Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fortunately, not everything is subject to government.
Well, you could depend on the Mother Theresa's of the world to take care of your poor people,
if you want your country to look like India or somewhere similar.
We can depend on any number of things. We don't have to resort to violence to care for one another. It even sounds ridiculous to have to say, but that is what you're advocating.
You know, you guys almost never get it right when assessing libertarian opposition to the welfare state. It's not the 'tax burden' or anger over wealth redistribution, per se that angers most of us. It's that such a power is an overwhelming temptation for avarice and ambition.
Take ACA for example. The very first thing that should have happened was beefing up the safety net for those currently getting screwed by overpriced health care. That would have been a really straight forward matter of raising taxes (yeah, pubs would have griped, but so what? - dems had the votes) and expanding Medicare for the poor. Then they should have taken a good look at what was causing health care inflation and addressed it, lowering the health care costs for everyone.
Instead, they opened the barn door to the health care lobby and turned it into a corporate welfare smorgasbord. Disgusting. But that's what happens when you give government the power to meddle in economy. You get laws written by corporations, for corporations. Democrats are supposed stand against this sort of thing. Obviously, that's bullshit - they didn't, and don't. It's just a sales pitch they use when not in power. Just like the Republicans are all about limited government, until they take the reigns.
What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.
Wrong. Where did you learn this claptrap?What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.
The individual amendments of the Bill of Rights were created by state legislatures which predicated their adoption of the Constitution upon the ratification of these amendments.
Nobody sat around and said "Hey - let's make a comprehensive list of people's rights".
What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.
You are both wrong. The bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses on the government, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government powers that were provided to the government through the constitution.
Wrong. Where did you learn this claptrap?The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.
The individual amendments of the Bill of Rights were created by state legislatures which predicated their adoption of the Constitution upon the ratification of these amendments.
Nobody sat around and said "Hey - let's make a comprehensive list of people's rights".
What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?
Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.
As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.
However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.
The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?
Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.
As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.
However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.
Wrong. Slavery was only temporarily made illegal. Then the 14th amendment made it legal again, with the 14th due process clause, this time setting forth the slave owner as any government that uses due process to declare us as their slave.
The Bill of Rights were adopted to codify rights which the founders believed already existed and should never be questioned.
You are both wrong. The bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses on the government, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government powers that were provided to the government through the constitution.
I don't see how your statement proves mine wrong. I described the process by which the Bill of Rights was adopted. You made a statement summarizing what the Bill of Rights is. There is no contradiction between our statements.
The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?
Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.
As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.
However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.
Ironically, liberals used to argue against the view you're presenting. But that was before they became (essentially) authoritarians and gained enthusiasm for expanding government power.
I don't recall if you've addressed the question that's always asked when this issue is raised, but maybe you will here. How do you defend the concept of a 'right' that requires the servitude of others? In terms of a 'protected freedom' it simply makes no sense. I suppose you could look at it from a equal protection point of view, i.e if we decide that it should be a service provided by government, it would make sense to claim that we all have an equal right to that service, much like we have equal rights to publicly provided education, user of facilities, etc... But that's not, at all, the same sort of things as government protecting inalieanable rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc..).
If you're really are trying to say it's of the same class as the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (or rather, should be), how does that make any sense? To say that we have freedom of speech, for example, is to say that you have the right to speak freely and no one, most especially government can forcibly silence you. But that doesn't mean someone has to give you a microphone or a printing press. In that context, what does it mean to say you have the 'right' to health care? What if no one wants to provide you with health care? Who is violating your rights in such a case?
You are both wrong. The bill of rights is a set of declaratory and restrictive clauses on the government, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government powers that were provided to the government through the constitution.
I don't see how your statement proves mine wrong. I described the process by which the Bill of Rights was adopted. You made a statement summarizing what the Bill of Rights is. There is no contradiction between our statements.
>> It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The bill of rights, do not include rights. They are not rights. Therefore, it does not follow that "only thru this process" do we have these rights, since in fact the bill merely describes a list of restrictions on the government about how the feds can't take our rights. That does not mean your contradicting statements are also true, that such amendments are the only process by which our rights are outlined. For it is not by these amendments that our rights come forth. If you believe that then you are not the strong minded individual you may think you are.
As to the process, the process has practically nothing to do with our rights, but rather codifies the way in which amendments are made and approved for the Constitution.
Nay. I say to you our rights are god given inalienable rights. It is only through a lack of courage by each individual that we loose our rights.
You or the government, can try to take my right to free speech away, but if I don't agree to it, and I continue to speak any which way I desire, then my right to speak has not been taken from me. Only if you are successful in killing me or putting me in jail, will you be able to take my right to speech away. That said some will loose their rights by cowering or with thunderous applause, such as when Obama declared he would change every single thing about this country.
Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.
As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.
However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.
Ironically, liberals used to argue against the view you're presenting. But that was before they became (essentially) authoritarians and gained enthusiasm for expanding government power.
I don't recall if you've addressed the question that's always asked when this issue is raised, but maybe you will here. How do you defend the concept of a 'right' that requires the servitude of others? In terms of a 'protected freedom' it simply makes no sense. I suppose you could look at it from a equal protection point of view, i.e if we decide that it should be a service provided by government, it would make sense to claim that we all have an equal right to that service, much like we have equal rights to publicly provided education, user of facilities, etc... But that's not, at all, the same sort of things as government protecting inalieanable rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc..).
If you're really are trying to say it's of the same class as the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (or rather, should be), how does that make any sense? To say that we have freedom of speech, for example, is to say that you have the right to speak freely and no one, most especially government can forcibly silence you. But that doesn't mean someone has to give you a microphone or a printing press. In that context, what does it mean to say you have the 'right' to health care? What if no one wants to provide you with health care? Who is violating your rights in such a case?
The answer is that all rights - even those enumerated in the Bill of Rights - are limited. The supreme court has repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as an unlimited right.
IF there was a Right to Health Care, it would be a limited right - based on what level of Health Care could be provided given the medical resources and respected (not infringing on) the rights of medical professionals.
For example, a person who has had a heart attack may be entitled, by right, to be resuscitated, but pending the availability of medical resources, they may not have the right to triple bypass surgery.
The biggest challenge to the notion of Health Care being a right is delineating the exact limits of that right.
In some ways the medical professionals have already set de facto standards for the existence and limitations on people's rights to Health Care. I don't know if they have clearly codified these or whether it's left up to the discretion of indivdual medical professionals.
Well yes. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Slavery was made permanently illegal by the 13th amendment - it cannot be reinstated short of the adoption of a new amendment that would nullify the 13th amendment. I would oppose such an amendment.
As it stands now there is no Constitutional amendment specifying that Health Care is a right, nor is there one specifying that it is not a right. Since nothing is explicitly considered a right until there is a constitutional amendment stating so, Health Care at this time is not a right.
However, the point of this discussion is not whether there is a right to health Care, but whether there should be a right to Health Care.
Wrong. Slavery was only temporarily made illegal. Then the 14th amendment made it legal again, with the 14th due process clause, this time setting forth the slave owner as any government that uses due process to declare us as their slave.
That's an extreme misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. As a matter of fact pretty much everyone in the world would agree that the due process clause of the 14th amendment protects us from enslavement by the government. Just the opposite of your assertion.
I don't see how your statement proves mine wrong. I described the process by which the Bill of Rights was adopted. You made a statement summarizing what the Bill of Rights is. There is no contradiction between our statements.
>> It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The bill of rights, do not include rights. They are not rights. Therefore, it does not follow that "only thru this process" do we have these rights, since in fact the bill merely describes a list of restrictions on the government about how the feds can't take our rights. That does not mean your contradicting statements are also true, that such amendments are the only process by which our rights are outlined. For it is not by these amendments that our rights come forth. If you believe that then you are not the strong minded individual you may think you are.
As to the process, the process has practically nothing to do with our rights, but rather codifies the way in which amendments are made and approved for the Constitution.
Nay. I say to you our rights are god given inalienable rights. It is only through a lack of courage by each individual that we loose our rights.
You or the government, can try to take my right to free speech away, but if I don't agree to it, and I continue to speak any which way I desire, then my right to speak has not been taken from me. Only if you are successful in killing me or putting me in jail, will you be able to take my right to speech away. That said some will loose their rights by cowering or with thunderous applause, such as when Obama declared he would change every single thing about this country.
By the same logic, you could say that we have an inalienable right to commit murder and that only by killing me or putting me in jail can you deprive me of that right.
Having rights does not mean that you can do whatever you want.
What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?
If man creates right, then your very existence is conditional.
How could nature create rights? Nature gave man the power of reason to use to work out his own system of governance. God given rights are a concoction invented by the likes of John Locke, and picked up by the likes of Thomas Jefferson,
to counter the opposing argument of the times,
that the absolute power of the king was the God given right...
...the divine right.
That is the only reason we talk about rights in this context.
You, by your existence, possess natural rights. You live, and therefore have a right to life. No one can murder you without violating your rights. Of that is not the case, then your very existence is, as I said, conditional on the graciousness of others.
I don't see how your statement proves mine wrong. I described the process by which the Bill of Rights was adopted. You made a statement summarizing what the Bill of Rights is. There is no contradiction between our statements.
>> It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The bill of rights, do not include rights. They are not rights. Therefore, it does not follow that "only thru this process" do we have these rights, since in fact the bill merely describes a list of restrictions on the government about how the feds can't take our rights. That does not mean your contradicting statements are also true, that such amendments are the only process by which our rights are outlined. For it is not by these amendments that our rights come forth. If you believe that then you are not the strong minded individual you may think you are.
As to the process, the process has practically nothing to do with our rights, but rather codifies the way in which amendments are made and approved for the Constitution.
Nay. I say to you our rights are god given inalienable rights. It is only through a lack of courage by each individual that we loose our rights.
You or the government, can try to take my right to free speech away, but if I don't agree to it, and I continue to speak any which way I desire, then my right to speak has not been taken from me. Only if you are successful in killing me or putting me in jail, will you be able to take my right to speech away. That said some will loose their rights by cowering or with thunderous applause, such as when Obama declared he would change every single thing about this country.
By the same logic, you could say that we have an inalienable right to commit murder and that only by killing me or putting me in jail can you deprive me of that right.
Having rights does not mean that you can do whatever you want.
). Wrong. Where did you learn this claptrap?The individual amendments of the Bill of Rights were created by state legislatures which predicated their adoption of the Constitution upon the ratification of these amendments.
Nobody sat around and said "Hey - let's make a comprehensive list of people's rights".
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why don't you do a little research before you post? I did.
The original Bill of Rights consisted of 12 amendments. Only 10 were adopted immediately. One was adopted 200 years later and the last has never been adopted.
Different amendments were written by different people. Some were concerned with freedom of religion, other with freedom of speech and the press.
Nobody ever said that the Bill of rights encapsulated a complete list of all rights that people will ever have.
What wingnuts forget is that the 'Bill of Rights', which includes their precious second amendment, consists of amendments each of which were adopted as part of the Constitution thru the democratic process. It is only thru this process that we have these rights.
The democratic process is a great thing. So is government. But neither is viable, or desirable, in unlimited form. I assume you agree. If, for example, the majority voted to reinstate slavery, couldn't we count on you to oppose it on constitutional grounds? Wouldn't you hope the Court would strike down such a law, regardless of whether or not it was the 'will of the people'?
If the will of the people was strong enough, they could reinstate slavery by constitutional amendment.
Ironically, liberals used to argue against the view you're presenting. But that was before they became (essentially) authoritarians and gained enthusiasm for expanding government power.
I don't recall if you've addressed the question that's always asked when this issue is raised, but maybe you will here. How do you defend the concept of a 'right' that requires the servitude of others? In terms of a 'protected freedom' it simply makes no sense. I suppose you could look at it from a equal protection point of view, i.e if we decide that it should be a service provided by government, it would make sense to claim that we all have an equal right to that service, much like we have equal rights to publicly provided education, user of facilities, etc... But that's not, at all, the same sort of things as government protecting inalieanable rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc..).
If you're really are trying to say it's of the same class as the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (or rather, should be), how does that make any sense? To say that we have freedom of speech, for example, is to say that you have the right to speak freely and no one, most especially government can forcibly silence you. But that doesn't mean someone has to give you a microphone or a printing press. In that context, what does it mean to say you have the 'right' to health care? What if no one wants to provide you with health care? Who is violating your rights in such a case?
The answer is that all rights - even those enumerated in the Bill of Rights - are limited. The supreme court has repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as an unlimited right.
IF there was a Right to Health Care, it would be a limited right - based on what level of Health Care could be provided given the medical resources and respected (not infringing on) the rights of medical professionals.
For example, a person who has had a heart attack may be entitled, by right, to be resuscitated, but pending the availability of medical resources, they may not have the right to triple bypass surgery.
The biggest challenge to the notion of Health Care being a right is delineating the exact limits of that right.
In some ways the medical professionals have already set de facto standards for the existence and limitations on people's rights to Health Care. I don't know if they have clearly codified these or whether it's left up to the discretion of indivdual medical professionals.
This strikes me as hopelessly subjective. In any case, I wonder if you'd advocate for all of life's necessities as 'rights' in that case? Food, shelter, clothing, transportation?
As I said, I can conceive of health care as a service that government might provide - much as it provides basic education - but it makes no sense as a 'right'. Neither does education, fwiw. To claim that a product or service is a right is to fundamentally misunderstand what political rights are all about. They are freedoms, not guarantees of service.
Health care insurance started going downhill in this country during the Great Depression and World War II, despite the numerous technical advances that were made during that period. . . .
