A Decent Society

Originally posted by Wajoma
The right to life means that others may not violate that right, not that others must provide the means to life.

A right is "the sovereignty to act".

I'm not disputing that. But see the title of the thread. In truth, EVERY human society that ever existed had some mechanism for caring for its sick, feeding its hungry and providing shelter for its people. Humans don't live the "dog eat dog" existence you yearn for.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Man is a social animal. You cannot escape your responsibilities to your fellow men by holding yer breath and turning blue.

No1 come on now, be serious, I am not responsible for some one else leading a lethargic life, eating trash food, smoking cigarettes, drinking to excess, doing dangerous drugs, riding their motorcycle like a maniac and engaging in other risky activities.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Right now we are discussing the health care business.

You quoted me as saying:

"The wealthy have consented to the system of government in the US."

and said that was "ridiculous". Of course, it is far from ridiculous; it is Social Contract theory which the US system of government is based on.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No1 come on now, be serious, I am not responsible for some one else leading a lethargic life, eating trash food, smoking cigarettes, drinking to excess, doing dangerous drugs, riding their motorcycle like a maniac and engaging in other risky activities.

Go hide in a cave somewhere. Until you do, you remain part of society. And members of society have reciprocal responsibilities to each other even if some members make what you think are "bad" decisions. Just because an obese person has a higher chance of a heart attack, doesn't imply that society should let him die if he has one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not disputing that. But see the title of the thread. In truth, EVERY human society that ever existed had some mechanism for caring for its sick, feeding its hungry and providing shelter for its people. Humans don't live the "dog eat dog" existence you yearn for.

What society? The village? The family? The tribe? the coujntry? The world?

Why do you draw a line around the US, what about all those all over the world, are they not part of society, are you going to care for them all, are they not "fellow man" part of world society.

It would be nice to be able to care for myself, family and friends with out having the ability to do so limited by having to care for the crackead in another city.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go hide in a cave somewhere. Until you do, you remain part of society. And members of society have reciprocal responsibilities to each other even if some members make what you think are "bad" decisions. Just because an obese person has a higher chance of a heart attack, doesn't imply that society should let him die if he has one.

Ahhh, the indefinable "reciprocal responsibilities".

Why don't you have a try at defining exactly those responsibilities. and to who you owe those responsibilities and why you exclude those that had the misfortune to be born on a piece of dirt that happens to be outside an arbitrary line on the ground and in the ocean that happens to be the US border, or Swiss border, or Dutch border.

If you are going to put a saddle on our back at least tell us the conditions.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The existence of a right does not depend on whether it is enforced. Rights can be violated and still exist.

I agree, but it was claimed that health care is not a right because it cannot be enforced in some cases.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I agree, but it was claimed that health care is not a right because it cannot be enforced in some cases.

It is not a 'right' because it is not "the sovereignty to act".

Call it something else, just don't call it a right.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It is not a 'right' because it is not "the sovereignty to act".

Call it something else, just don't call it a right.

So you also claim there is no right to property?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So you also claim there is no right to property?

More accurately it is the right to acquire property.

Originally posted by Wajoma
More accurately it is the right to acquire property.

But having your acquired property recognized is not a "sovereignty to act".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But having your acquired property recognized is not a "sovereignty to act".

Because you are not recognising the property, you are recognising the acquisition of that property.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Because you are not recognising the property, you are recognising the acquisition of that property.

What?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What?

You want me to rephrase it in single syllable words?

Originally posted by Wajoma
You want me to rephrase it in single syllable words?

I want you to make sense. If I recognize your acquisition of a cookie and then steal it because I don't recognize the cookie as your property, is that okay?