The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Dr Grump]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

You're simply a dick who doesn't even bother with a coherent response. Spewing ad hominems is all you're capable of.

I don't know why dblack wastes his time trying to pound sense into morons like you.

The FACT you don't understand what I'm saying does not surprise me. I've seen roadkill show more signs of intelligence...

 

[Dr Grump]

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

eh? Not sure what you're getting at.

He doesn't either. He's simply spewing insults.

I'm not insulting anybody...




.......moron...



(psstt..that last word - THAT is an insult)..

 

[Dr Grump]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

eh? Not sure what you're getting at.

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

 

[Listening]

This god-given rights in your constitution is a joke brought about by those who have a particular point of view on the amendments that suits their agenda.

"Hey, I love guns, and god, via our contitution, gave me those rights."

Phooey. Why did he only give you ten? Why not more?

eh? Not sure what you're getting at.

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

Just hope He will come to your trial and testify on your behalf.

He did say render unto Ceasar......which might mean obey the speed limit signs.

 

[dblack]

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

Yeah, well, that's what I've been going on about. Sure, there are plenty of nutjobs out there who don't understand what "god-given" or "inalienable" is all about. It's really nothing more than a recognition of a natural state of freedom. It essentially turns the tables on those who view rights as gifts of the state. It says that, as a starting point, we have all freedoms as rights - and the onus is on the state to justify limiting them.

 

[bripat9643]

The FACT you don't understand what I'm saying does not surprise me. I've seen roadkill show more signs of intelligence...

I understand exactly what you're saying, but just like the babbling of small children, most of what you're saying is idiotic and irrational. You have a difficult time stringing two rational thoughts together, let alone understanding an abstract argument.

 

[Oddball]

I think that view is obtusely literal. The idea of god-given rights isn't a religious concept. It's a statement that rights are a consequence of existence, they are freedoms you have by default and can only be take from you by other people interfering - by others actively violating your rights. We establish government to protect those rights, not 'create' them.

While I agree with the first part, your argument still maintains that without a god rights, and their preservation, exist as social reality, not objectively. Such rights can only be recognized to exist, and subsequently protected, upon agreement of the society. For example, our right to free speech is something that our society recognizes and has agreed to protect. If not for that, then that right would de facto not exist anymore than our non-existent right to smoke pot.

By that definition, there are no rights....Only privileges extended to the hoi polloi from the indeterminate mythical "society".

That is the cornerstone of communism, not a republic of free people.

 

[bripat9643]

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

They didn't say they would still "be able to" carry a gun. They said they would still have a right to carry a gun. You can't state the argument correctly because your a dishonest moron who doesn't even understand it.

If the law determined your rights, then slavery didn't violate anyone's right because it was legal. Do you believe slavery didn't violate the rights of the people enslaved?

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

What we are wondering is why God gave you a brain, because you certainly don't use it.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

Yeah, well, that's what I've been going on about. Sure, there are plenty of nutjobs out there who don't understand what "god-given" or "inalienable" is all about. It's really nothing more than a recognition of a natural state of freedom. It essentially turns the tables on those who view rights as gifts of the state. It says that, as a starting point, we have all freedoms as rights - and the onus is on the state to justify limiting them.

What is that natural state of freedom? What are these freedoms? How do you define them?

 

[Dr Grump]

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

They didn't say they would still "be able to" carry a gun. They said they would still have a right to carry a gun. You can't state the argument correctly because your a dishonest moron who doesn't even understand it.

If the law determined your rights, then slavery didn't violate anyone's right because it was legal. Do you believe slavery didn't violate the rights of the people enslaved?

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

What we are wondering is why God gave you a brain, because you certainly don't use it.

Go away little man, adults are talking...

 

[dblack]

I have had arguments with hardline guns nuts that the second, even if repealled, still stands because it is a god-given right. So even if by some miracle 2/3 of the house and the president were to get rid of the second (OMG!!!!!), the gun nuts would still be able to carry their peashooters because god gave them the right.

To which I say, why did he give them just that right? Does that mean I can use god as excuse to drive my car 120mph in a 35 zone? That's a right I would like to have.

Yeah, well, that's what I've been going on about. Sure, there are plenty of nutjobs out there who don't understand what "god-given" or "inalienable" is all about. It's really nothing more than a recognition of a natural state of freedom. It essentially turns the tables on those who view rights as gifts of the state. It says that, as a starting point, we have all freedoms as rights - and the onus is on the state to justify limiting them.

What is that natural state of freedom? What are these freedoms? How do you define them?

Freedom isn't a list of things you can do, it's a state of being unhindered. Political freedom is a state of being unhindered by other people. This is why many of the founders were opposed to the Bill of Rights, and why the ninth amendment was added. The radical claim of the DOI was that governments are created to protect, as much possible, that natural state of freedom.

Even only a couple hundred years later, we seem to have lost the context of why their claim was so revolutionary. They were literally turning the status-quo upside down. Their idea of rights wasn't an explicit list of privileges granted to the people by government (the king). They claimed all freedom for the people and instead defined the power of government to limit that freedom with an explicit list of powers - powers granted to government by the people.

This is why it's so frustrating to hear health care, education, or any other goods and services described as "rights". It obfuscates the profound and novel conception of rights that our country is based on. I don't think it's deliberate. I think what people really mean, when they say "health care is a right", is that we should provide it via government as a taxpayer provided service (like the schools, fire depts, etc...).

 

[bripat9643]

Go away little man, adults are talking...

ROFL! If you don't like my input, leave.

 

[G.T.]

bripat still acting like the little kid in his avatar, how cute.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat still acting like the little kid in his avatar, how cute.

And you're acting like an imbecile dick.

 

[G.T.]

^ see, seeeething, like you're always in a temper tantrum. Hey, it's entertaining....and it makes your avy so deliciously ironic.

Read your posts and look at your avatar and try not to giggle. No really, just do it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

While I agree with the first part, your argument still maintains that without a god rights, and their preservation, exist as social reality, not objectively. Such rights can only be recognized to exist, and subsequently protected, upon agreement of the society. For example, our right to free speech is something that our society recognizes and has agreed to protect. If not for that, then that right would de facto not exist anymore than our non-existent right to smoke pot.

By that definition, there are no rights....Only privileges extended to the hoi polloi from the indeterminate mythical "society".

That is the cornerstone of communism, not a republic of free people.

I have no need to respond to such babble. You're obviously way out of your league on this.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, well, that's what I've been going on about. Sure, there are plenty of nutjobs out there who don't understand what "god-given" or "inalienable" is all about. It's really nothing more than a recognition of a natural state of freedom. It essentially turns the tables on those who view rights as gifts of the state. It says that, as a starting point, we have all freedoms as rights - and the onus is on the state to justify limiting them.

What is that natural state of freedom? What are these freedoms? How do you define them?

Freedom isn't a list of things you can do, it's a state of being unhindered. Political freedom is a state of being unhindered by other people. This is why many of the founders were opposed to the Bill of Rights, and why the ninth amendment was added. The radical claim of the DOI was that governments are created to protect, as much possible, that natural state of freedom.

Even only a couple hundred years later, we seem to have lost the context of why their claim was so revolutionary. They were literally turning the status-quo upside down. Their idea of rights wasn't an explicit list of privileges granted to the people by government (the king). They claimed all freedom for the people and instead defined the power of government to limit that freedom with an explicit list of powers - powers granted to government by the people.

This is why it's so frustrating to hear health care, education, or any other goods and services described as "rights". It obfuscates the profound and novel conception of rights that our country is based on. I don't think it's deliberate. I think what people really mean, when they say "health care is a right", is that we should provide it via government as a taxpayer provided service (like the schools, fire depts, etc...).

I understand your premise, but it is naive. The ultimate 'natural state of freedom' is the jungle. That is not a civil society and that is not what our founding father's envisioned or practiced in their governance. They were very weary of corporations and monied interests that could swindle and steamroll over We, the People.

Our founding fathers were not libertarians, they would never be Ayn Rand acolytes.


"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson - Nov. 12, 1816

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some of you sure can get carried away.

 

[dblack]

I understand your premise, but it is naive. The ultimate 'natural state of freedom' is the jungle. That is not a civil society and that is not what our founding father's envisioned or practiced in their governance. They were very weary of corporations and monied interests that could swindle and steamroll over We, the People.

Our founding fathers were not libertarians, they would never be Ayn Rand acolytes.


"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson - Nov. 12, 1816

No, apparently, you don't understand my premise. I'm not advocating the law of the jungle. Neither were the founders. They recognized government was necessary (as do modern libertarians) and that some limitations on our natural state of freedom are required to protect us from barbarism. That's the entire point of government. What they rejected was the idea of government as master, rather than servant, and the notion that freedom is a grant from government. Freedom is the starting place. We create government to protect it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I understand your premise, but it is naive. The ultimate 'natural state of freedom' is the jungle. That is not a civil society and that is not what our founding father's envisioned or practiced in their governance. They were very weary of corporations and monied interests that could swindle and steamroll over We, the People.

Our founding fathers were not libertarians, they would never be Ayn Rand acolytes.


"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson - Nov. 12, 1816

No, apparently, you don't understand my premise. I'm not advocating the law of the jungle. Neither were the founders. They recognized government was necessary (as do modern libertarians) and that some limitations on our natural state of freedom are required to protect us from barbarism. That's the entire point of government. What they rejected was the idea of government as master, rather than servant, and the notion that freedom is a grant from government. Freedom is the starting place. We create government to protect it.

What you fail to recognize is who the masters are when government doesn't intervene. Health care is a prime example. I don't question your intentions, just your awareness.