on.

Burwell 100 000 people submitted applications for ACA coverage - The Washington Post

Good answer! Good answer!

 

[georgephillip]

Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone

Really?
Exercising your right to free speech requires "only that other people leave you alone?"
Who's going to listen?

 

[dblack]

Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone

Really?
Exercising your right to free speech requires "only that other people leave you alone?"
Who's going to listen?

Whoever wants to.

Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?

 

[idb]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

 

[dblack]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

 

[idb]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

 

[dblack]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

 

[idb]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.
In some countries healthcare, education and housing are rights.
The mechanism for delivering these rights is the government as the representative of the citizenry.
However, these rights are only granted by the collective.

Something as basic as the right to free speech in the US could, presumably, be removed if the collective will was great enough.

 

[dblack]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.

I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.

 

[idb]

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.

I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.

But those rights are defined by the society served by the government.
If a society decided that healthcare was a right then there would be no 'acquisition' involved - it would be there for everyone to use as required.

 

[dblack]

I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.

I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.

But those rights are defined by the society served by the government.
If a society decided that healthcare was a right then there would be no 'acquisition' involved - it would be there for everyone to use as required.

What do you mean by "it would be there"? Society can't alter the nature of reality. Society can't just decree that everyone should have healthcare and expect it to be so. We have to make that happen somehow.

Healthcare isn't an innate freedom, it's a service that someone else must provide. I suppose that's what you're failing to grasp about "rights". Government doesn't (and in fact, can't) create rights. They are innate by-products of volition, not gifts from on high.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?

I'm seriously suggesting others are required to enforce your right to freedom of speech in much the same way as others are required to facilitate your right to health care.

 

[dblack]

Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?

I'm seriously suggesting others are required to enforce your right to freedom of speech in much the same way as others are required to facilitate your right to health care.

That doesn't hold up. Your freedom of speech requires no one else to do anything for you. As long as no one acts to silence you, your freedom is intact. Services, like healthcare, are the inverse of that. They demand the services of others. If you need healthcare, and no one provides it to you, has your right to healthcare been violated? Who violated it? Everyone? It's just not a coherent conception of a political 'right' in my view.

Healthcare might be a service that you think government should provide and, if it is established as such, all taxpayers should have equal access to it. But to call it a "right" is to misname it. I think this misnaming is a deliberate attempt (though not necessarily your intent) to persuade voters to accept it as a function of government without the hard word of writing and passing a Constitutional amendment.

 

[idb]

Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.

Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.

Perhaps.

I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.

But those rights are defined by the society served by the government.
If a society decided that healthcare was a right then there would be no 'acquisition' involved - it would be there for everyone to use as required.

What do you mean by "it would be there"? Society can't alter the nature of reality. Society can't just decree that everyone should have healthcare and expect it to be so. We have to make that happen somehow.

Healthcare isn't an innate freedom, it's a service that someone else must provide. I suppose that's what you're failing to grasp about "rights". Government doesn't (and in fact, can't) create rights. They are innate by-products of volition, not gifts from on high.

I understand your point, I just don't agree.
Your suggestion is that a right is something that requires nothing but passive acquiescence from others.
That's not necessarily the case.
For example, the right to freedom of assembly can impact on others' activities so they have to alter their behaviour to accommodate the freedom of others.
Of course the right to free speech can impact on others in all sorts of ways.

The society you live in grants you your rights.
No right is handed down by nature.
If a country decides that one free Mars Bars a day is a universal right then it is.
If that same country decides that the people have no right to privacy then...oops!
What you might consider to be the most basic of rights are only granted to you by the society you live in.

 

[koshergrl]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent.

You don't have a RIGHT to the services they provide. Those things don't belong to you. They belong to THEM. And they have the RIGHT to share them with you, for a fee, to repay them for their hard work, the years of effort, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have spent, in order to acquire the knowledge and the resources to provide a service.

 

[koshergrl]

The elitist attitude that "you are obligated to give things that I want to me for nothing" never fails to floor me.

 

[Ravi]

It's as immoral as expecting other people to fight and die for your freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.

As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.

And in fact it is the right of everybody.

 

[Ravi]

It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.

As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.

And in fact it is the right of everybody.

Cool, then it isn't immoral to cover basic health care insurance for the poor.

 

[idb]

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?

What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.

You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent.

You don't have a RIGHT to the services they provide. Those things don't belong to you. They belong to THEM. And they have the RIGHT to share them with you, for a fee, to repay them for their hard work, the years of effort, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have spent, in order to acquire the knowledge and the resources to provide a service.

Where in this discussion has it been said that you shouldn't get rewarded for the services you provide?
Your black or white arguments are so clownish I bet that you could fit 50 of them in a Volkswagen.