just in case you guys have missed this point about health care being a right , here's an excerpt from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
also from Pacem In Terris:
Rights
11. But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.
Originally posted by frogstompSo what are you doing about those in poorest Africa?
just in case you guys have missed this point about health care being a right , here's an excerpt from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary soci ...[text shortened]... employment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.
If you believe in what you posted, if you weren't hollow, every spare cent would go to helping those people, your circumstances will become reduced sure, reduced to their level.
You probably wont even be able to afford an internet connection, we'd be better off too then.
Again, a concise definition of what a 'right' is:
A right is the soveriegnty to act without the permission of others.
There is no way "putting a hand in your fellow mans pocket" can be considered a right, unless he's given you permission, and frankly there are other R18 forums more suitable for airing those types of fantasies.
Originally posted by WajomaThat's a good point. Frogstomp, why are you denying so many poor people their rights?
So what are you doing about those in poorest Africa?
If you believe in what you posted, if you weren't hollow, every spare cent would go to helping those people, your circumstances will become reduced sure, reduced to their level.
You probably wont even be able to afford an internet connection, we'd be better off too then.
Again, a concise definiti and frankly there are other R18 forums more suitable for airing those types of fantasies.
Since I don't accept that rights guarantee people material goods, this dilemma doesn't apply to me. I can respect peoples' rights by not killing or imprisoning them, but it seems that by your version, you need to give things to people in order to respect their rights. Right?
Originally posted by WajomaRight
So what are you doing about those in poorest Africa?
If you believe in what you posted, if you weren't hollow, every spare cent would go to helping those people, your circumstances will become reduced sure, reduced to their level.
You probably wont even be able to afford an internet connection, we'd be better off too then.
Again, a concise definiti ...[text shortened]... and frankly there are other R18 forums more suitable for airing those types of fantasies.
noun: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature
Example: "They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe U.N.'s and the RCC 's versions.
That's a good point. Frogstomp, why are you denying so many poor people their rights?
Since I don't accept that rights guarantee people material goods, this dilemma doesn't apply to me. I can respect peoples' rights by not killing or imprisoning them, but it seems that by your version, you need to give things to people in order to respect their rights. Right?
There is a mix of two different issues in this question.
1. That of defining "rights".
2. The delivery of goods and services, and of course how providers are to be paid for those goods and services.
The first is a subject of debate, often involving belief in God or not. The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was the Deist, that is believing in a Deity but not in any particular religion. Rights in his view were "God given", and it was government's job to protect and preserve those rights. I am comfortable with that view, even as an Atheist. Many Atheists will insist that rights are whatever governments say they are, which of course differ dramatically depending on the government in question. Properly, I believe that if rights spring from government, they must be properly defined in advance of people's acceptance of that government, and not added willy nilly after the fact.
Delivery of goods and services, and like it or not health care, medicine and all that goes with it, are commodities, may be subject to a variety of economic and governmental conditions. Health care is no more a necessity than is food or shelter. We will most likely die without proper supplies of either. We can look to Zimbabwe as an example of how well government mandated production and distribution of food works.
A laizez faire free market, with lawful protections against force of fraud, is the fairest and most economical way of delivering goods and services. Capitalism is the economic mechanism of applying excess wealth to deliver goods and services more efficiently, and results in higher living standards for worker and investor alike.
Statist control economic systems, limit the rights of individuals to pursue their economic interests, including the right to private property, and the right to keep their productive earnings, to one degree or another. For example, if health care professionals or drug companies are limited in their earnings, they have in effect become slaves to the commune, it may be argued well paid slaves, but nontheless the opposite of free men with rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Liberty was high on the list of priorities of America's founders. There was quite a bit of opposition to including a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, mainly that such a list it was feared would not be complete, The ninth and tenth amendments were intended to cover that.
These days, specifically defined rights, such as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been downgraded to a "privilege" which can be licensed by the States, and unmentioned rights abound, such as "the right to choose".
Defining the having of any commodity as a right is fraught with great economic danger. Health care is virtually undefinable. Unlimited? Suppose that food were deemed a right? How much, what quality, and what kind? Market forces keep food relatively low cost, especially the most necessary food commodities. In the Soviet Union, such commodities as toilet paper, which we take for granted, were in short supply, with no choice of style or quality. People had the right to toilet paper, but I'd rather have the freedom to choose the Charmin or the Scotts.
Originally posted by WajomaPlease explain how it follows that people's right to a decent standard of living obliges frogstomp to spend all his money on them. (It doesn't follow, but you're obliged now to show how it does.)
So what are you doing about those in poorest Africa?
If you believe in what you posted, if you weren't hollow, every spare cent would go to helping those people, your circumstances will become reduced sure, reduced to their level.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraUnfortunately, police protection fails for the same reasons socialized (collective medical care) does.
Replace "health care" by "police protection" in your post to see why you're missing the mark. And before you claim police protection can't be produced in the free market - yes, it can, and it won't be cheaper than your current socialized form of crime fighting.
The consumer (an individual in need of protection) is left out of the picture. In the case of police, the collective, the majority, the tyranny of the 51%, determines some activity is criminal (such as modifying one's attitude by smoking a weed). Then, instead of a harmed individual making a criminal complaint (for example, I was robbed!), police go out in search of violators of a victimless crime against society. In Americas large cities, cops are too busy chasing victimless crimes. to have time to respond to citizen complaints, such as assaults, property crimes, and even potential bodily harm. More and more police are hired, and crime continues to escalate.
Likewise, socialized medicine promises everything (for free), but delivers substantially less. The majority that shouts the loudest gets its way, and the most expensive, the old and chronically ill get rationed or denied care, and proposals of euthanasia. Free anything encourages and guarantees a lack of restraint, and overutilization of limited resources. This guarantees shortages. The lack of incentives for earnings potential leads to further shortages of human and other resources for socialized systems.