Morally Bizarre

[dblack]

Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.

Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.

Judges, police officers, firemen, teachers, and doctors all provide services that protect the health of Americans individually and collectively. If you believe "We the People" are the sovereign authority in this country, isn't the health of the people necessary for the health of the state?

The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.

No one has a "right" to the services of a fireman, a teacher, or a doctor. They serve voluntarily. Judges, police officers and other agents of the justice system are hired by the people, via government, to protect our rights. And it's in observing what they must do to protect our rights that the inanity of your conception of "services as rights" becomes clear:

What must a policeman do to protect your freedom of speech (or any other freedoms)? Well, if no one is interfering with your freedom, the police don't have to do anything. If a bad actor comes along and tries to silence you, or otherwise violate your rights, we enlist the police to make them stop, with violent force if necessary. Now, what must the police to do "protect" your right to healthcare? If you can't get the healthcare you need, who is violating your rights? Is it the last doctor who refuse you service? Everyone in your community?

 

[idb]

You do if the people of the country decide that you do.

No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.

No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.

Yes, and outside the legitimate reinforcement of equal protection, it's equally incoherent and contradictory.

Listen, you're decidedly impervious to explanations of the difference between a right and a service, so I won't bother with that - but let me ask you, how far would you take this "rights by majority decree" notion? If we could pass a law declaring that "good sex" was a right that government must ensure, would that make sense to you as well? How would you propose they implement it? A 'draft' perhaps?

You're right...we're clearly not going to agree.
I can see no reason why a service can't be granted as a right - how about the right to an attorney...surely that's a service provided as a right?

No, it's not. The right in question is the right to due process. You have no "right" to the services of an attorney, but if the state wants to prosecute you, and potentially take away you real rights, they must ensure you have adequate legal advice.

I can't propose how a good sex right would be granted because I have no intention of proposing such a thing.
Carrying on an argument to an absurdity is a lost argument.

Extending the basic principles of a position to see if they many any sense when applied generally is a good test of the basic concepts involved. I'm not surprised you don't want to go there.

How do they ensure that you have adequate legal advice if you have no means to pay for it yourself?

Sorry, extending another's position to absurdity and then claiming that it invalidates their argument is a logical fallacy.

 

[georgephillip]

The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.

Depending on whatever distinction you draw between "government" and "state", wouldn't the health of "We the People" be a recipe for democracy?

 

[dblack]

The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.

Depending on whatever distinction you draw between "government" and "state", wouldn't the health of "We the People" be a recipe for democracy?

I don't think democracy should be a goal of government. It's a reasonable way to choose our leaders, but government shouldn't be a tool for the majority to force its will on minorities.

I know most modern liberals don't recognize this, but what distinguishes government from all other public institutions is its authority to use force to achieve its goals. And I don't think we should resort to force to solve our problems unless it's truly justified. Essentially, I want government constrained by the same moral code that we expect each other to follow. Depending on the situation, I would feel justified in using violence to protect my family and community from bullies and foreign invaders, and I expect my government to do likewise on my behalf. Likewise, I would not feel justified in using violence to acquire food and shelter, or healthcare, and I wouldn't, in all but the most extreme circumstances, resort to violence to get them. I expect the same restraint in my government.

 

[Conservative65]

Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.

"Indeed, very few Republicans have the confidence to make the case openly that the inability of some people to afford the cost of their own medical care is their own problem.

"But that is the belief that sets them apart from major conservative parties across the world, and it is the belief that explains why they have opposed national health insurance every time Democrats have held power, and why they have neglected to create national health insurance every time they have."
Now that seems morally bizarre, to me.

Republican Admits Why Republicans Hate Obamacare -- NYMag

How is it that when one Republican speaks it applies to all yet those saying it does bitch and whine that what one Democrat says shouldn't be applied to all Democrats.

 

[Conservative65]

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 recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.

Why not be honest and say it?

While they won't say it, they believe that the group that votes themselves a living should be able to tell those that work for one they have to fund it.

 

[Conservative65]

Health care and education are services, not freedoms.

For profit healthcare has little in common with freedom.
If the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly, doesn't that require the service of others?

Nothing in the Constitution says one person deserves the fruits of another person's labor.

The government didn't have to do a damn thing in order for those you say needed healthcare to have it. You and the rest of the bleeding hearts could have gotten together, pooled your money, and paid their premiums without any government involvement. If you didn't or couldn't doesn't mean, by default, that the government should fund subsidies by the taxpayers to do it.

 

[Conservative65]

I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay

Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?

 

[georgephillip]

Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?

I'm saying all people have rights to education and healthcare just as they have rights to freedom of assembly and expression. When a few hundred billionaires amass greater wealth than 26 million families, that comes at the expense of the majority's right to education and healthcare.

 

[dblack]

Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?

I'm saying all people have rights to education and healthcare just as they have rights to freedom of assembly and expression.

I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you. They don't have to give you a podium or an advertising budget. If you're saying our freedoms to pursue education and healthcare are similar I'd agree, and, ironically, government efforts to regulate those services would properly be seen as a violation of those freedoms.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?

I'm saying all people have rights to education and healthcare just as they have rights to freedom of assembly and expression.

I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you. They don't have to give you a podium or an advertising budget. If you're saying our freedoms to pursue education and healthcare are similar I'd agree, and, ironically, government efforts to regulate those services would properly be seen as a violation of those freedoms.

Since the right to peacefully assemble isn't absolute, localities can establish rules by which people wanting to assemble have to follow. If those wanting to assemble don't follow the rules (i.e. - a permit), they can be stopped.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?

I'm saying all people have rights to education and healthcare just as they have rights to freedom of assembly and expression. When a few hundred billionaires amass greater wealth than 26 million families, that comes at the expense of the majority's right to education and healthcare.

I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right. When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim. Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing.

Their amassing of that wealth does not keep someone from getting healthcare or an education. You believe that those billionaires should fund healthcare and education for those who claim they can't afford it. What the hell gives you any right to demand someone else's money be used a certain way?

 

[georgephillip]

I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you.

Don't they require the collective assistance of all the society to become useful to an individual?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right. When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim. Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing

I can't point to a constitutional right to privacy in the same way I can for assembly, but that doesn't mean such a right doesn't exist. Education and healthcare might well fall into those provisions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least according to some House Dems:
Dem says Constitution implies right to healthcare education TheHill

 

[Conservative65]

I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right. When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim. Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing

I can't point to a constitutional right to privacy in the same way I can for assembly, but that doesn't mean such a right doesn't exist. Education and healthcare might well fall into those provisions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least according to some House Dems:
Dem says Constitution implies right to healthcare education TheHill

I know I have a right to assemble and protest because the Constitution says I can. Being that no right is unlimited, since I can't point to a right to privacy in the Constitution, for the Dems to say the Constitution implies that it exists is nothing more than giving them a way to justify someone that doesn't have it getting it even if someone else is forced to pay for it. That's how they operate. Everything someone wants the Dems take and run with it, claiming it to be a right so they can mandate the costs be paid by a redistribution of wealth.

When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.

The concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't in the Constitution. While people may have those rights, the rights of one cannot be exercised beyond where they violate the rights of others.

 

[dblack]

I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you.

Don't they require the collective assistance of all the society to become useful to an individual?

I suppose so. But is it the responsibility of government to ensure that our rights are "useful" to each individual? What if we protected our other rights the same way ACA protects our "right" to healthcare? Would it make sense to you if government, in order to protect our freedom of religion, mandated that everyone join a religion? Or, to ensure our freedom of speech was "useful", required everyone to go to weekly town meetings and listen to their neighbors bloviate?

I know that sounds silly, but if you want healthcare and education to be treated the same as rights like freedom of speech or religion, then they should be handled the same - as protected freedoms rather than promises of empowerment.

 

[georgephillip]

When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.

Here's a big reason why you've had to work so hard to provide something your children and everyone else's should receive as a birthright:
"At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America.

"The reason, once again, is the stock market.

"Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled.

"Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it."
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

 

[Conservative65]

When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.

Here's a big reason why you've had to work so hard to provide something your children and everyone else's should receive as a birthright:
"At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America.

"The reason, once again, is the stock market.

"Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled.

"Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it."
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

No one should receive as a birthright what belongs to someone else no matter how many excuses are made to do it. I didn't stay in school, earn academic/athletic scholarships in order to go to college, earn 2 advanced degrees, and do what I was taught to do and work hard in order that someone else get a penny of it.

 

[georgephillip]

No one should receive as a birthright what belongs to someone else no matter how many excuses are made to do it.

What do you mean by "belongs to someone else?" You didn't acquire your education or lifestyle without availing yourself of the cultural inheritance of humanity.
"He (CH Douglas) defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, techniques and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization (i.e.progress).

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'"
Billionaires and other parasites have been hoarding the cultural inheritance of society for thousands of years, and that's why education and health care are currently available only to those who earn enough money to obtain them through the market place.
Social credit - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Roadrunner]

When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.

Here's a big reason why you've had to work so hard to provide something your children and everyone else's should receive as a birthright:
"At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America.

"The reason, once again, is the stock market.

"Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled.

"Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it."
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet

Solution, buy stocks instead of crack, booze, porn, tattoos, rims, Jordans..........................................!