What is a right?

[Tom]

Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?

[46zilzal]

In the case of health care it is simple, you help people who are ill.

I don't recall the philosopher who said it but he reminded us all that the quality of a civilization was how it cared for it's own: children, the elderly, the infirmed.

I grew up with my cousin who was deprived of Oxygen during birth and rendered with cerebral palsy and witnessed his struggles and the great resources (Shriner's amongst others) which helped him. It was that life altering experience that lead me to my career. The rewards far outweighed the money.

[46zilzal]

I hear this grumbling all the time, USUALLY from people who have no first hand experience with the social trauma which it a steady partner to illness.

read all about it here.http://www.righttohealthcare.org/

[Greyfox]

Tom, I don't doubt that you've been a very hard working independent man throughout your adult life. You've also been a very responsible one.
Good on you.
I suspect too that you've fortunately been born with two arms, eyes, ears, legs, and lived with reasonable health.
Unfortunately some haven't been born that way. Some are born blind, deaf, without legs and so on. Others, through life's misfortunes have been crippled, maimed, and so on. For whatever reason, they are not capable of working, not capable of paying for their health care and so on.
You of course could say, "tough titty" that's their problem.
That would be the view of anyone who has a "world view" of
"Every man for himself." or "Survival of the fittest."

You might argue that you don't want to pay for anyone's health care. It's not their right.

But technically speaking your ability to earn a living has been sustained by:
1. your health. (God?)
2. your attitude.
3. societal support for the places that you have worked.
This third point demands morally that you should at least give some small contribution back to the society that has supported you and possibly that society has some say in how that contribution should be spent.

Of course there are people like me who believe, everyone must try their best to survive, even if that effort can only be minimal.
Given that everyone is actually trying their best to make a contribution, I am certainly willing to see that they get at least some kind of medical benefits that will ease their pain and improve their quality of life.
(I'm not that keen on "bums" who have no interest in helping with their own recovery.)
Is that a "right" - technically no.
However, I sleep better at night knowing that "There but for the Grace of God go I" and I do have a moral obligation to help my fellow man.

[46zilzal]

[I sleep better at night knowing that "There but for the Grace of God go I" and I do have a moral obligation to help my fellow man.
BRAVO it is called having a conscience. Contributing to karma....EVERY civilization has coined phrases saying the same things.

One of my greatest discoveries over the past years was in studying comparative life's philosophies (some call them religions) and the parallels, even back thousands of years ago, having similar moral codes.

[Tom]

You are both missing the point. It is not about health care - it is about what is a right, and can you call something a right and then make it an obligation on someone else. It has noting to do with having a conscience - it is about what defines a right.

Does anyone have a right to a house?
To go to college?
To have a job?

Yes to these now begs the question, who doens't get this right and who has to pay for the others? If we are going to grant rights to only certain people, is it smart to penalize the prodcutive?

I look at a right like freedom of speech. No one pays anything for me to have this right. It doens't obligate anyone to provide me with a forum to speak, only that no one deny me.

[Greyfox]

You are both missing the point. It is not about health care - it is about what is a right, and can you call something a right and then make it an obligation on someone else. .

I don't think that 46Zil and I are missing the point at all.
Health care was but the example.
A "right" is defined by the society that you live in.
A stone age tribe might kill the old and infirmed and cook their bones for food.
A more "civilized" society might agree that it is a "right" for the elderly to be helped. As such every member of that society has to make a contribution to sustain that right, whatever their ability to make that contribution might be. Hence for some they will have to contribute more.

(Your "right to freedom of speech" is only a right due to the society that you live in. Had you been raised in China, that "right" may be different. That it doesn't cost someone anything for you to have that right is debateable.)

[46zilzal]

It is a right to receive an education. It makes for a better society: all can participate and contribute. It works TOP to bottom as it is a democratic principle.

You are one of the big FLAG wavers. This country was based upon equal rights.

[chickenhead]

I think it just comes down to what you take right to mean. I am more like Tom, I think you are more or less born with your rights. They can only be taken away. If you were the only man on earth, you would still have all your rights.

Everything else is law, which is fine, just different. So I more or less agree, I hate hearing things called rights that require someone else to make them happen.

[chickenhead]

(Your "right to freedom of speech" is only a right due to the society that you live in. Had you been raised in China, that "right" may be different. That it doesn't cost someone anything for you to have that right is debateable.)

See, that is the difference. The right to freedom of thought and expression is a right no matter where you live. It is an innate part of being a human. That laws can attempt to infringe upon it doesn't make it any less a right.

[Greyfox]

I think it just comes down to what you take right to mean. I am more like Tom, I think you are more or less born with your rights. They can only be taken away. If you were the only man on earth, you would still have all your rights.
.

Your birth rights would mean nothing if some caregiver didn't nurture you and wipe your ass and so on. You wouldn't live 3 days without care.

[GaryG]

With the right to health care, education, etc you will have a lot more in line to receive than there are contributing. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? I have heard that somewhere before...

[chickenhead]

Your birth rights would mean nothing if some caregiver didn't nurture you and wipe your ass and so on. You wouldn't live 3 days without care.

Hello! Did you think we are guarenteed everlasting life? Our most basic of rights, is the right to die.

[melman]

I also believe we should help the children the poor and the elderly with there health care. The question is to what extent? and who will pay for it? If the idea of "free health care" for everyone appeals then why should anyone pay for health insurance? If one is going to rely on "the government" to "fix" the problem of caring for the sick then I think we will have worse problems then we do now. In an article I posted earlier today it was pointed out the very hard question of just who should be "next in line" for a transplant.

[46zilzal]

With the right to health care, education, etc you will have a lot more in line to receive than there are contributing. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? I have heard that somewhere before...
The policy of the Twentieth Century Motor Company in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Totally unfeasible too.

[Greyfox]

Hello! Did you think we are guarenteed everlasting life? Our most basic of rights, is the right to die.

Wakey, Wakey and hello! 3 days is hardly everlasting life.
May your next incarnation be as a dragon fly. I understand most take care of themselves and their life cycle isn't very long.

[chickenhead]

Your birth rights would mean nothing if some caregiver didn't nurture you and wipe your ass and so on. You wouldn't live 3 days without care.

And that's why we love our mothers. It's not a right to have a good mother, it's a blessing.

[Greyfox]

And that's why we love our mothers. It's not a right to have a good mother, it's a blessing.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: So true.

[46zilzal]

. In an article I posted earlier today it was pointed out the very hard question of just who should be "next in line" for a transplant.


When the tissue types match, it should be random draw, not the Mickey Mantle $$$$$$$$$ bump.

That way no heavy duty emotional attachments go with it.

[melman]

Yes as to "equal rights" but that does not mean "equal Results". Even if everyone was given a free higher education we would still have a NEED for people to perform jobs that do not require that higer education. Not everyone has the brain power of a Dr Stephen Hawking yet our nation, indeed ANY nation still has a need for people who are not as gifted. I think attempting to put someone who does not have the skill set into a "higher education" setting is really doing a disserve to that person. I admire and respect my guys that come around every Monday and Thursday and pick up my trash just as much as I do my doctor. That is what I call "equal rights" not "equal results". I think it is cruel to expect all people to have a higher education when some just do not have the skill for it.

[46zilzal]

No one is saying FORCE education on them. There are still grades: people who can't will fail.

The OPPORTUNITY is what is attached to a right.

One never knows what they are CAPABLE of unless they TRY. SO many now never even get the chance.

[melman]

Correct someone who while in high school has shown he or she does not have the skill set for higer education still deserves our respect for the work they will perform in life. Thus I believe equal rights is NOT equal results.

[phatbastard]

i'm not throwing stones here, but i have one question.....

how many here fund their own Health Insurance, or have it as part of their employment package of bennies

[chickenhead]

I had my own until about a month ago.

[robert99]

Correct someone who while in high school has shown he or she does not have the skill set for higer education still deserves our respect for the work they will perform in life. Thus I believe equal rights is NOT equal results.

You can think of it that everyone has the responsibility to do the best they are capable of to earn any "right" of protection by society. If education is provided, then you have a responsibility to make the best use of it so that you can be of future service to your country in whatever capacity you are able. No one can be more proud than those who have done their very best for society at whatever level. A soldier who has returned incapacitated from serving his or her country to the best of their ability has earned a right to be looked after by the society they protected. These are moral rights (and responsibilities) and do not necessarily need laws or would be so effective if there were laws.

[Grits]

I fund my own health insurance PB to the tune of $604.00 per month through Blue Cross and Blue Shield. I am self employed, owning my business for 20 years.

Before I make further comments, a couple of questions for the thread.

First, what is FAIR?

Second, who, and at what point in your lives, were you caused to believe in FAIRNESS?

[GaryG]

I have always funded my own health and life insurance. I also use Blue Cross / Blue Shield. It ain't cheap folks.

[ljb]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right? I have heard that somewhere before...
that is part of the communist doctrine.

[skate]

Tom;

right again. it's become so and i find out that i do not need to read your post because , you put it very simple (kiss/Zilly), and you go right to "A" point.

And then Bingo, these guys cant find "the base".
then off we go... into the wild blue...


Of coarse, Of Coarse, OF Coarse, we are not talking abvout those who are disabled.


Also, does anyone think, if you spoil your child (give to child/ without requiring Something first), you wont ruin that child.
Seems to me, that's Toms question.

[46zilzal]

Tom;

right again. it's become so and i find out that i do not need to read your post because , you put it very simple (kiss/Zilly), and you go right to "A" point.

And then Bingo, these guys cant find "the base".
then off we go... into the wild blue...


Of coarse, Of Coarse, OF Coarse, we are not talking abvout those who are disabled.


Also, does anyone think, if you spoil your child (give to child/ without requiring Something first), you wont ruin that child.
Seems to me, that's Toms question.
of COURSE of COURSE unless you are talking about being composed of relatively large parts or particles.......

Indecipherable as usual.

of course=following the ordinary way or procedure

[skate]

Let me put my lead penny in here.


There exist people in our Society (many) that have been scapegoated, mainly do to Illegal (flooding) workers. To me, this is another curve. These people are not Black, White, Female, Male etc., they are "working people". They are not looking for a hand or handout.

John Gault knows about them ...

[JustMissed]

[font=Verdana]Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?


I whole hardily agree with Tom's thinking on this matter.

Rights can be Given Away but they can't be Taken Away.

Taking Tom's money away from Tom to provide health care for someone is stealing-plan and simple.

Now if Tom want's to vote for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing all US citizens the right to health care, then that is another matter.

FYI-here are some of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution:

[Quote}Natural Rights:
The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:
(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

[End Quote]

If you did not see the right to Health Care listed above-then it is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

JM :)

[Grits]

i'm not throwing stones here, but i have one question.....

how many here fund their own Health Insurance, or have it as part of their employment package of bennies

Relevant question PB, and only three people answered it. Extremely relevant.

[ljb]

I pay increasing premiums for my health insurance. And also have increasing copays.
I do not think anyone has a "right" to free health care. I do find it annoying that we, being the richest nation in the world, cannot find a way to provide AFFORDABLE health care to millions of our citizens.

[melman]

I'm in the same boat as you then ljb as I also am paying more for my health insurance coverage, however my co-pay has remained the same. I also agree that our country needs to find a way to have AFFORDABLE coverage for all. However that appears easier said then done. A while back poster "Suff" who lives in MASS said he liked the plan in effect in his home state. I'm sure you remember ljb that "Suff" is not a right wing Republican. :) Now I read of another MASS resident poster "Bombs Away Bob" who says that's states method "sucks". It is a complex problem that needs to be addressed.

[pandy]

Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?

I know people who are self employed middle class individuals who spend betwen $600 and $700 a month for basic health care. If you work for a company, you probably pay a lot less. Consequently many self employed, hard working people don't have health care. Something's gone really wrong. I'm not sure that socialized care is the total answer, but something has to be done. The cost of hospitalization is absurdly high.

[Greyfox]

[Quote}Natural Rights:
The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", ....

If you did not see the right to Health Care listed above-then it is not a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

JM :)

By the definition of natural rights that you have provided, "life"
seems to be first in line. For some the denial of health care may mean loss of life. To simplify, for some health care = life.

[melman]

Greyfox---I think the question still remains who pays and how much. I hope the "government" is not one to take over health care issues. Looks what they have done with Social Security and Medicare. Same type of issue is going on with education in my home state of Pennsylvania. I firmly believe everyone deserves a basic high school education the question is again who pays and how much? Right now in my state most of the funding for high school's comes from property taxes. This is having a killing effect on the senior citizens who are on fixed incomes but still face a huge property tax bill each year. Our Gov Ed Rendell said "let's get slot machines up and running in the state and we can reduce property taxes". Guess what my property tax bill is still going up.

[Greyfox]

Greyfox---I think the question still remains who pays and how much. .
I can't disagree with you.
You want High School education as a "right."
By the views of many here, "Education is not a right."
However, it turns out to be a pretty good investment in the future.
Those with certified skills earn more and pay more taxes.

(By the way, to those who are wondering about who pays and who doesn't, I've always paid for my own health care coverage. I don't see that as being relevant to the discussion at hand regarding rights. To mention that only 3 have answered that question, I think that it's healthy that the majority have ignored it. It is none of my business whether or not any other contributors to this forum pay.)

[jonnielu]

Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?

I wonder what the signers would think of this thread? Here's another one for you to think about Tom. How did your neighbor authorize the government to come to your house with a gun and demand your contribution? Just because you find it a proper idea to work and be productive in order to care for yourself and your family.

Who are those citizens that enjoy such lofty standing that they decide who gets and who pays. And, how much anyone should give back. Especially when each has the right to decide that for themselves.

jdl

[46zilzal]

When I was growing up , you would have to be in danger of losing part of your anatomy to go to the doctor. Not here: their is no anxiety about not being able to cover it.

Many health services that really work, like here, PREVENT and well as react to illness so the latter is reduced.

[Tom]

Actually 46, skate is one of the few who got it in this thread. It is NOT about health care. It is about what is a right? You cannot say someone has a right unless you can define it. Forget health care. This outside the box for once.

IF you have no HC and I have to pay for yours and mine, then you have more rights than I do. You claim that it is a right violated the equal protection idea of our governement. Therefore, HC is not a right, only the opportunity to obtain it. You cannot call it a right if someone else has to pay for it and forfeit it so that you can have it. That is re-deistribution of wealth. this is not about he dems feel good basis for everyitng- it is - or was supposed to be - an intellecual discussion.

How can you call something a right when it is not shared equally by all citizens, and some have to pay for it and others do not?

Do we all have equal freedom of speech? Should it be limimted based on economic situations? Should people on welfare not be allowed to voice criticism of the governement?

[Tom]

I wonder what the signers would think of this thread? Here's another one for you to think about Tom. How did your neighbor authorize the government to come to your house with a gun and demand your contribution? Just because you find it a proper idea to work and be productive in order to care for yourself and your family.

Who are those citizens that enjoy such lofty standing that they decide who gets and who pays. And, how much anyone should give back. Especially when each has the right to decide that for themselves.

jdl

Bingo.

Who are the citizens? They are the horizontal power sturcture who are the enemies of us all.

[Grits]

And our Tax System is not the greatest redistribution of wealth in this country?

[Tom]

Exactly.

[JustRalph]

There is no right to

Education

or

Healthcare

If you have health coverage, you are paying for it somewhere or you paid for it earlier in your life.

There is no reason why Public Education is part of our tax burden.

Justmissed,,,,,,,,,, good post...........

[riskman]

Some thoughts:
Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -- and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).

The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.

[Tom]

Bingo and Bingo.
And JM...bingo.

[ddog]

Actually 46, skate is one of the few who got it in this thread. It is NOT about health care. It is about what is a right? You cannot say someone has a right unless you can define it. Forget health care. This outside the box for once.

IF you have no HC and I have to pay for yours and mine, then you have more rights than I do. You claim that it is a right violated the equal protection idea of our governement. Therefore, HC is not a right, only the opportunity to obtain it. You cannot call it a right if someone else has to pay for it and forfeit it so that you can have it. That is re-deistribution of wealth. this is not about he dems feel good basis for everyitng- it is - or was supposed to be - an intellecual discussion.

How can you call something a right when it is not shared equally by all citizens, and some have to pay for it and others do not?

Do we all have equal freedom of speech? Should it be limimted based on economic situations? Should people on welfare not be allowed to voice criticism of the governement?

reread your last set of questions on the free speech and explain what you are getting at.
You seem to be countering your own arguement.


we all start with a right of free speech.

the amount and volume of free speech is obviously limited or expanded , whchever way you care to look at it by economic standing.

poor can have a voice but not at the same volume as a Romney, who can fund his own in the campaign and thus project his free speech over a wider space which makes him more of a right.
Now how much did the tax system contribute to his getting more an excerise of that right than the poor guy.
It or something , a better education, something had to play a part in the accumulation of the extra rights, since he has them.


so, yes we all start with a right as defined in law.

My opinion on all the other crying about taxes is not that you don't have the right but that you don't have the balls to exercise what you believe your rights are.
Many have gone to jail over not paying taxes, you can as well.
Nobody shows up with guns to extract the money from you.

As to health care - Gryfox or someone has that part down , unless you are for repeal of the Bill Of Rights, and you do know without that the constitution would not have been approved,then the right to life in TODAY'S view would by defualt have to include the right to health care of some type.

Else, when does the right to life begin?

If a mother can't afford HC and without if the baby dies, do you then deny the HC?

Education is a pure cost v benefit ratio.

Any logical person would know by comparing what it costs to educate a person and thus give that person and our country a shot to improve their lot in life versus what it costs to take the same person through the criminal justice system and then into the prison system is a no brainer giant plus.

I would be for giving every child when born a 10,000 bond for school and/or giving every non-violent offender a work-fare job and 50% of whatever it cost to keep them in prison, even if the job was picking up trash or holding doors for people.

Obviously the other approach has not worked for 100 years.

out of the box , are you WITH ME?

[Lefty]

We have the right to pursue happiness we do not have the right to force others to give it to us. For the people who cannot pursue happiness through no fault of their own we have the right to help those people. It should be done through private charities and those of us that can and want to help can do so. Our govt should not be forcing us to do those things. It should be our right to help or not to help as we see fit. Great thread, Tom.

[jonnielu]

I would be for giving every child when born a 10,000 bond for school and/or giving every non-violent offender a work-fare job and 50% of whatever it cost to keep them in prison, even if the job was picking up trash or holding doors for people.

Obviously the other approach has not worked for 100 years.

out of the box , are you WITH ME?



100 years ago, you mean before politicians got this class warfare going so that they could gather power beyond the Constitution, to further their vote buying schemes that are funded by your toil?

Going by the above, I see that you are as generous with other people's money as Ted Kennedy is, after others also gave their lives so that the two of you could spend your own as you see fit.

First, you want to pay people to not work, then you want to pay them to not commit crime. A stupid plan, but who is stopping you from funding it to your hearts content?

The funny thing about it is that if you did want to contribute half of your income toward providing HC to those that you think should have it, you have given up your right to do so by sending half of your income to Washington D.C. in the first place. That is the box that you are in, I don't care to join you.

[Tom]

ddog, you are confusing right with opportunity, but have really cut right to the chase. Everyone statrs out with free speech, but through their efforts, they can have greater opportunities to use it. That opportunity is not a right - it is your reward for wroking for it. No one has more rights to free speech, but many have far greater opportunity to use it through thier initiative.
Look at celebrities championing thier personal causes - they have no more right than I do to do this, but they have earned their audience.

[rastajenk]

And have usually squandered the opportunity. :D

[betchatoo]

To answer a previous question, I am self employed and pay my own insurance. Because I recently turned 60 and have some health problems I pay $1100 a month for insurance. I thank God I can afford it. But whether we call it a right or charity or strong morals, the question to me is what do we do with people who need health care and can't afford it? And make no mistake, there are a lot of legal, working Americans who fall under that category. Do we say sorry, you're poor, you must die? What of those people who lost work when our government more or less encouraged factory work to leave our country? Do we say sorry you've now lost your living and the chance to stay alive? No society is better than the way they treat its poorest and weakest members.

I do realize there are people who don't want to work and want to live off of others. I must admit I'm not sure what to do about those (Damn it! Just when I thought I had all the answers.)

[DJofSD]

Up to this point in the discussion, I have to agree a right is the ability for the individual to be able to do or not to do something -- to speak, to associate, to practice a religion, to accumulate wealth.

It is not an entitlement. It is not an obligation though within the structure of our country, society and culture there is an implicit contract where certain relationships are in place.

Everything else is just discussion by example.

[Tom]

Betcha....still not the point. Does your economic need override my rights?
My point is, to be a right, it has to apply equally to all. My paying your HC violates that.

I am not saying that we should not help those who need it, I am questioning the premis that you have a right have me pay your way. Not That I would not give you the shirt off my back, but should you be able to came and take from me?

Equal protection under the law is not met when someone arbitrarily decides which group of citizens have more rights than other groups.

Don't think in specifics - think of this as a basic template from which to govern. What is a right, and if one group is denied it, how can it be a right?

I think this is going to force people on both side of the political aisle to re-examine thier beliefs.

[Greyfox]

1. Each and every contributor to this thread would not be alive except for society.

2. Each and every contributor to this thread has a moral obligation to contribute to society.

3. In a democratic society, it is the will of the people that will define rights.

4. The rights defined by that democratic society may need to be funded and yes by your money.

5. As long as you live in a democratic society, you will have to contribute to the cost of rights that society defines, unless of course you can convince every member of that society that rights shouldn't have a cost (which some of you are trying to do).

6. Otherwise, you are welcome to go live as hermit. Until then you have an interdependency on your nation.

[DJofSD]

1. Each and every contributor to this thread would not be alive except for society.

B.S.

I'll thank my parents for my existance. I might attribute the quality of my life and vast opportunities to the society into which I was born but I will not, sure as hell, not agree that my very existance is due to society.

[Greyfox]

B.S.

I'll thank my parents for my existance. I might attribute the quality of my life and vast opportunities to the society into which I was born but I will not, sure as hell, not agree that my very existance is due to society.

For as bright a contributor as you normally are DJofSD you are thinking very small. Of course you can thank your parents for your existence. They nurtured you and took care of you until you were able to do it on your own. But unless they grew up in an isolated Prairie, they to were interdependent on others to provide food that they could buy and jobs that they could work at. We are all interdependent on each other in one way or another. If you want to think that you're not, that's fine. You'll just be in denial.

To simplify matters, none of us would last long on this planet as the last man standing.

[Lefty]

greyfox, yes we do live in a society and our capitalist society is supposed to give everyone the OPPRTUNITY to pursue happiness. It's the old give a fish teach to fish saying. This is what we as capitalists are supposed to do. Not everyone can access those opportunities because of reasons beyond their own control and these people should be helped and they are. BUT, it should be VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY in a capitalist socety.

[Grits]

This thread can be explained, it can be changed around and called "rights", it can now be made exclusive of healthcare, (which I have to say to you, was your lead and original post,Tom).

It can be decorated up, made to look like something other than what it actually is. It can be dressed down and simplified for all of us that aren't intellectually gifted so that we may all participate in the intellectual sense. And I'm thanking you all for that.

It can be whatever--it can go wherever-- you wanna continue to take it.

Yet, a simpleton like myself, is able to see through several pages, a good deal about humanity. And there is no other way to describe this, to soften it.

Call the thread whatever you like, and give me--when you meet me, the shirt off your back, its still a look at humanity.

With a Constitution in place, with a Bill of Rights in hand, no one ever led me to believe, or assured me, that this life would be FAIR.

[Greyfox]

VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY[/b] in a capitalist socety.

I can see what you're saying and can appreciate the thought behind it.
In an ideal free society I would agree with you. Unfortunately there are a lot of self-centered types that would never volunteer a nickel to the "public good" if left to their own resources.
There may however be some instances when those voluntary contributions just would not be sufficient. There will be other instances when we just have to trust the elected officials to distribute contributions using their judgement rather than have each of us weigh in on every individual decision to support a needy person.

[Lefty]

greyfox, Yes, there are those that wouldn't contribute a nickel to help anyone. And that should be their right. However, there are plenty that would that offsets those. Everytime there is an emergency, local, statewide or worlwide there are millions of us that contribute. We contribute more than any Socialist Country.

[jonnielu]

1. Each and every contributor to this thread would not be alive except for society.

2. Each and every contributor to this thread has a moral obligation to contribute to society.

3. In a democratic society, it is the will of the people that will define rights.

4. The rights defined by that democratic society may need to be funded and yes by your money.

5. As long as you live in a democratic society, you will have to contribute to the cost of rights that society defines, unless of course you can convince every member of that society that rights shouldn't have a cost (which some of you are trying to do).

6. Otherwise, you are welcome to go live as hermit. Until then you have an interdependency on your nation.

6 major drawbacks of the Democracy, thank God that America is not one. But, what a country it is, everyone has the freedom to choose to live under the Democracy built upon Amendment #14, it only costs personal Liberty, and any rights that you may have acquired by the deeds of those brave enough to claim and then die for them.

But, never think that your Democracy somehow authorizes you to infringe upon those rights that I hold. Which means, you finance your Democracy, not me.

jdl

[Tom]

1. Each and every contributor to this thread would not be alive except for society.

2. Each and every contributor to this thread has a moral obligation to contribute to society.

3. In a democratic society, it is the will of the people that will define rights.

4. The rights defined by that democratic society may need to be funded and yes by your money.

5. As long as you live in a democratic society, you will have to contribute to the cost of rights that society defines, unless of course you can convince every member of that society that rights shouldn't have a cost (which some of you are trying to do).

6. Otherwise, you are welcome to go live as hermit. Until then you have an interdependency on your nation.

Do I not have the same rights as everyone else? You seem to be telling me I do not. My point is that rights cannot have a cost. Cost implies olbigations, and right cannot be hinged to someone else having to pay for them. What you say about health care may well be 100% trues, but I maintain it is not a right. To be a right, it must be free, it must be shared equally amoung ALL citizens.

[Greyfox]

Do I not have the same rights as everyone else? You seem to be telling me I do not. My point is that rights cannot have a cost. Cost implies olbigations, and right cannot be hinged to someone else having to pay for them. What you say about health care may well be 100% trues, but I maintain it is not a right. To be a right, it must be free, it must be shared equally amoung ALL citizens.

1. You have the same rights as everyone else, as defined by society.

2. You are basing your belief on "rights cannot have a cost."

3. To maintain your rights there is always a cost, if you choose to live in a society. Let's take the right to life. In medieval times, fort walls had to be built to keep out invaders. Nearly every European town shows evidence of those walls. It seems that different peoples or tribes always wanted a larger place in the sun. They weren't willing to let you keep what you thought was yours. So in order to defend your property walls had to be built.
Today we don't have to live in walled fortresses just 10 miles apart.
We've come to collective agreements on this content to try to live in peace.
However, different types of "walls" have to be maintained to keep out those who would over run us. Without those defences there are nations on this earth that would over run this continent in a heart beat.

4. In a free society, nothing stops you from holding on to the belief that your rights cannot have a cost. Unfortunately it is a faulty view and cannot be supported. To maintain the society that preserves us, there has to be a cost.

5. If you want to go live on a deserted Island as a hermit, then there will be no cost to the rights that you believe that you have. You will have the right of free speech, but no one to talk to. You will have the right to remain silent, but that won't matter as no one will hear you. Within a few weeks you will soon find out how interdependent you are on society, as there would be a good chance that you would starve to death. Indeed, you may have died as a child if not for the vaccinations and innoculations that society developed prior to your arrival.

[jonnielu]

1. You have the same rights as everyone else, as defined by society.

2. You are basing your belief on "rights cannot have a cost."

3. To maintain your rights there is always a cost, if you choose to live in a society. Let's take the right to life. In medieval times, fort walls had to be built to keep out invaders. Nearly every European town shows evidence of those walls. It seems that different peoples or tribes always wanted a larger place in the sun. They weren't willing to let you keep what you thought was yours. So in order to defend your property walls had to be built.
Today we don't have to live in walled fortresses just 10 miles apart.
We've come to collective agreements on this content to try to live in peace.
However, different types of "walls" have to be maintained to keep out those who would over run us. Without those defences there are nations on this earth that would over run this continent in a heart beat.

4. In a free society, nothing stops you from holding on to the belief that your rights cannot have a cost. Unfortunately it is a faulty view and cannot be supported. To maintain the society that preserves us, there has to be a cost.

5. If you want to go live on a deserted Island as a hermit, then there will be no cost to the rights that you believe that you have. You will have the right of free speech, but no one to talk to. You will have the right to remain silent, but that won't matter as no one will hear you. Within a few weeks you will soon find out how interdependent you are on society, as there would be a good chance that you would starve to death. Indeed, you may have died as a child if not for the vaccinations and innoculations that society developed prior to your arrival.

The cost of my rights is whatever it may take to protect them from those like yourself that have no respect for the notion that I have them, or believe, that I should lay them down for supposed benefit of others.

Liberty is a funny thing, this is how it actually works, if there is none for your neighbor, then there is none for you. This is what bonds this nation, as it always has. There is only one thing in our history that has ever successfully divided us to any meaningful degree.

The surrender of Liberty and or "rights".

jdl

[Greyfox]

The cost of my rights is whatever it may take to protect them from those like yourself that have no respect for the notion that I have them, or believe, that I should lay them down for supposed benefit of others.


jdl

You couldn't be farther from the truth with respect to the bolded part above.
I deeply respect your rights and your right to think what you may of me,
albeit somewhat errant.

[Burls]

A "right" is defined by the society that you live in.


I don't quite agree with this Greyfox.

Here are some basic divisions in standard rights discussions.

1) Negative Right - an entitlement not to be interferred with by others
2) Positive Right - an entitlement to have something provided for you by others

A) Legal Right - an entitlement against others that is recognized by the legal apparatus in the political jurisdiction one lives in

1A) Negative Legal Right in the US - an legally recognized entitlement against others not to have your private property taken away
2A) Positive Legal Right- an legally recognized entitlement against others to have an attorney provided for you if you are arrested and cannot afford one

B) Moral Right - an entitlement against others that is morally justified

(Of course, which entitlements are morally justified and which aren't, and why, are matters of longstanding debate)

2A) Negative Moral Right - an morally defensible entitlement against others to not be physically assaulted or have your private property taken away
2B) Positive Moral Right - a morally defensible entitlement against others to have basic goods provided for you if you are unable to provide them for yourself. Standard examples are: basic health care, basic education, basic food and shelter, basic legal representation

The degree to which a set of legal arrangements is just or unjust is determined by the degree to which one's moral rights, both negative and positive, are legally recognized.

Now here's the kicker. The supposed negative right - legal or moral - to accumulate wealth without being interferred with by having some of that wealth taken away from you is in direct conflict with the supposed positive right -legal or moral - to have certain basic goods provided for you by others.
Social services don't arise out of thin air. They have to be paid for by taking away wealth from individuals.

The Big Question is 'Which of these two OUGHT TO TAKE PRIORITY when they come into conflict, so that both can't be fully recognized:
1) The negative right to accumulate wealth without undue interference from the state or 2) The positive right to have certin basic goods provided for you if you cannot provide them for yourself?

Something has to give here. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In the longstanding debate over The Big Question, both sides have their weak points and their strong points, which I won't go into here.
But each side has to present some PRINCIPLED RATIONALE for their position instead of simply declaring it as obviously correct.

All for now.

Burls

[Greyfox]

Now here's the kicker. The supposed negative right - legal or moral - to accumulate wealth without being interferred with by having some of that wealth taken away from you is in direct conflict with the supposed positive right -legal or moral - to have certain basic goods provided for you by others.
Social services don't arise out of thin air. They have to be paid for by taking away wealth from individuals.

The Big Question is 'Which of these two OUGHT TO TAKE PRIORITY when they come into conflict, so that both can't be fully recognized:
1) The negative right to accumulate wealth without undue interference from the state or 2) The positive right to have certin basic goods provided for you if you cannot provide them for yourself?

Something has to give here. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Burls

You're obviously well versed on this subject in law and morals and I wouldn't pretend to be either a lawyer or a moral philosopher.
You've stated it pretty good though when referring to something being given priority when rights come into conflict, if indeed there is a conflict.

All humans have the right to aquire wealth. A civilized society acknowledges that if you truly can't take care of yourself there are safety nets. Altlhough I can assure you in the time of my Grandparents those social safety nets were not in place (i.e. The Dirty Thirty's) and I admire those ancestors energies in bringing about a better society.
It might take from here to eternity to debate "Priorities of rights" especially in a forum of this nature. Indeed that type of debate can be very dangerous particularly when we are thinking of surgical priorities of young vs elderly, productive individuals vs. bums, men vs. women and so on.

For that reason, I'm not even going to pretend to be able to answer that question, other than to advance the idea that in a given society
No one would be accumulating wealth if it weren't for the efforts of everyone to some degree or another. In that regard everyone has a moral obligation to be a contributing member of society. The reality is though that not everyone has a moral orientation to the support of society and in fact not everyone will contribute a nickel acknowledging their existence in the first place is from the efforts of others.

For me personally, the right to my life has greater priority than the right to my accumulation of wealth. I can see how others may have a different set of values.

[Tom]

3. In a democratic society, it is the will of the people that will define rights.

You just rationalized slavery. And authorized it.


No no no. Man cannot grant rights. Man has rights no mnatter what anyone or any govenment says about it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

[Greyfox]

You just rationalized slavery. And authorized it.


No no no. Man cannot grant rights. Man has rights no mnatter what anyone or any govenment says about it.


You know I wouldn't do that Tom.
A Democratic society has nothing to do with slavery.
A Corporate society might. You just can't see the chains Tom.
I've worked for the bankers most of my life and you probably have too.

[ljb]

You know I wouldn't do that Tom.
A Democratic society has nothing to do with slavery.
A Corporate society might. You just can't see the chains Tom.
I've worked for the bankers most of my life and you probably have too.
:ThmbUp:

[DJofSD]

No no no. Man cannot grant rights. Man has rights no matter what anyone or any govenment says about it.


:ThmbUp: x3

[Greyfox]

:ThmbUp: x3

If you are living alone on a desert island you can do anything you want.
When you live in a civilized society, what you can and cannot do will be agreed upon by you and those you are living in mutual cooperation with. As such whatever rights that you have won't be based on what you alone think your rights are. They will always be limited by some concensus.

[ljb]

If you are living alone on a desert island you can do anything you want.
When you live in a civilized society, what you can and cannot do will be agreed upon by you and those you are living in mutual cooperation with. As such whatever rights that you have won't be based on what you alone think your rights are. They will always be limited by some concensus.
It's called civilization.

[Greyfox]

It's called civilization.

:ThmbUp: Absolutely. And sometimes we don't know what rights we have until we are threatened with the loss of them. eg. rights to privacy.

[chickenhead]

You guys are basically equating the concept of rights with law. I think what I would argue is that laws often are capricious, ever changing, etc. My take is, we have rights that exist on a different level than common law.

My belief that x,y,or z is not a right, in the sense of a right that exists on a different plane than a common law, has no bearing on whether I think something is a good law or not. You guys do get that? Cause most of your arguments are kind of missing that.

I don't think I have some universalist right to make you have to stop your car when you see a red light....but I do think it's a fantastic law. Similiarly with healthcare, I don't think you have some universal right to make me pay for someone else's health care, but we may as a society agree we want to do it, and therefore we make it a law, and it may be a good one.

I decide to live in this society, so I decide how I let the society infringe on my rights. If I don't like it enough, I will find somewhere else to live, or try increasingly to change the society.

[Greyfox]

I decide to live in this society, so I decide how I let the society infringe on my rights. If I don't like it enough, I will find somewhere else to live, or try increasingly to change the society.

No disagreement chickenhead.
If, you are going to look at Universality and Rights that may be a very difficult concept to identify. Principles such as Justice and Fairness will fall into that department. There are indeed universal principles of justice and fairness that we might be able to hammer out.

But when it comes to "rights" they always have to be looked at within the context of the society wherein they are supposedly embedded.
We can adopt the views espoused by some here:
1. I am born with rights that no one can take away.
2. The rights have no cost to anyone else.

Those may be fine ideals, but in practice they just do not work independent of the culture you are in.
One can't stand up and say these are my rights, without someone else agreeing indeed that they are. One can't stand up and say this is my right because it's not costing anyone else anything, without agreement that it really isn't costing someone else something.

In truth, I have the right to think anything that I want. (I can even imagine flying around the moon. Imagination is a wonderful trip.)

However, I do not have the right to do anything that I want, in a civilized society.

The right to think anything that you want, may be in reality the only actual right that you truly have.
When it comes to "actions and behaviors" they will be limited by what society has agreed to as acceptable.
Let's take for example, the right to pursue happiness.
That is an abstract right that has been agreed to.
But one man's idea of happiness, may not be anothers, so you are not free to pursue happiness in any way that you want.
So simply stated, you can think you've been born with rights, but society will have to agree with you.

Enough already. I really do have to go handicap some races.

[DJofSD]

I don't agree.

Whether I am living on an island and totally fending for myself or living in the middle of Tokyo, there are certain aspects of me as a human being that are present. They are not dependent upon any other person to give, to allow me to use or even acknowledge -- these so called unalienable rights exist as an absolute. They are a certainty.

There is not any moral equivalency, rationalization or linkage. There are no shades of gray. Rights are not lessened because you believe differently, think differently, have a different set of value or mores, believe in God or not.

[Greyfox]

I don't agree.

Whether I am living on an island and totally fending for myself or living in the middle of Tokyo, there are certain aspects of me as a human being that are present. They are not dependent upon any other person to give, to allow me to use or even acknowledge -- these so called unalienable rights exist as an absolute. They are a certainty.

There is not any moral equivalency, rationalization or linkage. There are no shades of gray. Rights are not lessened because you believe differently, think differently, have a different set of value or mores, believe in God or not.

And you have the right to think that way.
Those living in Tokyo might not agree with your interpretation of how those rights will be enacted. Why not go to Iran Diane and tell them that you have those rights?

( Principles of Justice and Fairness can be Universalized because they are abstract concepts that we can set out and use as standards to assess the nature of decisions. Rights are granted as inalienable dependent on the culture you are living in. On the desert island you won't need to worry though.)

[Tom]

You know I wouldn't do that Tom.
A Democratic society has nothing to do with slavery.
A Corporate society might. You just can't see the chains Tom.
I've worked for the bankers most of my life and you probably have too.

But we were a democratic society and we had slavery, and we counted blacks as 3/5 of awhite man. It is our history. It was all legal. Wrong, but legal, and we had to go to war to finally end it. It was legal, but always wrong. In spite of society.

3. To maintain your rights there is always a cost, if you choose to live in a society. Let's take the right to life. In medieval times, fort walls had to be built to keep out invaders. Yes, and here, in the colonies, those who did not help build them were asked to leave. The last thing many hears was, “Good bye. Watch out for the bears.



4. In a free society, nothing stops you from holding on to the belief that your rights cannot have a cost. Unfortunately it is a faulty view and cannot be supported. To maintain the society that preserves us, there has to be a cost. But society is not a right – it is an institution. If I am captured by the commies and held in a gulag, do I not still have my rights, just not the opportunity to exercise them?




Of course there are cost to exercising the freedoms – but there can not be cost to having them. I am free to go to Hawaii but can’t afford it. Who, then is obligated tp pay for my trip. After all, it is my right to go there.



I am free to have children, but am single. Whose wife is being over tonight?



I have the right to go for a PHD, but my grades are too low and the tuitition is too high. Who is going to ensure I have a seat at Harvard this spring?



Are the following rights that all citizens have?

Food
Housing
Car
TV
Clothing
Sex
Children
Medicine
Computer access

[Greyfox]

Tom said:
If I am captured by the commies and held in a gulag, do I not still have my rights, just not the opportunity to exercise them?

If you spend time in a Gulag, you can think that you have your rights.
No one can break the human spirit that will not allow itself to be broken.
Unfortunately, in a Gulag, what you think your rights are, may differ from what they think your rights are. Sorry.
(And sometimes I wish you had spent time in a gulag...:lol: )

[chickenhead]

That is the whole point of the thread, what we think. We think we have rights that exist beyond law. That is the entire basis for Western society, imo.

What do you think?

I don't think health care is a right that exists beyond law.

What do you think?

[DJofSD]

Why not go to Iran Diane and tell them that you have those rights?

Ah yes, there's the rub.

There is a difference between having rights and exercising them.

The fact that others either deny that rights exist or do not want those rights manifested does not mean they are right and I am wrong. And just because I can do something does not mean I have to do it.

Sure, I can go to another society and culture, disrespect their 'rules' and carry on as if the Lord on High will protect me regardless of the prudence (or lack thereof) of my actions. Along with these rights I believe I also have a free will. Making a choice to flaunt the realities is still a choice. Now, if it is wise or foolish is an entirely different debate.

[Greyfox]

That is the whole point of the thread, what we think. We think we have rights that exist beyond law. That is the entire basis for Western society, imo.

What do you think?

?

Off the top Tom said that this thread wasn't about health care.
So I'm not going there again.
With respect to rights I think similar to what you said.
I think choice is the defining core of what makes me human, within the understanding that I won't always get my way when others have values to be considered as well. There will be times when my choices I want to make will not be realistic considering the civilization that I am living in. If there are too many of those moments, your words sum it up best:

"I decide to live in this society, so I decide how I let the society infringe on my rights. If I don't like it enough, I will find somewhere else to live, or try increasingly to change the society." Chickenhead.

[Greyfox]

Ah yes, there's the rub.

There is a difference between having rights and exercising them.

The fact that others either deny that rights exist or do not want those rights manifested does not mean they are right and I am wrong. And just because I can do something does not mean I have to do it.

Sure, I can go to another society and culture, disrespect their 'rules' and carry on as if the Lord on High will protect me regardless of the prudence (or lack thereof) of my actions. Along with these rights I believe I also have a free will. Making a choice to flaunt the realities is still a choice. Now, if it is wise or foolish is an entirely different debate.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

how's this for a down and dirty way of figuring out what your rights are...

if it's your right, you should not have to say please and thank you.

if it's not your right, you should.

TEST:

I want to go for a walk down the street.

ANSWER:

Nope, I shouldn't have to say please and thank you.

TEST:

I want to discuss something with my friend in private.

ANSWER:

Nope, I shouldn't have to say please and thank you.

TEST:

I want my home to be safe without you attempting to rob me.

ANSWER:

Nope, I shouldn't have to say please and thank you.

TEST:

A group of total strangers is going to pay for a life saving operation I can't afford.

ANSWER:

[GaryG]

With all of the flap about lethal injection being cruel and inhumane there is a Tennessee death row prisoner arguing that he has the right to a painless death. He shot two policeman dead....doubt that they died painlessly. This is where we have gone with "rights".

[skate]

I can't disagree with you.
You want High School education as a "right."
By the views of many here, "Education is not a right."
However, it turns out to be a pretty good investment in the future.
Those with certified skills earn more and pay more taxes.

(By the way, to those who are wondering about who pays and who doesn't, I've always paid for my own health care coverage. I don't see that as being relevant to the discussion at hand regarding rights. To mention that only 3 have answered that question, I think that it's healthy that the majority have ignored it. It is none of my business whether or not any other contributors to this forum pay.)


agree!

your second point (who has coverage) would open a new Ball game. not the same topic.

[JustRalph]

If you are living alone on a desert island you can do anything you want.
When you live in a civilized society, what you can and cannot do will be agreed upon by you and those you are living in mutual cooperation with. As such whatever rights that you have won't be based on what you alone think your rights are. They will always be limited by some concensus.

Those are called Laws. They are different from "rights"

You ever notice how laws are constantly thrown out because they

"violate" the constitution? That means they violate someones rights.

Societies do not grant rights. They make laws that govern conduct. But, the minute those laws over-step rights, there is a problem. And that is what we are observing today. In almost every state.

Many jurisdictions are crossing these lines every day now. From smoking bans to gun laws.

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=JustRalph]Societies do not grant rights. QUOTE]

So who makes rights?

[skate]

Rights can be "for" all. they are available, but you can lose them.


Rights are not "to" all.

[chickenhead]

So who makes rights?

Who makes gravity?

[skate]

spin doctor

[GaryG]

spin doctor:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gittup]

[QUOTE=JustRalph]Societies do not grant rights. QUOTE]

So who makes rights?
Seems I remember Jefferson's words (and he was a Deist), "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I'll have to take a look at the Declaration of Independence to see if I've gotten it right, but that's the gist of it.
btw, "Rights" are quite different from "Laws". Rights remain, even after they've been violated. Laws can and are broken, by ordinary people, and presidents and vice presidents as well. Nothing remains afterwards except justifications and excuses. And, might I remind you that "Excuses are for losers, since winners don't need to make excuses. They've already won." ---W. Mahon

[jonnielu]

If you are living alone on a desert island you can do anything you want.
When you live in a civilized society, what you can and cannot do will be agreed upon by you and those you are living in mutual cooperation with. As such whatever rights that you have won't be based on what you alone think your rights are. They will always be limited by some concensus.

Your deep respect for the rights of others is getting obscured by your insistence that the individual owes something to his fellows.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Off the top Tom said that this thread wasn't about health care.
So I'm not going there again.
With respect to rights I think similar to what you said.
I think choice is the defining core of what makes me human, within the understanding that I won't always get my way when others have values to be considered as well. There will be times when my choices I want to make will not be realistic considering the civilization that I am living in. If there are too many of those moments, your words sum it up best:

"I decide to live in this society, so I decide how I let the society infringe on my rights. If I don't like it enough, I will find somewhere else to live, or try increasingly to change the society." Chickenhead.

But, society doesn't have a right to infringe on my rights, that is the Democracy bullshit at work. This nation is not now nor has it ever been a democracy, no matter how many times you want to call it one.

You have a right to choose to go live in a democracy, and you can excercise it right here in America by choosing to be a U.S. person under the 14th amendment, and the federal government assumes that you have made that choice. Go ahead, just remember that government has nothing to give you except what it takes from the other members of your society.
jdl

[jonnielu]

Rights can be "for" all. they are available, but you can lose them.


Rights are not "to" all.

In America, you surrender them, in trade for Democracy so that people like Bill and Hillary Clintax can decide what you need to live.

[Burls]

Those are called Laws. They are different from "rights"

You ever notice how laws are constantly thrown out because they

"violate" the constitution? That means they violate someones rights.

Societies do not grant rights. They make laws that govern conduct. But, the minute those laws over-step rights, there is a problem. And that is what we are observing today. In almost every state.

Many jurisdictions are crossing these lines every day now. From smoking bans to gun laws.

You seem like a nice guy, Ralph, from what I gather from your other posts.
But I have to say that you are talking pure horseshit here.
Have a look at my previous post in this thread (#69). It gives a basic outline of the different ways that the notion of a right is used by those in the know about such issues.

What you are claiming here is about as plausible to moral and legal philosophers as the claim that "This horse can't be a male because it's in a race for MAIDENS" is to horseplayers.

It's just nonsense.

Burls

[Burls]

Does anyone have a right to a house?
To go to college?
To have a job?

Yes to these now begs the question, who doesn't get this right and who has to pay for the others? If we are going to grant rights to only certain people, is it smart to penalize the productive?

Tom, this lame extreme right-wing drivel is beneath you.

Are you aware that every contemporary Western economy is inherently unstable with full employment? Full employment in a market economy would cause wages to skyrocket. This would result in spiralling inflationary pressures that would quickly ruin the monitory system, cause the stock and bond markets to go haywire, and paralyze the use of credit - which is necesary to facilitate the efficient exchange of goods.

Anyone who knows anything about contemporary economics knows that it is a bad thing for the unemployment rate to fall beneath 3% in a free market economy. Think about that.

It is simply not practically possible to have a free market economy where everybody works and everybody takes care of themselves and depends on no one. It's not feasible for an economy to have less than 3% unemployment for more than a very short time. The optimal unemployment rate for contemporary Western economies is between 5% and 7% depending on who you talk to. That's tens of millions of people in the US.

What do you propose we do about the large number of unemployed people in America, Tom? Tell them all to get jobs and quit sponging off the people who work for a living? If they did, the American economy would be destroyed. It's time to get your head out of Walden Pond and back into the real, interdependent modern world.

Burls

[JustRalph]

You seem like a nice guy, Ralph, from what I gather from your other posts.
But I have to say that you are talking pure horseshit here.
Have a look at my previous post in this thread (#69). It gives a basic outline of the different ways that the notion of a right is used by those in the know about such issues.

What you are claiming here is about as plausible to moral and legal philosophers as the claim that "This horse can't be a male because it's in a race for MAIDENS" is to horseplayers.

It's just nonsense.

Burls

Burls, I don't know you, but you are dead wrong. The so called "rights" Greyfox referred to in this thread are actually laws that are implemented by "societies" via the state legislatures. Rights come first and are different than societal dictates. That is why the constitution had to be amended to give women, "the right to vote" etc etc

Rights come from the founding documents and include those "inalienable" rights mentioned in those documents. The rules that we live by via our societal dictates are "laws" and they are two different animals.

Different societal dictates are more localized under our system. Rights are nationwide and unencombered by State and local societal dictates.

There are many different versions and definitions of "Human rights"
http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights?cat=biz-fin

But in this Country, your "rights" are derived from one place only. The Founding documents and the amendments of same. Societal dictates are completely different animals.

Now, a more specific discussion that would fit this thread would be discussing "moral rights" and then you can get into the different morals of different societies.............but in the United States that would lead to an argument tantamount to Religious discussion........which is another thread.

Healthccare is not in the list of rights in this country.

[Lefty]

Right you are J.R. It's pig simple: You have the right to pursue happiness, i.e. food, shelter, healthcare, a good job, but you do not have the right to have those things given to you at the expense of others.
rights and laws two completely different things. We keep tryin to tell the socialists that, but you know how that leftwing drivel is.

[jonnielu]

Rights come from the founding documents and include those "inalienable" rights mentioned in those documents. The rules that we live by via our societal dictates are "laws" and they are two different animals.

Different societal dictates are more localized under our system. Rights are nationwide and unencombered by State and local societal dictates.



Actually, societal dictates can not stand in the country founded by the Declaration. The fact that they do, and that Healthcare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the war on poverty are subjects of such vigorous debate, should point out that these things can only lawfully exist in some other nation then that which the people chartered with the Constitution of 1787.

That nation is chartered by the Constitution's 14th amendment, this is where the house divided. Where the unthinking, and well trained can be herded into one, the knowing can choose to remain in the other. Vigilance is the maintenence cost.

jdl

[ljb]

Right you are J.R. It's pig simple: You have the right to pursue happiness, i.e. food, shelter, healthcare, a good job, but you do not have the right to have those things given to you at the expense of others.
rights and laws two completely different things. We keep tryin to tell the socialists that, but you know how that leftwing drivel is.
Lefty,
Living in an efficient economy, anything we get is at the expense of others. No drivel here.

[Tom]

Tom, this lame extreme right-wing drivel is beneath you.

Are you aware that every contemporary Western economy is inherently unstable with full employment? Full employment in a market economy would cause wages to skyrocket. This would result in spiralling inflationary pressures that would quickly ruin the monitory system, cause the stock and bond markets to go haywire, and paralyze the use of credit - which is necesary to facilitate the efficient exchange of goods.

Anyone who knows anything about contemporary economics knows that it is a bad thing for the unemployment rate to fall beneath 3% in a free market economy. Think about that.

It is simply not practically possible to have a free market economy where everybody works and everybody takes care of themselves and depends on no one. It's not feasible for an economy to have less than 3% unemployment for more than a very short time. The optimal unemployment rate for contemporary Western economies is between 5% and 7% depending on who you talk to. That's tens of millions of people in the US.

What do you propose we do about the large number of unemployed people in America, Tom? Tell them all to get jobs and quit sponging off the people who work for a living? If they did, the American economy would be destroyed. It's time to get your head out of Walden Pond and back into the real, interdependent modern world.

Burls

Thank you for not having a clue what we are talking about. The point of all this was to stimulate a philisophical dicussion without political spin - a true menaing of what is a right and who has them. You have not given this any thought whatsoever and have mistakenly argued the wrong points. It has nothing to do with poor, homeless, helath care, whatever. You will never solve any problmes because you start out thinking you know the answers.
In fact, you don't even know the questions!

The very first word you posted were politcial, yet I have said nothing politcial and even outright said it was not political. You either read poorly or have a very closed mind. This is why outside this thread I do not advocate bi-partisan stuff - the left is not capable of intellignet dicussion. You have provided a perfect example of that.

[Tom]

The governemtn gets its power from the people, therefore, the people are the ultimate power. We have basic rights that no man nor institution can abridge.
Rights are universal to all men, equally. No one has more rights.
Rights are not dependant on economics.

I suggest those of you arguing the left/socialist aspec of this are not arguing the topic until you provide an argument as to why someone should have more or less rights. No one has done that yet. You cannot hinge rights on events alreay taking place.
Try this - mankind is just beginging - no societies exits, no tribes, no families....tow people...Adam and Eve, day one.

Establish a system of moral rights for societies of the future to live by. You have ne examples, no exceptions.

Now look at your arguments and throw out any that violate this criteria.
Think like people, not politicos.

Try it.

[jonnielu]

The governemtn gets its power from the people, therefore, the people are the ultimate power. We have basic rights that no man nor institution can abridge.
Rights are universal to all men, equally. No one has more rights.
Rights are not dependant on economics.

I suggest those of you arguing the left/socialist aspec of this are not arguing the topic until you provide an argument as to why someone should have more or less rights. No one has done that yet. You cannot hinge rights on events alreay taking place.
Try this - mankind is just beginging - no societies exits, no tribes, no families....tow people...Adam and Eve, day one.

Establish a system of moral rights for societies of the future to live by. You have ne examples, no exceptions.

Now look at your arguments and throw out any that violate this criteria.
Think like people, not politicos.

Try it.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/images/w.gifhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[Tom]

The big Q is, is it now time to review where we are and maybe do'er again?

[Overlay]

Try this - mankind is just beginging - no societies exits, no tribes, no families....tow people...Adam and Eve, day one.

Establish a system of moral rights for societies of the future to live by. You have ne examples, no exceptions.

Now look at your arguments and throw out any that violate this criteria.
Think like people, not politicos.

Try it.

Arguing over "rights" in such a setting would begin (from the left's persective) as soon as there was a perceived inequality in the distribution of resources, regardless of whether the disparity was the result of greater effort on the part of one person than another. In fact (accepting the Biblical account, or the lesson behind it), wasn't that the gist of the temptation and fall of man -- that (even though man was living in a paradise that God Himself created, and man would not even have existed without God's effort) it wasn't "fair" that man was not equal to God, and it was also not "fair" of God to be withholding from man something that would let him achieve that equality? (That shows you just how far back this argument goes.)

[Greyfox]

If the human race totally vanished off of the face of the earth, due to plague, atomic warfare, hit by an asteroid or whatever, would human rights still exist?

[Grits]

Tom, in continuing to tell everyone here to think like people, and to be philosophical and intellectual, and not politicos, here's your opening post.

You're stating this is not about healthcare, poverty, ability to buy a home, etc, etc........still those very things are the impetus that led to the questions you've asked in your opening post, and the very things you have continued to note in some subsequent posts. Note the references to (Healthcare), including (it), (HC), and (his) in the original.

I don't have to go back and try mankind JUST beginning.

In all honesty, reading the opening post again, you sound like the one that doesn't get it. And possibly, the only one, Tom.

I haven't ever viewed my rights as philosophical, Don't need to, but that's just me.

And its certainly good to see Overlay's note about fairness.

I'm sorry if I've angered you Tom.


Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?

[jonnielu]

The big Q is, is it now time to review where we are and maybe do'er again?

As easy as it would be, it is several years overdue. My best evidence:

Bill Clinton on national television dictating to the states what their legislatures shall write and pass. 1998?

The Clinton administration's armed kidnapping of a 6 year old citizen of the state of Fla, in order to stop an 11th circuit court of appeals case. This high crime was also televised nationally.

jdl

[Tom]

Grits, I alluded to those things because people keep saying they have a right to them. They do not. No one has a right to have someone else provide for him. As long as people keep believengh they have a right to someting, we will never be able to really solve prolems. You have a right to have access to health care, but you have no right to expect ME to pay for it.
Why not pass laws that doctors must treat all poor people for free? Grocery stores should have to provide free groceries to the poor? They are better suited to do it than I am.

Greyfox seems to think he has only the rights someone more powerful than he lets him have.

Overlay provided a good example. Adam and Eve thought they had a right to that apple. It was God's apple to give, not thiers to take, so I assume they were democrats because they STOLE it from God when they had no right to it.

Grits, is you make less money than me, do you have a right to take some of my money? That is the simple gist of it, which few seem able to grasp.

Not mad, in fact, kind of suprised so many here have demonstrated no aiblity to think beyond politics.

[Tom]

As easy as it would be, it is several years overdue. My best evidence:

Bill Clinton on national television dictating to the states what their legislatures shall write and pass. 1998?

The Clinton administration's armed kidnapping of a 6 year old citizen of the state of Fla, in order to stop an 11th circuit court of appeals case. This high crime was also televised nationally.

jdl

And Wako - government murder used to remedy total government incompetance from the beginnig.

[Greyfox]

Greyfox seems to think he has only the rights someone more powerful than he lets him have.

.

A downward and inadequate assimilation of what I believe.

[Grits]

Tom, this is a nice post, including the note on the Dems stealing. lol

I'm glad that you're not mad with me.

I probably make more money than you.

And I'll if you need healthcare, I'll share it 'cause I'm just that way.

Grits, I alluded to those things because people keep saying they have a right to them. They do not. No one has a right to have someone else provide for him. As long as people keep believengh they have a right to someting, we will never be able to really solve prolems. You have a right to have access to health care, but you have no right to expect ME to pay for it.
Why not pass laws that doctors must treat all poor people for free? Grocery stores should have to provide free groceries to the poor? They are better suited to do it than I am.

Greyfox seems to think he has only the rights someone more powerful than he lets him have.

Overlay provided a good example. Adam and Eve thought they had a right to that apple. It was God's apple to give, not thiers to take, so I assume they were democrats because they STOLE it from God when they had no right to it.

Grits, is you make less money than me, do you have a right to take some of my money? That is the simple gist of it, which few seem able to grasp.

Not mad, in fact, kind of suprised so many here have demonstrated no aiblity to think beyond politics.

[Tom]

A downward and inadequate assimilation of what I believe.

You sound like you think rights are dependent on what someone else allows you?

Whose rights are they, yours or someone else's?

[Greyfox]

You sound like you think rights are dependent on what someone else allows you?

Whose rights are they, yours or someone else's?

You sound like you think rights are independent of anyone else's opinions and you haven't answered the question:

If the human race totally vanished off of the face of the earth, due to plague, atomic warfare, hit by an asteroid or whatever, would human rights still exist?

(I forgot "Global Warming.":lol: )

[Tom]

Fox, what would it matter? Without man, there can be no rights of man. Something that doesn't exist cannot have rights.

[WeirdWilly]

Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

People keep talking about the “right” to healthcare, but who pays for it? Can it be a right is others are obligated to finance it? And if A gets his healthcare for free because he cannot afford it, how can B be denied because he can afford it? B is no w expected to pay for not only his own HC, which A receives for free, but A’s HC as well. One person pays for two HC plans and another gets his free. How can one person have more rights than another?



Is it fair that a person who works hard and earns more not only lose his right to free HC but also his right to keep the money he earns? Is it fair that a man who doesn’t work hard and earns less should be given free HC and allowed to keep not only whatever he does earn, but a portion of the other guy’s income as well?

If we all lived in isolation - fine, you can't afford it, you can't have health care. You get sick, you can't pay, got no insurance - TOO BAD, loser!

But we don't live in a vacuum. Other people's poor health can affect us. Whether it is from contagious diseases, or being less alert while driving, someone else's medical situation can directly and seriously impact us.

So, while it may veer from my natural free-market libertarian leanings, I say help people stay healthy. Not because of pie-in-the-sky liberal feel-good socialism, but for the selfish reason that I don't want my life screwed up by sick people.

[Tom]

So, while it may veer from my natural free-market libertarian leanings, I say help people stay healthy. Not because of pie-in-the-sky liberal feel-good socialism, but for the selfish reason that I don't want my life screwed up by sick people.


*sigh*

Is anyone capable of thinking deeper than the shallow end of the pool?
Where in any post did I say we should not help poor people? Where did I ever say we let people go without health care?

I have said several time not to think polticailly, and yet everyone comes back with more of the same.

OK., let's put this on your level of thinking....is EVERYONE entilted to free health care? If so, how much? Unlimited? Basic coverage?

You want to get specific, so get specific. Everyone, and how much?

Waitng.........

[Greyfox]

You are both missing the point. It is not about health care - it is about what is a right, and can you call something a right and then make it an obligation on someone else. .

Hmmm? And you said the thread was not about health care.

[Burls]

Thank you for not having a clue what we are talking about. The point of all this was to stimulate a philisophical dicussion without political spin - a true meaning of what is a right and who has them. You have not given this any thought whatsoever and have mistakenly argued the wrong points.

How can I put this Tom?
I make my living as a professional academic.
I've taught classes on ethics, ethical theory, and political philosophy for years.
I'm not rich, but I make a comfortable living.
I pretty sure I've read more books and articles on moral, political and legal philosophy than the expert handicappers on this board have read on horseracing.
Probably a lot more.
I've familiarized myself with all of the nuances of all the different positions people take on these matters.
I've debated with numerous informed, intelligent people regarding the nature, scope, and meaning of rights, and other related issues.

Trust me when I tell you, Tom, you're just displaying your ignorance and narrow-mindedness for all to see here.
I'm more familiar with the pros and cons of the highly problematic kind of 'rugged individualism' you presuppose than you could possibly realize.
You've been so deeply indocrinated in this regard that you mistakenly believe you are able to think for yourself here.

In any case, Santa Anita awaits.
I look forward to another of your delightfully surly harangues in response.

Burls

[WeirdWilly]

*sigh*

Is anyone capable of thinking deeper than the shallow end of the pool?
Where in any post did I say we should not help poor people? Where did I ever say we let people go without health care?

I have said several time not to think polticailly, and yet everyone comes back with more of the same.

OK., let's put this on your level of thinking....is EVERYONE entilted to free health care? If so, how much? Unlimited? Basic coverage?

You want to get specific, so get specific. Everyone, and how much?

Waitng.........

Obviously, the math doesn't work for everyone getting "Cadillac Coverage".

So who is -entitled- to free health care? You can make an argument that nobody is. You can make an argument that everyone is. Personally, I'm not looking to be the one who says "You, yes! You, no!" to people.

People need to be as self-reliant as possible. That said, we all need the help of others, whether we can afford to pay for it or not.

The only answer I can come up with is, economically productive people should pay their own way through life, and accept the fact that, while it may be unfair to have your wallet tapped by others, sometimes it improves your own safety, quality of life, and economic potential.

And sometimes it is just pure armed robbery!

[JustRalph]

Actually, societal dictates can not stand in the country founded by the Declaration. The fact that they do, and that Healthcare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the war on poverty are subjects of such vigorous debate, should point out that these things can only lawfully exist in some other nation then that which the people chartered with the Constitution of 1787.

That nation is chartered by the Constitution's 14th amendment, this is where the house divided. Where the unthinking, and well trained can be herded into one, the knowing can choose to remain in the other. Vigilance is the maintenence cost.

jdl

Great Post!

[chickenhead]

Burls said:

B) Moral Right - an entitlement against others that is morally justified

(Of course, which entitlements are morally justified and which aren't, and why, are matters of longstanding debate)

2A) Negative Moral Right - an morally defensible entitlement against others to not be physically assaulted or have your private property taken away
2B) Positive Moral Right - a morally defensible entitlement against others to have basic goods provided for you if you are unable to provide them for yourself. Standard examples are: basic health care, basic education, basic food and shelter, basic legal representation

which is more or less exactly what Tom is asking for, a debate, a defense, of the argument that there are positive moral rights, that you hold a claim to the wealth/labor/fill in the blank of others. Which you didn't engage in, you provided a wiki-pedia esque summary of the questions, that added nothing.



(Of course, which entitlements are morally justified and which aren't, and why, are matters of longstanding debate)

so you've basically ackowledged the worthiness of Toms question...but rather than attempt to answer it, you come back with some demeaning long winded rant that basically you are so well informed on the issue, and have spoken with so many intelligent people (as opposed to this group), that you are unable and unwilling to engage.

Does that sort of bullshit pass for an answer with your *more intelligent* companeros? Cause to me, it makes you look like an inflated ahole. I would think someone of your stature would be able to provide something other than condescension.

[JustRalph]

How can I put this Tom?
I make my living as a professional academic.
I've taught classes on ethics, ethical theory, and political philosophy for years.
I'm not rich, but I make a comfortable living.
I pretty sure I've read more books and articles on moral, political and legal philosophy than the expert handicappers on this board have read on horseracing.
Probably a lot more.
I've familiarized myself with all of the nuances of all the different positions people take on these matters.
I've debated with numerous informed, intelligent people regarding the nature, scope, and meaning of rights, and other related issues.

Trust me when I tell you, Tom, you're just displaying your ignorance and narrow-mindedness for all to see here.
I'm more familiar with the pros and cons of the highly problematic kind of 'rugged individualism' you presuppose than you could possibly realize.
You've been so deeply indocrinated in this regard that you mistakenly believe you are able to think for yourself here.

In any case, Santa Anita awaits.
I look forward to another of your delightfully surly harangues in response.

Burls


Burls, I think you make part of Tom's point for him. Much of this thread leaning to "health care" and "helping the poor" leads to a much larger discussion of "deserving poor" etc. Which this entire thread could be a lead into.

You may want to know that the fact that there is so much written and so much discussion of "rights" etc........by academics such as yourself........the true intent has been altered or expanded based on the philosophical leanings of the academics involved in making marked changes over the years. This hs obviously influenced those in power over the last forty years and I would argue, contributing to a a degradation of personal rights and an expansion of rights for the undeserving..............good discussion though. I give Tom credit for starting the thread

[ljb]

This discussion/debate has gone on for some time now. Can someone point me to a link where anyone said anybody had a RIGHT to healthcare/ education/ or any thing else ?

[Burls]

which is more or less exactly what Tom is asking for, a debate, a defense, of the argument that there are positive moral rights, that you hold a claim to the wealth/labor/fill in the blank of others.

I made an initial step in that direction in Post 102, Chickenhead.


which is more or less exactly what Tom is asking for, a debate, a defense, of the argument that there are positive moral rights, that you hold a claim to the wealth/labor/fill in the blank of others. Which you didn't engage in, you provided a wiki-pedia esque summary of the questions, that added nothing.



(Of course, which entitlements are morally justified and which aren't, and why, are matters of longstanding debate)

so you've basically ackowledged the worthiness of Toms question...but rather than attempt to answer it, you come back with some demeaning long winded rant that basically you are so well informed on the issue, and have spoken with so many intelligent people (as opposed to this group), that you are unable and unwilling to engage.

Does that sort of bullshit pass for an answer with your *more intelligent* companeros? Cause to me, it makes you look like an inflated ahole. I would think someone of your stature would be able to provide something other than condescension.

[chickenhead]

you made a condescending post that full employment is not realizable or desirable. It is a few hops, skips and a jump from that observation to deriving a moral right from it.

[Tom]

How can I put this Tom?
I make my living as a professional academic.
I've taught classes on ethics, ethical theory, and political philosophy for years.
I'm not rich, but I make a comfortable living.
I pretty sure I've read more books and articles on moral, political and legal philosophy than the expert handicappers on this board have read on horseracing.
Probably a lot more.
I've familiarized myself with all of the nuances of all the different positions people take on these matters.
I've debated with numerous informed, intelligent people regarding the nature, scope, and meaning of rights, and other related issues.

Trust me when I tell you, Tom, you're just displaying your ignorance and narrow-mindedness for all to see here.
I'm more familiar with the pros and cons of the highly problematic kind of 'rugged individualism' you presuppose than you could possibly realize.
You've been so deeply indocrinated in this regard that you mistakenly believe you are able to think for yourself here.

In any case, Santa Anita awaits.
I look forward to another of your delightfully surly harangues in response.

Burls

OK, since your an alleged scholar, take up the challenge in post 108.
And tell me why I am ignorant - specific posts and quotes, please.
Were the founding fathers ignorant when they wrote the Declaration of Independance? And, if your such a scholoar, why do your post show such littel in the way of thought or debate? Fact is, dude you still don't have a clue what this thread is about.

[Tom]

Obviously, the math doesn't work for everyone getting "Cadillac Coverage".

So who is -entitled- to free health care? You can make an argument that nobody is. You can make an argument that everyone is. Personally, I'm not looking to be the one who says "You, yes! You, no!" to people.

People need to be as self-reliant as possible. That said, we all need the help of others, whether we can afford to pay for it or not.

The only answer I can come up with is, economically productive people should pay their own way through life, and accept the fact that, while it may be unfair to have your wallet tapped by others, sometimes it improves your own safety, quality of life, and economic potential.

And sometimes it is just pure armed robbery!

So now, who gets to decide who gets it free and hwo doesn't?
A guy is an alcoholic, blows his paycheck on booze and get fired. So now, a guy running a Mom and Pop store, working `18 hours a day, 7 days a week, has to pay for this slug's health care?

How about drug addicts? Guys working full time jobs to support thier families have to shell out so they can lie aroiund getting high all day?

You are saying rights depend on who you are, and some people should have more rights than others?

[Burls]

you made a condescending post that full employment is not realizable or desirable. It is a few hops, skips and a jump from that observation to deriving a moral right from it.

Let me put it this way, Chickenhead.
I am a unashamed dilettante horseplayer.
It's a diversion that I came across later in life.
I never realized that betting on the ponies could be so much fun and so fascinating.
But I never bet more than I can comfortably afford to lose.
I know that sharp well-informed people are betting into the same pools that I am.

Since I came across this site, I've picked up all sorts of valuable insights about horseplaying from many of the posters here including you, Tom, and Just Ralph.
I think it's extremely unlikely that I would be able to pass any significant horseplaying insights on to any expert horseplayers that post here; especially those that are actually able to make a living from it.
But I keep coming here because I come to learn, and there's lots that can be learned here.
To be sure, there's lots of chaff here too, but that just makes it more interesting.

Now, some people think that certain posters come across as pretty arrogant when they post their opinions about horseplaying matters here.
I don't.
To me, they just come across as confident.
These people don't take kindly to the posting of ill-informed, poorly conceived ideas about an activity that has become one of their passions.
And rightly so, I say.
They have accumulated the kind of wisdom and deep insight that can only be gained from years of thoughtful horseplaying.
These are people who are worth listening to because they know what they are talking about.
I don't see any point in a guy like me getting into a confrontational debate with any of these experts about horseplaying issues.
They've got knowledge and understanding that I just don't have.
I'm hopelessly outmatched and I know it.

The tables are turned, however; when the topic of discussion is an essentially philosophical issue such as the nature, scope, and justification of rights claims.
I've never claimed that I'm more competent to discuss this kind of issue than the folks here because I'm more intelligent than them.
Anyone with a bit of common sense realizes that you come across smart and stupid people in pretty much every walk of life - including academia and horseplaying.
But I am claiming that I have an understanding of the philosophical intricacies and problems regarding the concept of rights that you folks just don't have.
It's taken years of concentrated philosophical activity to accumulate the kind of knowledge and understanding of these issues that I have.
I'd better know a lot more about this kind of stuff than you do.
I do this kind of thing for a living; you don't.

I'll end by saying that, in my estimation, this kind of philosophical discussion is best carried out in an extended series of back and forth exchanges. As I said, I tried to make a step in that direction in Post 102. But, I'm starting to realize that this attempt was a waste of time because there's too much rhetoric and too little reason appearing some of the posts here. Certain people just want to win the argument even if they don't really know what they are talking about.

Burls

[WeirdWilly]

So now, who gets to decide who gets it free and hwo doesn't?
A guy is an alcoholic, blows his paycheck on booze and get fired. So now, a guy running a Mom and Pop store, working `18 hours a day, 7 days a week, has to pay for this slug's health care?

How about drug addicts? Guys working full time jobs to support thier families have to shell out so they can lie aroiund getting high all day?

You are saying rights depend on who you are, and some people should have more rights than others?

At this point, I believe the only real right that anyone has is the right to the thoughts inside their head. Beyond that..every so-called right is regularly restricted.

I look at widespread medical care as less of a "right" and more of a convenience of civilization and an act of mercy.

So, anyhow, do we let the drunks and druggies die in the street? It might be rare, but sometimes they pull it together and become productive and self sustaining.

Beyond that, we are a merciful people. Sometimes that's inconvienent to folks who can squeeze a nickle till Jefferson screams, but it raises us above the barbarians that we are fighting.

[Burls]

OK, since your an alleged scholar, take up the challenge in post 108.
And tell me why I am ignorant - specific posts and quotes, please.
Were the founding fathers ignorant when they wrote the Declaration of Independance? And, if your such a scholoar, why do your post show such littel in the way of thought or debate? Fact is, dude you still don't have a clue what this thread is about.

Now that's the Tom we've all grown to know and love!

Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence that was originally intended to extend basic human rights to land-owning caucasian adult males only?

Hmmmmm...

No basic human rights for the indigenous North Americans.
No basic human rights for the imported African slaves.
No basic human rights for females.
No basic human rights for children.

Is 'ignorant' the word I want to apply to these racist, sexist authors?
I'll have to think about that for a bit.

Burls

[WeirdWilly]

Taking Tom's money away from Tom to provide health care for someone is stealing-plan and simple.

By that reasoning, taking Tom's money from him to fund a police department or a fire department is stealing if his house never catches fire and he is never robbed.

Healthy people may not be a direct benefit to him (and the rest of us), but they are an indirect benefit.

[JustRalph]

By that reasoning, taking Tom's money from him to fund a police department or a fire department is stealing if his house never catches fire and he is never robbed.

Just a note...........you are not too far off.

1. There is so much wasted money in Police work it is amazing.

2. Fire Departments are an even bigger waste of money. That is why cops call them "basement savers" that's usually all they save.......... :lol:

[DJofSD]

Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence that was originally intended to extend basic human rights to land-owning caucasian adult males only?

Hmmmmm...

No basic human rights for the indigenous North Americans.
No basic human rights for the imported African slaves.
No basic human rights for females.
No basic human rights for children.

Is 'ignorant' the word I want to apply to these racist, sexist authors?
I'll have to think about that for a bit.


So what if the orginal benefactors of the Declaration were land-owning white males? You must start somewhere and just because the initial step is imperfect does not mean the fundamentals are flawed. Would it be more perfect if the concepts captured in that document (and others that layed the foundation) had come from the Zulu's and were meant for only tribal lords?

You use ignorant in one post and stupid in another. I think if you reversed the words used, it would be more accurate.

[Tom]

At this point, I believe the only real right that anyone has is the right to the thoughts inside their head. Beyond that..every so-called right is regularly restricted. That is the point of the thread. What area rights - no one control or limit a right. They can prevent you from exercising it, but the they cannot take it away.

I look at widespread medical care as less of a "right" and more of a convenience of civilization and an act of mercy. Alright, now you're thinking along the lines I am thinking.

So, anyhow, do we let the drunks and druggies die in the street? It might be rare, but sometimes they pull it together and become productive and self sustaining. Again, nothing to do with rights. Sww, we can't solve these problem until we decide if people a right or not. Can drug addictin be a reason to give someone more rights than others?

Beyond that, we are a merciful people. Sometimes that's inconvienent to folks who can squeeze a nickle till Jefferson screams, but it raises us above the barbarians that we are fighting. Yes, we are, but do we help becasue we have to, becasue it their right to have part of our wealth?

Don't get bogged down in irelevant stuff - look at Post 108...that is all you have to go on at this point.:ThmbUp:

[jonnielu]

Overlay provided a good example. Adam and Eve thought they had a right to that apple. It was God's apple to give, not thiers to take, so I assume they were democrats because they STOLE it from God when they had no right to it.

.

:ThmbUp: The first act of Democracy.

jdl

[Tom]

By that reasoning, taking Tom's money from him to fund a police department or a fire department is stealing if his house never catches fire and he is never robbed.

Healthy people may not be a direct benefit to him (and the rest of us), but they are an indirect benefit.

Actually, I have no right as a person to have fire protection or police protection. Those are BENEFITS I earn by being part of a soceity and paying taxes to help pay for these things. This is what I am getting at.....the diff between rights and benefits. If my neighbor's jhouse catches fire, I am under no obligatin whatsoever to help put it out. No one is. So he has no right to have someone do that. He does, as a citizen, have a right to the benefit of societal asistance.

[jonnielu]

How can I put this Tom?
I make my living as a professional academic.
I've taught classes on ethics, ethical theory, and political philosophy for years.
I'm not rich, but I make a comfortable living.
I pretty sure I've read more books and articles on moral, political and legal philosophy than the expert handicappers on this board have read on horseracing.
Probably a lot more.
I've familiarized myself with all of the nuances of all the different positions people take on these matters.
I've debated with numerous informed, intelligent people regarding the nature, scope, and meaning of rights, and other related issues.

Trust me when I tell you, Tom, you're just displaying your ignorance and narrow-mindedness for all to see here.
I'm more familiar with the pros and cons of the highly problematic kind of 'rugged individualism' you presuppose than you could possibly realize.
You've been so deeply indocrinated in this regard that you mistakenly believe you are able to think for yourself here.

The hearty round of meaningless blather....

In any case, Santa Anita awaits.
I look forward to another of your delightfully surly harangues in response.

Burls

and he heads for the gate, ball in hand, leaving us nothing of substance to consider.

jdl

[Tom]

I made an initial step in that direction in Post 102, Chickenhead.


Tom, this lame extreme right-wing drivel is beneath you.


Way to start an intelligent dialouge. :D

Clearly, that one sentence shows you have totally missed the point of the thread. Not once did I make a political statement or suggest anything was political. I merely posed a serious, philisophical question which your have so been unable to reply to. Your socialist idealogy has prevented you from free thinking. Not unusual, especially amoung teachers. :rolleyes:

Care to try post 108, or is it material from a higher grade than you teach?

[jonnielu]

which is more or less exactly what Tom is asking for, a debate, a defense, of the argument that there are positive moral rights, that you hold a claim to the wealth/labor/fill in the blank of others. Which you didn't engage in, you provided a wiki-pedia esque summary of the questions, that added nothing.



(Of course, which entitlements are morally justified and which aren't, and why, are matters of longstanding debate)

so you've basically ackowledged the worthiness of Toms question...but rather than attempt to answer it, you come back with some demeaning long winded rant that basically you are so well informed on the issue, and have spoken with so many intelligent people (as opposed to this group), that you are unable and unwilling to engage.

Great grab :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Does that sort of bullshit pass for an answer with your *more intelligent* companeros? Cause to me, it makes you look like an inflated ahole. I would think someone of your stature would be able to provide something other than condescension.

A fine grip of the subtleties.;)

[jonnielu]

Let me put it this way, Chickenhead.
I am a unashamed dilettante horseplayer.
It's a diversion that I came across later in life.
I never realized that betting on the ponies could be so much fun and so fascinating.
But I never bet more than I can comfortably afford to lose.
I know that sharp well-informed people are betting into the same pools that I am.

Since I came across this site, I've picked up all sorts of valuable insights about horseplaying from many of the posters here including you, Tom, and Just Ralph.
I think it's extremely unlikely that I would be able to pass any significant horseplaying insights on to any expert horseplayers that post here; especially those that are actually able to make a living from it.
But I keep coming here because I come to learn, and there's lots that can be learned here.
To be sure, there's lots of chaff here too, but that just makes it more interesting.

Now, some people think that certain posters come across as pretty arrogant when they post their opinions about horseplaying matters here.
I don't.
To me, they just come across as confident.
These people don't take kindly to the posting of ill-informed, poorly conceived ideas about an activity that has become one of their passions.
And rightly so, I say.
They have accumulated the kind of wisdom and deep insight that can only be gained from years of thoughtful horseplaying.
These are people who are worth listening to because they know what they are talking about.
I don't see any point in a guy like me getting into a confrontational debate with any of these experts about horseplaying issues.
They've got knowledge and understanding that I just don't have.
I'm hopelessly outmatched and I know it.

The tables are turned, however; when the topic of discussion is an essentially philosophical issue such as the nature, scope, and justification of rights claims.
I've never claimed that I'm more competent to discuss this kind of issue than the folks here because I'm more intelligent than them.
Anyone with a bit of common sense realizes that you come across smart and stupid people in pretty much every walk of life - including academia and horseplaying.
But I am claiming that I have an understanding of the philosophical intricacies and problems regarding the concept of rights that you folks just don't have.
It's taken years of concentrated philosophical activity to accumulate the kind of knowledge and understanding of these issues that I have.
I'd better know a lot more about this kind of stuff than you do.
I do this kind of thing for a living; you don't.

I'll end by saying that, in my estimation, this kind of philosophical discussion is best carried out in an extended series of back and forth exchanges. As I said, I tried to make a step in that direction in Post 102. But, I'm starting to realize that this attempt was a waste of time because there's too much rhetoric and too little reason appearing some of the posts here. Certain people just want to win the argument even if they don't really know what they are talking about.

Burls

Another expenditure of air.... and he heads out once again... still leaving nothing of substance.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Now that's the Tom we've all grown to know and love!

Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence that was originally intended to extend basic human rights to land-owning caucasian adult males only?

Now you are starting a discussion that will leave you face down in the mud. Maybe you should write the Declaration on the blackboard 100 times before you proceed.

Apply all the power of your extreme intelligence, and tell me what part of the Declaration reveals that intention to you.

Hmmmmm...

No basic human rights for the indigenous North Americans.
No basic human rights for the imported African slaves.
No basic human rights for females.
No basic human rights for children.

Really?.... and how do fortify that take?

Is 'ignorant' the word I want to apply to these racist, sexist authors?
I'll have to think about that for a bit.

Burls

You may want to apply it, but the effort will be for naught, and only serve to demonstrate your own. Giddyup, let us see your stretch run.

Unless the name calling is the signal that you are already out of ideas and folding at the 6f pole like a $3500 claimer.

[Burls]

The governemtn gets its power from the people, therefore, the people are the ultimate power. We have basic rights that no man nor institution can abridge.
Rights are universal to all men, equally. No one has more rights.
Rights are not dependant on economics.

I suggest those of you arguing the left/socialist aspec of this are not arguing the topic until you provide an argument as to why someone should have more or less rights. No one has done that yet. You cannot hinge rights on events alreay taking place.
Try this - mankind is just beginging - no societies exits, no tribes, no families....tow people...Adam and Eve, day one.

Establish a system of moral rights for societies of the future to live by. You have ne examples, no exceptions.

Now look at your arguments and throw out any that violate this criteria.
Think like people, not politicos.

Try it.

Have you ever launched into something knowing that you're going to regret it later? Oh well ... here we go......

I suggest those of you arguing the left/socialist aspec of this are not arguing the topic until you provide an argument as to why someone should have more or less rights. No one has done that yet.

I don't think anyone is arguing that certain people should have more (or less) rights than other people. Both sides have been arguing that everyone should have the same rights. They just disagree about what those rights are.

If, for example, someone claims that every human being has a positive right to basic health care, they are claiming that EVERYONE has that right. If certain people choose to purchase private health care that is of higher quality than the available publically funded health care, they don't forfeit their right to basic health care. They simply choose not to exercise that right at that time.

The same considerations apply to negative rights. If, for example, someone claims that every human being has a right to travel freely throughout the country, they are claiming that EVERYONE has that right. If certain people choose not to ever leave Manhattan, they don't forfeit their right to travel freely throughout the country. They simply choose not to exercise that right at that time.

So I'm not sure why anyone in this discussion would be theoretically obligated to "provide an argument as to why someone should have more or less rights".


You cannot hinge rights on events alreay taking place.
Try this - mankind is just beginging - no societies exist, no tribes, no families....two people...Adam and Eve, day one.

Establish a system of moral rights for societies of the future to live by. You have no examples, no exceptions.

Now look at your arguments and throw out any that violate these criteria.

I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of a particular position on rights is theoretically obligated to present their position in a way that satifies these criteria. In fact, I think there are good reasons not to think about rights in these terms. For example, it seems to me that whether or not people have a positive right to basic health care will depend on whether or not the society they live in has the economic and technological wherewithall to provide basic health care for everyone without putting undue strain on the economy. By the same token, it seems to me that whether or not people have a negative right to travel and communicate freely will depend on whether or not the society they live in is sufficiently stable to allow such unrestricted freedom without putting itself in significant danger. For example, during a police strike in a large American city, curfews may be justifiable.


I'll end this post here.
I'm tired.
I'll start my argument for positive rights on my own terms in a later post.
Unless, of course, you present a sustained argument as to why I should accept your terms of discussion.

In the meantime, feel free to harangue away.

Burls

[Burls]

Another expenditure of air.... and he heads out once again... still leaving nothing of substance.

jdl

C'mon Jon, if you're gonna talk like that, we're gonna have to see some specific picks for tomorrow.

[Burls]

I figure I needed a new av and signature if I'm gonna keep posting on this thread.

[Greyfox]

You cannot hinge rights on events alreay taking place.[/i]

Burls
I presume you meant and said (I added the d to alreay):

"You cannot hinge rights on events already taking place."

I have problems with understanding that. Would you care to elaborate?

????Why can't I hinge rights on events...?

[Tom]

I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of a particular position on rights is theoretically obligated to present their position in a way that satifies these criteria. In fact, I think there are good reasons not to think about rights in these terms. For example, it seems to me that whether or not people have a positive right to basic health care will depend on whether or not the society they live in has the economic and technological wherewithall to provide basic health care for everyone without putting undue strain on the economy. By the same token, it seems to me that whether or not people have a negative right to travel and communicate freely will depend on whether or not the society they live in is sufficiently stable to allow such unrestricted freedom without putting itself in significant danger. For example, during a police strike in a large American city, curfews may be justifiable.


I'll end this post here.
I'm tired.
I'll start my argument for positive rights on my own terms in a later post.
Unless, of course, you present a sustained argument as to why I should accept your terms of discussion.

In the meantime, feel free to harangue away.

Burls


I set those criteria because hardly anyone was addressing the basic idea of the thread - most of all you, who STILL has no clue what we are talking about. If you taught philosophy, your students got cheated! I have tried to simplyfy it as much as Ican - you have to try to understand on some level.:bang:

Should some people have more rights than others? Should rights be dependent on income? Should those who work harder and earn more be penalized and have less rights than the less productive?

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

This was post 1......can you address it?

[Tom]

I presume you meant and said (I added the d to alreay):

"You cannot hinge rights on events already taking place."

I have problems with understanding that. Would you care to elaborate?

????Why can't I hinge rights on events...?

I said that - he was quoting me. What I meant was everyone keeps trying to answer my quesitn by using current event.

Example: A drug addict blows his paycheck......does he have a right to have me pay for his health care. Reply: What will we do about the drug addicts?
They need help.

It's like Clinton asking what IS is when asked if he had sex with that woman.

[Greyfox]

Example: A drug addict blows his paycheck......he had sex with that woman.

How long do drug addicts get paychecks to blow?

[chickenhead]

Burls:

My point was to try and goad you into actually discussing the topic, rather than yourself.

I have no reason to doubt what you've said about yourself (and the fact you've studied this more deeply than anyone here), my point is, if this topic is in your wheelhouse, get in the groove and do your thing. Don't make long winded posts how this is your specialty, without actually demonstrating it. What use is that, to anyone?

When people pop up in the horesy side, declaring their expertise, without demonstrating it...and act in a dismissive way, without contribution...they aren't going to be received well either...and rightly so.

I think it's great. Its the beauty of off topic on a group this diverse.

Want to talk computers, we have computer guys
Want to talk War, we have soldiers in the field
Want to talk Economics, we have Econ PhDs
Want to talk Ethics, we have Ethics Professors

I have a right to hear your take on this subject. :lol:

[Burls]

If you taught philosophy, your students got cheated!

That's the spirit Tom.
You're starting to come into form here.

[Burls]

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

As far as I can see Tom, that's the only way that a right can exist.
Rights and duties are just different sides of the same coin.

Here's a blurb I've lifted that summarizes the American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's influential characterization of the concept of a right.
It has become the standard conception of the concept of a right.
It applies to both moral and legal as well as positive and negative rights claims.

Previously, the concept of right had been defined in ambiguous terms. Put simply, Hohfeld argued that right and duty are corelative concepts, i.e. the one must always be matched by the other. If A has a right against B, this is meaningless unless B has a duty to honour A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so. Each individual is located within a matrix of relationships with other individuals.

The ascription of a right to some person is simply a way of ascribing a set of correlative duties to one or more other people who interact with the right holder.
So, it's unintelligible to speak of a right that does not imply one or more correlative duties.

Further, by their very nature, rights and their correlative duties are limited to interactions between persons only.
Suppose I claim that I have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked as long as I pose no threat to anyone else.
This is tantamount to claiming that everyone who comes into my immediate proximity has a moral duty not to physically attack me, unless I pose a threat to someone.

Now let's imagine I end up on a deserted island, the sole survivor of a shipwreck.
Does it make sense to claim that I still have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked?
What if a tiger or some other wild animal attacks me?
Is it plausible to claim that my rights have been violated by the tiger?
Nope.
Why not?
Because I have no right against tigers that they not physically attack me. Correlatively, tigers have no moral duty to not attack.
If a tiger does attack me, it's unfortunate, but it's hardly a moral issue.

I think it's time to put the ball in your court, Tom.

Please explain how it would even make sense to speak of a right that does not create an obligation for another.

Don't forget to throw in some personal shots and a few :bang: s.

Burls

[jonnielu]

C'mon Jon, if you're gonna talk like that, we're gonna have to see some specific picks for tomorrow.

Are you trying to suggest that I have no right to comment, unless I recognize a duty/obligation to give away intellectual property?

Or, are you saying that I leave nothing of substance?

jdl

[Pell Mell]

As far as I can see Tom, that's the only way that a right can exist.
Rights and duties are just different sides of the same coin.

Here's a blurb I've lifted that summarizes the American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's influential characterization of the concept of a right.
It has become the standard conception of the concept of a right.
It applies to both moral and legal as well as positive and negative rights claims.

Previously, the concept of right had been defined in ambiguous terms. Put simply, Hohfeld argued that right and duty are corelative concepts, i.e. the one must always be matched by the other. If A has a right against B, this is meaningless unless B has a duty to honour A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so. Each individual is located within a matrix of relationships with other individuals.

The ascription of a right to some person is simply a way of ascribing a set of correlative duties to one or more other people who interact with the right holder.
So, it's unintelligible to speak of a right that does not imply one or more correlative duties.

Further, by their very nature, rights and their correlative duties are limited to interactions between persons only.
Suppose I claim that I have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked as long as I pose no threat to anyone else.
This is tantamount to claiming that everyone who comes into my immediate proximity has a moral duty not to physically attack me, unless I pose a threat to someone.

Now let's imagine I end up on a deserted island, the sole survivor of a shipwreck.
Does it make sense to claim that I still have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked?
What if a tiger or some other wild animal attacks me?
Is it plausible to claim that my rights have been violated by the tiger?
Nope.
Why not?
Because I have no right against tigers that they not physically attack me. Correlatively, tigers have no moral duty to not attack.
If a tiger does attack me, it's unfortunate, but it's hardly a moral issue.

I think it's time to put the ball in your court, Tom.

Please explain how it would even make sense to speak of a right that does not create an obligation for another.

Don't forget to throw in some personal shots and a few :bang: s.

Burls

I agree with this post. You may have a right of choice to work for whom you please and the employer has a right to hire someone of their choice but, you have an obligation to produce a fair days work and the employer has an obligation to pay you a fair wage for said work. This is rather simply put but is just an example of what Burls has stated; rights and obligations are wedded to one another.

On the other hand I understand where Tom is coming from. When one becomes a druggie, this is basically a matter of choice. Drug addiction is now considered a disabling disease and as such makes the druggie eligible for SS benefits. Why should we pay for the druggies bad choice of exercising his right of choice?

As for health care; as I remember it, health benefits were originally provided to employees as a way around stepping into a higher tax bracket which might result from a pay raise.

[DJofSD]

Rights and duties are just different sides of the same coin.

I'm unsure if I agree with this framing.

If we can agree that a universal human right is a right to life, I can see where my parents have a duty, an obligation, to sustain me until I can fend for myself. Where does the duty come in for say others in my neighborhood, city, state, country, etc.?

[jonnielu]

I'm unsure if I agree with this framing.

If we can agree that a universal human right is a right to life, I can see where my parents have a duty, an obligation, to sustain me until I can fend for myself. Where does the duty come in for say others in my neighborhood, city, state, country, etc.?

The concept is bullshit, expounded by those that would want to put the chain on you for their benefit.

It implies that if you have a right, you could only have it in exchange for a duty that you would now be obliged to. It suggests that any right that you may have or enjoy has been extended to you by your fellow human beings...

i.e. your neighbors and fellow citizens (the government) is granting you a right, and now you owe a duty to them.

Bullshit, because your neighbors and fellow citizens (the government) are not the source of your rights, however, some in this body (mostly democrats, and basically socialists) would like to train you to a belief that your rights only come from them and are mostly a product of their learned wisdom.

In others words, they are better then you, and would prefer that you paid for the freebies that they would like to hand out to their serfs in exchange for their votes.

For the latest bullshit from these people, just listen to any Clinton speech, or wait 15 - 20 minutes for another shovel full to be thrown in here.

jdl

[Greyfox]

The concept is bullshit, expounded by those that would want to put the chain on you for their benefit.


Bullshit, because your neighbors and fellow citizens (the government) are not the source of your rights, jdl

jonnielu, out of curiousity, please explain to us what you think is the source of your rights.

[jonnielu]

I agree with this post. You may have a right of choice to work for whom you please and the employer has a right to hire someone of their choice but, you have an obligation to produce a fair days work and the employer has an obligation to pay you a fair wage for said work. This is rather simply put but is just an example of what Burls has stated; rights and obligations are wedded to one another.



Nah, this idea assumes that each party, brought together by excercise of their respective rights, now owes to each other some obligation, when they do not.

The relationship that is described is commonly called trade. This transaction between peoples is at its root an even exchange. Each party here has only an obligation to himself to satisfy the other party in order to continue trade, if each party has respect for the right of the other.

If, at the end of the day, one party is left short of an even trade, that party can excercise another right in remedy. But, each party can engage in this transaction with respect to his rights, and the other parties rights, without yielding his own, or infringing upon the others. And, none is left owing with respect to rights.

jdl

[jonnielu]

jonnielu, out of curiousity, please explain to us what you think is the source of your rights.

to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

[DJofSD]

...source of your rights

OK, let's cut to the chase.

I believe that human rights are not granted by other men. That's too subjective.

I believe these indelible rights are absolute, undiluted, permanent. They are not defined by a time nor a place.

If you insist on overlaying the ideas of obligations, duties, what is fair and what is not, there will be furtile ground to change the rights.

If you believe a right is an absolute, how can it be changed? I say, if you can change it, if it is not universally applied, immutable, then it is not a right. It's something else that is derived from the human condition. We're not talking about creations of law, society or the good will of our fellow human beings.

[Greyfox]

OK, let's cut to the chase.

I believe that human rights are not granted by other men. That's too subjective.

We're not talking about creations of law, society or the good will of our fellow human beings.

So if human rights are not granted by other men, who are they granted by?

[Greyfox]

to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

??? Sorry jonnielu, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Once again, what is the source of rights?

[DJofSD]

So if human rights are not granted by other men, who are they granted by?

They are not gifts. The concept of a right is not conditional. A gift is something that is given, or, not.

A right is a property of your existance. It is like the duality of matter and energy. You can have one and at the same time you have the other. They're the same thing but observed differently.

So, what is the source of the rights? I'll ask, what is the source of life and your existance?

[Greyfox]

A right is a property of your existance. It is like the duality of matter and energy. You can have one and at the same time you have the other. They're the same thing but observed differently.


So when a child is born it is accompanied automatically with these rights that we cannot see? Some type of combination like matter and energy?

[Pell Mell]

I can not continue this thread because I ran out of weed.;)

[DJofSD]

So when a child is born it is accompanied automatically with these rights that we cannot see? Some type of combination like matter and energy?

Whether you can see them or not is irrelevant.

A right is part and parcel of life.

[jonnielu]

??? Sorry jonnielu, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Once again, what is the source of rights?

God, or nature, if you prefer.

[Greyfox]

God, or nature, if you prefer.

Okay...that's interesting. Has God ever said directly to you and out loud:

"jonnielu these are your rights."

[jonnielu]

I can not continue this thread because I ran out of weed.;)

Did you check 20 paces south of the still?:cool:

[Tom]

Please explain how it would even make sense to speak of a right that does not create an obligation for another.

Don't forget to throw in some personal shots and a few :bang: s.

Burls

Hey, Brainiac---YOU started the insults. You want it at this level ,fine. You want it civil, than act like an adult. Google that if you don't know how.

If I were accept your premise, then should not rights be given to thsoe who actually contribute to society rather than those who leech off it?
And I emphatically do not agree - a right CANNOT create an obligation. A right is for eveyone and is equal for everyone. Otherwise it is not a right.
Does the right of free speech mean someone else cannot sat what he wants? Does the right to live free give me the right to own slaves to support it?

[jonnielu]

Okay...that's interesting. Has God ever said directly to you and out loud:

"jonnielu these are your rights."

Yes, and then I said it directly and out loud to everyone else. As a matter of fact, I said it directly and out loud to every officer of government from the President down to the Mayor and everyone in between. Do you think that any of them may have proposed that I am incorrect, if I were?

[Tom]

This is the guy who got me interested in this idea....

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html

[Tom]

I can not continue this thread because I ran out of weed.;)

Alright, you now have a right to free health care! :D

[DJofSD]

Thanks, Tom.

Key statement:
Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess.

[jonnielu]

This is the guy who got me interested in this idea....

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html

Walter E., one of the few academics that gets it. Always taking it hard and straight to the libs.

jdl

[Burls]

Hey, Brainiac---YOU started the insults. You want it at this level ,fine. You want it civil, than act like an adult. Google that if you don't know how.
For the average person, I would say that this is a pretty abrasive way to start a post.
But I know you can do better than this, Tom, if you really apply yourself.


If I were accept your premise, then should not rights be given to those who actually contribute to society rather than those who leech off it?
You'll have to explain how this claim relates to the post you are replying to.


And I emphatically do not agree - a right CANNOT create an obligation. A right is for eveyone and is equal for everyone. Otherwise it is not a right.

Thank you for reporting your beliefs, Tom, but this reply is no good.
Here's why.
In the post you are replying to (#158), I responded to the question:
Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?
by presenting an ARGUMENT for the claim that the notions 'right' and 'duty' are conceptually linked together in such a way that it doesn't make sense to speak of a right unless there is a duty or set of duties that are correlated with it.
I then challenged you to respond to this ARGUMENT by EXPLAINING how it does make sense to speak of a right that does not have a correlative duty or set of duties.
At this point in the discussion, whether or not it makes sense to speak of a right that does not have a correlative duty or set of duties is THE ISSUE AT HAND.
You can't RATIONALLY RESOLVE the issue at hand by simply STATING your beliefs on it - even if you do so emphatically.
You need to respond with an ARGUMENT or EXPLANATION that provides a RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your position on the issue at hand.
Pontification just wont do, Tom.
Put your thinking cap on and get to work.

Burls

[Greyfox]

Burls

I for one do not doubt your credentials Burls.

Off the top of the show though, Tom,
basically regurgitated, and almost duplicated,
what apparently a Prof had said.

The fact that Tom fessed up to this Prof's original rendering of
rights ultimately is to his credit.
The fact that Tom never mentioned this for a most of the postings was to
his discredit. (The fact is the Prof was wrong.)

Independent of that, the thread has been very revealing.
One poster has received direct communications from God.
Another poster admits that the child enters the world with rights hanging about it. They just are.

The bottom line is, your rights, whether you are born with them or not,
mean nothing, if the society that you are born into doesn't recognize them.

The question that I asked as to whether or not rights exist independent of man recognizing them was strictly for the Platonists in this debate.

And in that regard, I am certain that you Burls recognize that.

[DJofSD]

The bottom line is, your rights, whether you are born with them or not,
mean nothing, if the society that you are born into doesn't recognize them.

You come across as a free-thinker or a Humanist.

And you seemly do not agree that rights exist whether or not they are recognized by your fellow man. So, I take it, for you, there is no sound made when a tree falls in the forest when no one is there to hear it.

[chickenhead]

Previously, the concept of right had been defined in ambiguous terms. Put simply, Hohfeld argued that right and duty are corelative concepts, i.e. the one must always be matched by the other. If A has a right against B, this is meaningless unless B has a duty to honor A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so. Each individual is located within a matrix of relationships with other individuals.

To me the breakdown is occurring between the positive and negative right.

Let's say I have the right not to be attacked by you. So this creates an obligation that you should not attack me. There also exists the quid pro quo that I will not attack you. So we have exchanged something theoretically of equal value, neither of us will be attacked, and we both theoretically find that enhances our lives equally.

Another example would be slavery. We each have a right to the choosing and the fruits of our labor. I cannot enslave you, and you cannot enslave me. Both sides share the benefit and the cost.

Let's look at a positive right. If you need something, you are in the right to take it (hypothetically, right?). Likewise, if I need something you have, I am in the right to take it. If I am the one with the stuff, and you are the one without, there is no possibility of equity, is there? What do I get in exchange? The right and the obligation should be shared by both parties, no? One party is not supposed to enjoy the right, and the other the obligation alone.

Or do you take from me...until you have more...and then I take back from you....and then you take from me....and then I take from you....a positive right sounds more like a prescription for war than anything.

[Lefty]

burls, you're accusing Tom of being abrasive when you started a post with the statement that the rightwing drivel is beneath him? That sounds pretty abrasive to me. So i guess that education you brag about is from leftwing nutty professors. Hey, just like zilly. Maybe zilly has cloned himself.

[Burls]

burls, you're accusing Tom of being abrasive when you started a post with the statement that the rightwing drivel is beneath him? That sounds pretty abrasive to me. So i guess that education you brag about is from leftwing nutty professors. Hey, just like zilly. Maybe zilly has cloned himself.

Thanks for sharing that, Lefty.
That was really special.

[jonnielu]

I for one do not doubt your credentials Burls.

(The fact is the Prof was wrong.)

The bottom line is, your rights, whether you are born with them or not,
mean nothing, if the society that you are born into doesn't recognize them.

The fact and bottom line is that everyone in the American society including you is pledged to recognize the unalienable and immutable rights of others in a way that they cannot simply walk away from, or disregard. It is the fundamental principle of this nation.

If Prof Burls, or any other trainee, cares to apply some thought here, he may come to the conclusion that slavery in this nation was ended by the execution of our founding document.

We hold these truths to be self evident.....

I might believe that you are too ignorant to understand these simple words on paper, or that you are too stupid to understand the simple concept. But, as long as just one of us understands that we are forever bonded by this instrument, in support of each others rights, we both shall have them.

The bottom line.... for all that has come to divide this nation in 233 years, at the end of each day, we are still bonded in support of each others rights, and thereby, one Nation.

It is not possible that a racist could have written, signed, and pledged his life and sacred honor to these concepts in order to establish them.

The question that I asked as to whether or not rights exist independent of man recognizing them was strictly for the Platonists in this debate.

And in that regard, I am certain that you Burls recognize that.

If you piss down his leg, he might recognize that it is raining too.

jdl

[jonnielu]

To me the breakdown is occurring between the positive and negative right.

Let's say I have the right not to be attacked by you. So this creates an obligation that you should not attack me. There also exists the quid pro quo that I will not attack you. So we have exchanged something theoretically of equal value, neither of us will be attacked, and we both theoretically find that enhances our lives equally.

Another example would be slavery. We each have a right to the choosing and the fruits of our labor. I cannot enslave you, and you cannot enslave me. Both sides share the benefit and the cost.

Let's look at a positive right. If you need something, you are in the right to take it (hypothetically, right?). Likewise, if I need something you have, I am in the right to take it. If I am the one with the stuff, and you are the one without, there is no possibility of equity, is there? What do I get in exchange? The right and the obligation should be shared by both parties, no? One party is not supposed to enjoy the right, and the other the obligation alone.

Or do you take from me...until you have more...and then I take back from you....and then you take from me....and then I take from you....a positive right sounds more like a prescription for war than anything.

For a person that believes himself to be better, or above his fellows, the concept of Equality can be very difficult to grasp. A good grip may require the unhanding of some errant beliefs.

[Tom]

I for one do not doubt your credentials Burls.

Off the top of the show though, Tom,
basically regurgitated, and almost duplicated,
what apparently a Prof had said.

The fact that Tom fessed up to this Prof's original rendering of
rights ultimately is to his credit.
The fact that Tom never mentioned this for a most of the postings was to
his discredit. (The fact is the Prof was wrong.)

Independent of that, the thread has been very revealing.
One poster has received direct communications from God.
Another poster admits that the child enters the world with rights hanging about it. They just are.

The bottom line is, your rights, whether you are born with them or not,
mean nothing, if the society that you are born into doesn't recognize them.

The question that I asked as to whether or not rights exist independent of man recognizing them was strictly for the Platonists in this debate.

And in that regard, I am certain that you Burls recognize that.\

This whole dicussion has alludued, you hasn't it? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

For the average person, I would say that this is a pretty abrasive way to start a post.
But I know you can do better than this, Tom, if you really apply yourself.



Burls

1. I am hardy your average person.:cool:
2. Wear gloves.
3. I simplfied it so you could grasp it.
4. Sorry I did not post a cartoon - your assumed prefered level of debate.

[jonnielu]

The bottom line is, your rights, whether you are born with them or not,
mean nothing, if the society that you are born into doesn't recognize them.

The question that I asked as to whether or not rights exist independent of man recognizing them was strictly for the Platonists in this debate.



Platonists, that must mean village idiot, so perhaps I should break it down a little farther.

A couple of hundred years back, a fella named Wallace got the crazy idea that he had some rights. The King of England disagreed so heartily and did not recognize this notion to the point that he had Wallace drawn and quartered, hung his torso from London bridge to rot, and dispersed his body parts throughout England.

Apparently, his rights existed then, before then, and now. Many men have not recognized them, no man has ever eliminated them.
jdl

[Tom]

This whole dicussion has alludued, you hasn't it? :rolleyes:

46 must be sleeping late today....of course I meant ellude, not allude.
Wouldn't want that on my permenant record. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

\

This whole dicussion has alludued, you hasn't it? :rolleyes:

No Tom. You basically parroted what the Professor said in your opening thread.. Shame on you.
I think off of the top you should have said that you had read an interesting article and the ideas in it were a. b. c.... You didn't do that. You presented the opening post of this thread "as if" it were your own original thought. Sorry, but you've lost points in this department.

[Greyfox]

Platonists, that must mean village idiot, so perhaps I should break it down a little farther.

jdl

Projection noted.

Earth to jdl. Earth to jdl. Come in jdl. Earth to jdl. Please let us know what planet you are on. Earth to jdl....

[Greyfox]

You come across as a free-thinker or a Humanist.

And you seemly do not agree that rights exist whether or not they are recognized by your fellow man. So, I take it, for you, there is no sound made when a tree falls in the forest when no one is there to hear it.

I try to be a humanistic free thinker. Thank you.
I for one would believe by deduction that a tree would make a sound in a forest if it fell whether anyone heard it or not.
Plato used to believe in the transmigration of souls. In a previous spirit world we had seen the "rights." Whether or not they would be enacted in earthly societies or not would depend upon the degree of civilization that was achieved.
Hence, to a Platonic thinker, "rights" exist independent of whether or not man exists. And to a point that is what you have been arguing DJofSD. You're in good company with that belief.

[Grits]

No Tom. You basically parroted what the Professor said in your opening thread.. Shame on you.
I think off of the top you should have said that you had read an interesting article and the ideas in it were a. b. c.... You didn't do that. You presented the opening post of this thread "as if" it were your own original thought. Sorry, but you've lost points in this department.

When the link to Professor Williams was provided, my immediate thought, after reading his "bogus rights" statement.

. . . . this man is no different than any single individual that has posted in these several pages, he has written his own opinion, nothing more. One man who is a columnist, who has his own platform from which to speak--his own website.

I read each of his posted columns and noted too, the links he chooses to include at his website. The free speech thing keeps a good gig going. It helps to enlighten us all.

[Tom]

No Tom. You basically parroted what the Professor said in your opening thread.. Shame on you.
I think off of the top you should have said that you had read an interesting article and the ideas in it were a. b. c.... You didn't do that. You presented the opening post of this thread "as if" it were your own original thought.
Sorry, but you've lost points in this department.

Points? You keeping score?
I was trying to start a discusison. What points?
Do you credit everyone with every idea you have ever hear?
I heard parts of that article on Rush Limbaugh when he was a guest host. I did not visit his sight until yesterday. I thought it was a good thought and tried to get some discussion going. Silly me. Next time, I brign my spikes!

btw,
What do I get for my points - lawn chairs, dishes, tee shirts?
Zilly says the world is warning - is he guilty of pretnednig to discvover Earth?

You and the proff have a nice day. :rolleyes:

[Burls]

1. I am hardy your average person.:cool:
2. Wear gloves.
3. I simplfied it so you could grasp it.
4. Sorry I did not post a cartoon - your assumed prefered level of debate.
This is fine as far as it goes, Tom, but it's only part of the job here.
What we're waiting to see is a RATIONAL DEFENSE of your account of the nature of rights.


Let's review.
You posed the following question:

Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?

I presented the following RATIONAL RESPONSE to the question you posed.
I presented an ARGUMENT in favor of a different account of the nature of rights.
That argument was as follows:

As far as I can see Tom, that's the only way that a right can exist.
Rights and duties are just different sides of the same coin.

Here's a blurb I've lifted that summarizes the American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's influential characterization of the concept of a right.
It has become the standard conception of the concept of a right.
It applies to both moral and legal as well as positive and negative rights claims.

Previously, the concept of right had been defined in ambiguous terms. Put simply, Hohfeld argued that right and duty are corelative concepts, i.e. the one must always be matched by the other. If A has a right against B, this is meaningless unless B has a duty to honour A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so. Each individual is located within a matrix of relationships with other individuals.

The ascription of a right to some person is simply a way of ascribing a set of correlative duties to one or more other people who interact with the right holder.
So, it's unintelligible to speak of a right that does not imply one or more correlative duties.

Further, by their very nature, rights and their correlative duties are limited to interactions between persons only.
Suppose I claim that I have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked as long as I pose no threat to anyone else.
This is tantamount to claiming that everyone who comes into my immediate proximity has a moral duty not to physically attack me, unless I pose a threat to someone.

Now let's imagine I end up on a deserted island, the sole survivor of a shipwreck.
Does it make sense to claim that I still have a negative moral right not to be physically attacked?
What if a tiger or some other wild animal attacks me?
Is it plausible to claim that my rights have been violated by the tiger?
Nope.
Why not?
Because I have no right against tigers that they not physically attack me. Correlatively, tigers have no moral duty to not attack.
If a tiger does attack me, it's unfortunate, but it's hardly a moral issue.


It was then incumbent on you to RATIONALLY DEFEND your position by presenting an ARGUMENT or EXPLANATION responding to the argument that was presented to you.

Your response was as follows:

And I emphatically do not agree - a right CANNOT create an obligation. A right is for eveyone and is equal for everyone. Otherwise it is not a right.


I provided a RATIONAL ARGUMENT that explains why this kind of response is not acceptable.
It was as follows:

Thank you for reporting your beliefs, Tom, but this reply is no good.
Here's why.
In the post you are replying to (#158), I responded to the question:
Can a right exist for one if it creates an obligation for another?
by presenting an ARGUMENT for the claim that the notions 'right' and 'duty' are conceptually linked together in such a way that it doesn't make sense to speak of a right unless there is a duty or set of duties that are correlated with it.
I then challenged you to respond to this ARGUMENT by EXPLAINING how it does make sense to speak of a right that does not have a correlative duty or set of duties.
At this point in the discussion, whether or not it makes sense to speak of a right that does not have a correlative duty or set of duties is THE ISSUE AT HAND.
You can't RATIONALLY RESOLVE the issue at hand by simply STATING your beliefs on it - even if you do so emphatically.
You need to respond with an ARGUMENT or EXPLANATION that provides a RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your position on the issue at hand.

Your response to that was disappointingly irrelevant.

1. I am hardy your average person.:cool:
2. Wear gloves.
3. I simplfied it so you could grasp it.
4. Sorry I did not post a cartoon - your assumed prefered level of debate.


I know it's more fun to just direct criticisms at me but you need to focus on THE CONTENT OF THE ARGUMENT that has been presented to you.
Whether or not I have various personal shortcomings has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the argument I presented against your position is a good one.
If you want to maintain that its reasonable to continue to hold your position, you need to provide a RATIONAL RESPONSE to THE CONTENT OF THIS ARGUMENT.

I say this because I'm worried about you, Tom.
People might take your failure to provide the needed rational response here as evidence that you aren't capable of providing such a response because you don't really know what you are talking about.
We can't have that now, can we?
Silence the gainsayers, Tom, and RATIONALLY DEFEND your position here.

Fell free to take more person shots at me, of course.
But what we're really looking for is a RATIONAL DEFENSE of your controversial position.

Burls

[JustMissed]

By that reasoning, taking Tom's money from him to fund a police department or a fire department is stealing if his house never catches fire and he is never robbed.

Healthy people may not be a direct benefit to him (and the rest of us), but they are an indirect benefit.

Willy, local taxes are completely different than federal taxes.

Tom gets to vote every year on how much he pays toward and is spent on all local public services provided to him and his neighbors.

His city/county budget is published in his local newspaper one or more times and he has plenty of opportunity to go to the many budget meeting.

Also, he is mailed a TRIM notice each year prior to the assessment of local taxes which shows the millage rate for each governmental service and exactly how much the local fire, police, schools, etc. expects him to kick in.

Plus, Tom has the right to go down to city hall, the police station or the fire station an see exactly how his money is being spent plus he call raise holy hell with his councilman/supervisor if he thinks his money is not being spent properly. Plus, if his city is not handling the money the way Tom wants, he has the right to move out into the county or to another city for that matter.

Now when the federal government takes Tom's money via federal income tax and uses that money for an entitlement program for which Tom has no say so or contro-then that is theivery-plain and simple.

You must remember that Tom's state has its own Constitution and its own rights as an entity upon itself. I have not read the New York constitution but I do not believe it guarantees its citizens free health care.

JM

p.s. Moot point really. National health coverage will never get passed. Too easy for the politicians to steal the money under the current insurance system. Gee, every wonder who helps our fine law makers draft those bills?

[Tom]

Burls, try a night class in reading comprehenison.

I already said a right cannot impose an obligation on another person. Rights are free, cost no money, and are equally shared by all. It is that simple. All the troll-crap you throw at it to amuse yourself changes nothing.
Right and duties are mutally exclusive. The only duty that comes to play is the individual's duty to secure what he has a right to without my help. I have a right to obtain helath care - no one has an obligatin to provide to to me.

End of story.

Oh, and save the concern for me....I 've been vacinated against trolls. :lol:

[JustRalph]

Willy, local taxes are completely different than federal taxes.


Not so fast Jmissed. There is tons of money in the form of grants that come down the pipeline for local police and fire and sewer etc. In fact Bill Clinton gave away so much money in 94-95 the joke in the Police Union I was a rep for was " as long as he keeps granting, we keep smiling and act like we will vote for him" and that came right out of the National chairman's mouth.

Tons of Federal money comes down for stupid crap at the local level.

[Burls]

I already said a right cannot impose an obligation on another person. Rights are free, cost no money, and are equally shared by all. It is that simple. All the troll-crap you throw at it to amuse yourself changes nothing.
Right and duties are mutally exclusive. The only duty that comes to play is the individual's duty to secure what he has a right to without my help. I have a right to obtain helath care - no one has an obligatin to provide to to me.

End of story.


So, instead of presenting an argument in favor of your non-standard way of characterizing the notion of rights, when repeatedly invited to, once again, you SIMPLY STATE this non-standard position as if it were obviously true.

Sadly, it becomes clear to all that you don't really know what you are talking about here.
That's okay though, Tom, you'll always be a legend in your own mind.
No one can take that away from you.

Burls

[JustMissed]

Not so fast Jmissed. There is tons of money in the form of grants that come down the pipeline for local police and fire and sewer etc. In fact Bill Clinton gave away so much money in 94-95 the joke in the Police Union I was a rep for was " as long as he keeps granting, we keep smiling and act like we will vote for him" and that came right out of the National chairman's mouth.

Tons of Federal money comes down for stupid crap at the local level.

Ralph, look what they have done since 9/11.

The Department of Homeland Security has sent out so much money the cops don't even know what to do with it.

Heck, most departments have bought enough stun guns to stun every man, woman and child in America, twice!

By the way, do you know what Security Color it is today. I'm thinking it's Monday so maybe we are on Code Blue.

JM :)

[JustMissed]

http://www.dhs.gov/threat_level/current_new.gif

Yellow, not Blue-sorry about that.

JM

[skate]

Just a note...........you are not too far off.

1. There is so much wasted money in Police work it is amazing.

2. Fire Departments are an even bigger waste of money. That is why cops call them "basement savers" that's usually all they save.......... :lol:

More money wasted, if they only save the third floor. that's why the police are mazing.:D

[skate]

This is the guy who got me interested in this idea....

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/bogus.html

oh yeh, Walter Williams, great thinker.

[Lefty]

Walter Williams teaches economics and unlike some self described "smart" guys on this board, he is a great thinker.

[jonnielu]

Not so fast Jmissed. There is tons of money in the form of grants that come down the pipeline for local police and fire and sewer etc. In fact Bill Clinton gave away so much money in 94-95 the joke in the Police Union I was a rep for was " as long as he keeps granting, we keep smiling and act like we will vote for him" and that came right out of the National chairman's mouth.

Tons of Federal money comes down for stupid crap at the local level.

You send the feds $10, they provide you $2 worth, and send you back $1.37.

What is to smile about?

jdl

[jonnielu]

So, instead of presenting an argument in favor of your non-standard way of characterizing the notion of rights, when repeatedly invited to, once again, you SIMPLY STATE this non-standard position as if it were obviously true.

Sadly, it becomes clear to all that you don't really know what you are talking about here.
That's okay though, Tom, you'll always be a legend in your own mind.
No one can take that away from you.

Burls

Everyone is a jurist, and your's is a dime a dozen, his argument is full of holes.

The rights being discussed are not given by the prince, he has no greater right then anyone else. Since no right is granted, there is no duty connected.

Since the rights are not bestowed by another, holding them creates only one thing that may be similar to a duty or obligation, but differs, as it is instilled rather then imposed. It is a responsibility. A responsibility that the citizen can not abdicate without diminishing his own standing. The duty that arises from that responsibility is a duty to ones self. The citizen can only infringe on his neighbors rights at the expense of his own.

Tell me again that the 56 were rascists.

jdl

[JustRalph]

http://www.dhs.gov/threat_level/current_new.gif

Yellow, not Blue-sorry about that.

JM


It's always green in Washington............green with our money

[Tom]

So, instead of presenting an argument in favor of your non-standard way of characterizing the notion of rights, when repeatedly invited to, once again, you SIMPLY STATE this non-standard position as if it were obviously true.

Sadly, it becomes clear to all that you don't really know what you are talking about here.
That's okay though, Tom, you'll always be a legend in your own mind.
No one can take that away from you.

Burls

If you could read without colorful little pictures, Ihave done that. you inability to comprehend is amazing. But then, that is not your purpose here, is it? It was obvious what your are from your first post here. But your turn to be even more of a waste ot time than even Iimageined. Try this example: you have the right to post any stupid thing you want to here, but I am under no obligation to read it? Allow me to make this post easier for you to understand.....

[Tom]

You send the feds $10, they provide you $2 worth, and send you back $1.37.

What is to smile about?

jdl The $1.37 ;)

[jonnielu]

The $1.37 ;)

Nobody can say that you don't have a good attitude about it. Walter Williams always says that he would think that his dependants could at least send him a fathers day card.:D

[Burls]

For those of you who are interested in thinking through a philosophical issue in a systematic way, it might be worthwhile to go through Walter E Williams' short essay entitled 'Bogus Rights' in a line by line fashion, one paragraph at a time.

Here are the first few lines of the essay.

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right.

Williams begins with three controversial questions designed to grab the reader's attention.
He then maintains that we have to step back and make sure that we understand exactly what rights are before we attempt to answer questions like these.
Otherwise we have no hope of arriving at coherent answers.
We clarify an abstract issue first; only then do we move on to the concrete questions.
This is an effective introductory tactic.
It nicely connects the abstract problem of clarifying the essential nature of a right with some concrete questions that continue to be hotly debated.

How should we begin the process of attempting to arrive at a correct understanding of an abstract concept like that of a right?
Concepts like rights are simultaneously familiar and mysterious.
This is what makes understanding them so frustrating.
Most of us have been familiar with the word 'right' since we were small children.
Yet, many adults are still not sure what the word means in any exact way.
On the one hand, pretty much everyone knows how to use the word properly.
On the other hand, most people would find it pretty difficult to define the word with any precision.

Williams suggests that we turn to the framers of the US Constitution for some help here.

The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another.

At this point, the reader has to rationally consider whether or not Williams's suggestion is a promising one.

There are two potential problems that could arise here.

1) It could be that Williams is not accurately describing the notion of rights used by the framers of the US Constitution.
I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that he is accurately characterizing the notion of rights used by the framers of the US Constitution.
This leads us to the second and more central issue.

2) The mere fact that the framers of the US Constitution composed an historically important document doesn't guarantee that the notion of rights contained in that document is an accurate one.
Maybe it is.
But, then again, maybe it isn't.
It could be that the framers of the US Constitution had come to a deep and accurate understanding of the nature of a right.
But, it could also be that they were operating with a distorted and inaccurate conception of what a right is.


At this early point, the reader needs to approach the issue with an open mind and carefully consider whether or not a rationally compelling case can be made for accepting the notion of rights used by the framers of the US Constitution.
Careful consideration may lead us to the conclusion that such a rationally compelling case can be made.
Or it may lead us to the conclusion that such a rationally compelling case can't be made.

Williams completes the paragraph with some examples to illustrate the concept of right he is recommending.

For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

One thing to notice here is that Williams qualifies his initial claim that the possession of a right by one person imposes no obligation on another.
He admits that:
My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

This adjustment might strike you as too trivial to even mention, but, in fact, it is theoretically significant.
Why?
Because it reveals that Williams accepts the same Hohfeld-inspired model of rights as every other contemporary rights theorist.
Williams admits that the possession by Jane of the negative right to free speech conceptually presupposes that other people have an obligation not to interfere with Jane's exercise of that negative right.
Tigers have no such obligation, however.
Her negative right to free speech places obligations on people only.

Suppose we accept that.
What effect does it have on Williams's case for a particular way of understanding the nature of a right which can then be used to address the controversial concrete questions he begins his essay with.
The answer is that the effect is subtle, but may turn out to be important.
Williams's admission commits him to the following position on rights, which is commonly held by libertarian thinkers.

The only genuine rights are those which place the kind of MINIMAL OBLIGATIONS on other people that negative rights do. It is UNREASONABLE for anyone to reject such minimal obligations. On the other hand, so-called positive rights are not genuine rights because the kinds of obligations they place on other people are UNREASONABLY ONEROUS. It is REASONABLE for someone to reject such ONEROUS OBLIGATIONS.

This is the position on rights that the framers of the US Constitution held, and that Walter E Williams and other contemporary libertarians hold.
It may turn out that this position is entirely correct.
It may turn out that this position needs minor modifications.
It may turn out that this position needs to be completely rejected.

A rational person who wants to get at the truth here will suspend judgment on these issues until we give this position on rights appropriate rational scrutiny.
We'll begin to do this when we consider the case Williams begins to make for his position on rights, in the second paragraph of his essay.

The worst thing to do at this point would be to stomp up and down like an idiot repeatedly insisting that rights and duties are mutally exclusive. That would just show everyone that you've still got your head up your ass.

Burls

[Greyfox]

The worst thing to do at this point would be to stomp up and down like an idiot repeatedly insisting that rights and duties are mutally exclusive. That would just show everyone that you've still got your head up your ass.

Burls

:lol: :lol:

A fascinating analysis.
Any way you carve it when you live in a particular society, the rights that you will be entitled to will be agreed upon by that society and/or who governs them.
There may be rights that the society doesn't agree to, but they'll be of no value unless society recognizes them. For instance, of what good are your rights in a Gulag, if the commandante says they don't exist?
In 1948 a group of nations sat down and agreed to
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
a universal declaration of human rights.
Against this particular list, any nation's standards can be measured.
For example, the right to own property is endorsed, yet there are country's on this planet where the state owns the property not the individual.
So essentially, I am saying that the actual process of developing and recognizing rights takes human discussion and agreement. Once those agreements are reached, there will be obligations for each of us to make in order to maintain those rights. The maintenance of rights is based on the interdependce of citizens within any nation.

[JustRalph]

That would just show everyone that you've still got your head up your ass.

Burls

nice............you are turning into background noise

[jonnielu]

For those of you who are interested in thinking through a philosophical issue in a systematic way,

Before you get going down this yellow brick road, you might look to see if any but idiots are behind you. In our Nation, rights are not a philosophical issue.


it might be worthwhile to go through Walter E Williams' short essay entitled 'Bogus Rights' in a line by line fashion, one paragraph at a time.

Here are the first few lines of the essay.

Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right.

Williams begins with three controversial questions designed to grab the reader's attention.

There is no controversy just because the cattle that you have herded up think that they have a right to medical treatment, such a right has not been established within the founding documents of our Nation.

It can not be recognized as a natural right by our founding documents because it could only exist if people gave it. If people gave it, then duties and obligations would arise in connection with it. As if it were awarded or dispensed by the prince.

This is not possible in our Nation, we have chartered our Nation with dedication to the principle concept of equality.

He then maintains that we have to step back and make sure that we understand exactly what rights are before we attempt to answer questions like these.


Otherwise we have no hope of arriving at coherent answers.
We clarify an abstract issue first; only then do we move on to the concrete questions.

That is not what he says at all, there is no abstract issue, when you get done writing the Declaration on the blackboard 100 times, write Walter's first paragraph on the other blackboard 100 times too.

This is an effective introductory tactic.

Only an introductory tactic for cattle herders, and only effective when herding cattle.

It nicely connects the abstract problem of clarifying the essential nature of a right with some concrete questions that continue to be hotly debated.

The things that you pull out of your ass should be flushed, not thrown up on the wall, such as any attempt to liken settled, established, and fundamental principles to abstract problems.

The subject of rights in our nation only presents abstract problems to those cattle herders that need to drive their herd across the property of others for new grazing and fresh territory to leave the manure.

How should we begin the process of attempting to arrive at a correct understanding of an abstract concept like that of a right?


Concepts like rights are simultaneously familiar and mysterious.
This is what makes understanding them so frustrating.

There is no mystery. Correct yourself, then we can continue.

Burls

Do something with that manure too.
jdl

[jonnielu]

:lol: :lol:

A fascinating analysis.
Any way you carve it when you live in a particular society, the rights that you will be entitled to will be agreed upon by that society and/or who governs them.
There may be rights that the society doesn't agree to, but they'll be of no value unless society recognizes them. For instance, of what good are your rights in a Gulag, if the commandante says they don't exist?
In 1948 a group of nations sat down and agreed to
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
a universal declaration of human rights.
Against this particular list, any nation's standards can be measured.
For example, the right to own property is endorsed, yet there are country's on this planet where the state owns the property not the individual.
So essentially, I am saying that the actual process of developing and recognizing rights takes human discussion and agreement. Once those agreements are reached, there will be obligations for each of us to make in order to maintain those rights. The maintenance of rights is based on the interdependce of citizens within any nation.

I'd wager that you have a lot of siding salesman stopping by.

jdl

[Tom]

Greyfox has always been dependent on the kindness of strangers.:D

Explains his strange new friend, Mr. Wizzard.


IGGY, table for two. Smoking or non smoking?

[Greyfox]

It has nothing to do with being dependent on strangers.
It has everything to do with mutual cooperation and hammering out what rights are via discussion and agreement. No individual can declare such and such is a right without agreement of the society that they are living in. It's just that simple and Tom and jdl just don't get it.
Now of course any particular individual may be correct in that there are more universal "rights" than their country is willing to acknowledge. However, until they convince the government and citizens of that country that these other rights should be acknowledged their efforts will be for naught.
Also, one has to be every dilligent of the possibility of losing established rights especially with the evolution of technology.
For example, implanting prisoners with electronic monitoring devices is a bit concerning. That's only one step away from implanting babys at birth with similar devices and that is truly frightening.

Yet Tom and jdl write as if their rights are immutable and do not depend on society at all. Head in sand guys.
I plan on making inputs on my rights in developing them and protecting them.
Get that straight.

On the other hand one has to beware that there may be attempts by society to diminish what rights have been established. For example:
1. Schwarznegger and the State of California wants to control thermostats in homes. I would consider this a serious loss of rights.

http://www.dailytech.com/California+Plans+to+Control+Home+Thermostats+Via+I nternet+Radio/article10324.htm

2. In Britian the government is proposing that Organ donations will be assumed as a right for the state to take unless the individual writes a card saying No.
In effect, consent would be presumed as given unless you indicate you want to opt out.
Once again I would consider this a loss of rights.

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=464514&lng=1

I also want to make it clear that I am not part of a "Tag Team" with Burls.
I'm sure we both consider ourselves too independent for that kind of arrangement. Unfortunately, the two of you don't seem to be interested in any discussion mode, prefering instead to try to put in putdowns and insulting attacks. Won't work with me lads.

[Tom]

It has nothing to do with being dependent on strangers.
It has everything to do with mutual cooperation and hammering out what rights are via discussion and agreement. That is exactly what our founding Fathers did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. No individual can declare such and such is a right without agreement of the society that they are living in. It's just that simple and Tom and jdl just don't get it. Yes, they can, and they did.
Now of course any particular individual may be correct in that there are more universal "rights" than their country is willing to acknowledge. However, until they convince the government and citizens of that country that these other rights should be acknowledged their efforts will be for naught. It has nothing to do with getting the government to agree. Britain did not agree - we had to go war to get our way.
Also, one has to be every dilligent of the possibility of losing established rights especially with the evolution of technology. It is not about losing rights - it is about someone preventing you from exercising them, but you still have them.
For example, implanting prisoners with electronic monitoring devices is a bit concerning. That's only one step away from implanting babys at birth with similar devices and that is truly frightening.

Yet Tom and jdl write as if their rights are immutable and do not depend on society at all. Head in sand guys. No. Man creates society and governemtn. The governement has the responsibility to not violate those rights. This is why our FF wrote Bill of Rights - they wanted to ensure that these rights were always protected. They wrote that when a government did ot respect human rights, it had to be overthrown, and did it.
I plan on making inputs on my rights in developing them and protecting them.
Get that straight.

On the other hand one has to beware that there may be attempts by society to diminish what rights have been established. For example:
1. Schwarznegger and the State of California wants to control thermostats in homes. I would consider this a serious loss of rights.

http://www.dailytech.com/California+Plans+to+Control+Home+Thermostats+Via+I nternet+Radio/article10324.htm

2. In Britian the government is proposing that Organ donations will be assumed as a right for the state to take unless the individual writes a card saying No.
In effect, consent would be presumed as given unless you indicate you want to opt out.
Once again I would consider this a loss of rights.

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=464514&lng=1

I also want to make it clear that I am not part of a "Tag Team" with Burls.
I'm sure we both consider ourselves too independent for that kind of arrangement. Unfortunately, the two of you don't seem to be interested in any discussion mode, prefering instead to try to put in putdowns and insulting attacks. Won't work with me lads. I have tried to dicuss this, it was Burls who stared the put downs and smart talk. You seem to have drifted towards his mode. We were discussing things until he came along, I thought.

My original idea was that a right was shared equally by all people, and that it did not impose an obligation on others. I tried several times to get you to address that, but you kept going in other directions, so I stopped bothering with you. Your postion, still, seems to me that right are dependant on what you are allowed. I saw/see no value in dicussing it any further with either of you. JDl and a few others seem to get it alright.

Smoking or non?:bang:

[jonnielu]

It has nothing to do with being dependent on strangers.
It has everything to do with mutual cooperation and hammering out what rights are via discussion and agreement. No individual can declare such and such is a right without agreement of the society that they are living in. It's just that simple and Tom and jdl just don't get it.

No individual did, our society made the Declaration, the individual involved chose to be uncooperative. He earned his results.

Our society founded a Nation by declaring what was true and self-evident, thereby insuring mutual co-operation of the parties. The rights do not survive for anyone if any party can extinguish any of them. Fight it as long as you want to, your efforts will only serve to prove the truth further.

You fail to understand this because your premise is that rights are given instead of held.

Please.... trees grow from the root, else they do not stand. Try to comprehend.

Now of course any particular individual may be correct in that there are more universal "rights" than their country is willing to acknowledge. However, until they convince the government and citizens of that country that these other rights should be acknowledged their efforts will be for naught.

See how close you come, in our nation, the government is not one bunch of people while the citizens are another bunch of people, there is no prince...

Try to understand, America is the only Nation of its kind, it is pointless to compare it to other countries that never estebilished for themselves what their rights may or may not be. Other countries have a prince somewhere to tell them what their rights are.

Also, one has to be every dilligent of the possibility of losing established rights especially with the evolution of technology.

Please stop... in our Nation, you can not lose rights, the notion is unsupportable, it assumes that some entity is superior to you that could take your rights away. In our Nation you can only unhand your rights.

For example, implanting prisoners with electronic monitoring devices is a bit concerning. That's only one step away from implanting babys at birth with similar devices and that is truly frightening.

What is the difference? Your errant beliefs have already led you to be numbered, and to allow your children to be numbered, and their children to be numbered. Your neighbors aren't frightening you with any of that. Instead of seeking to correct them in their errors, you send them your cash in between stacking new loads of siding in the garage. Why shouldn't they figure to put an implant in your great grandson?

Yet Tom and jdl write as if their rights are immutable and do not depend on society at all. Head in sand guys.
I plan on making inputs on my rights in developing them and protecting them.
Get that straight.

Mine are immutable, most of yours are already yielded, my refusal to unhand mine is the only chance you've got to ever take yours back up.

Write the 14th amendment on the blackboard until you understand that.

On the other hand one has to beware that there may be attempts by society to diminish what rights have been established. For example:
1. Schwarznegger and the State of California wants to control thermostats in homes. I would consider this a serious loss of rights.

It is only your failure to hold your rights that gives Arnold such an idea. Your rights create a duty for you to yourself to correct your neighbor when he falls into error. Arnold can't take your rights, only his ignorance will continue his effort.

http://www.dailytech.com/California+Plans+to+Control+Home+Thermostats+Via+I nternet+Radio/article10324.htm

2. In Britian the government is proposing that Organ donations will be assumed as a right for the state to take unless the individual writes a card saying No.
In effect, consent would be presumed as given unless you indicate you want to opt out.
Once again I would consider this a loss of rights.

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=464514&lng=1

Well, I guess that at least they have learned that they can't do it here. In our Nation, there is no prince.

[Greyfox]

jdl, I'm not disagreeing with you. The founding fathers established the basic rights of the nation. Had they founded different rights, you would have had different rights today. It's just that easy. The early society of this nation founded those rights. Not you, not me, not Tom. Current society upholds those rights.
In effect, the rights that you have today, we're "given" in the founding of the Nation. If there are other rights, that is what ammendments are for.

Unfortunately, for those of us trying to follow the outline of your arguments, you use of reds and blues intertwined with the comments of other posters makes it extremely difficult to sort out where you start and where other posters leave off. You might like to reconsider that style of presentation. It looks like a cheap flyer and there may be more to you than that.

Your premise that I've given over my rights, while you have not, is basically up a gum tree.

[Gittup]

Burls,

Thanks for the interesting analysis.
One question regarding "minimal obligation"...
Insofar as people in this country enjoy the right to marry the person they love, and enjoy state tax benefits for same, would this right apply to ALL citizens?
If so, the GOP evangelicals will be standing on their heads attempting to come to terms with "gay marriage".

On a side note, I just heard that the bass playing Arkie governor wants to rewrite the Constitution to bring it to be more in allignment with God's intent.
To think that American citizens are intent on imposing their views on Islamic theocracies, when in fact, we have a Christian theocrat running for the presidency, causes one to pause, shake head, and vomit.

[Greyfox]

My original idea was that a right was shared equally by all people, and that it did not impose an obligation on others. I tried several times to get you to address that, but you kept going in other directions, so I stopped bothering with you. Your postion, still, seems to me that right are dependant on what you are allowed. I saw/see no value in dicussing it any further with either of you. JDl and a few others seem to get it alright.

Smoking or non?:bang:

Your problem Tom is that those posters who agree with your original premise are deigned to have got it "correct." They're in.
Anyone, who challenges that initial premise just doesn't get it. They're stupid.
I share the belief that a right is shared equally by all people, which is the first half of your premise.
I do not share the belief that it does not impose an obligation on others.
That's the part that you don't get and Burls has rather sophisticatedly pointed out to you the reasons why. For starters, the possession of a right obliges me and the rest of society to honor it. Part of that is you are hung up on the concreteness of "cost." "Why should I pay for your right?" is what you cry. "Rights" don't cost anything, you say.
Unfortunately that is just not true. There are costs and obligations with all rights and the maintenance of them. That's the part that you haven't wanted to discuss. Instead, you imply how thick we are that we don't see the obvious. Sorry. But I'm not prepared to leave unto Caesar what Caesar thinks is his.

[jonnielu]

jdl, I'm not disagreeing with you. The founding fathers established the basic rights of the nation. Had they founded different rights, you would have had different rights today. It's just that easy.

I am disagreeing with you, the People did the founding, the People Declared the rights as unalienable, the People specified some of them, and retained all of them in a charter for a central government, that they authorized and empowered within their specified limits. It is as easy as reading the english language.




The early society of this nation founded those rights. Not you, not me, not Tom. Current society upholds those rights.
In effect, the rights that you have today, we're "given" in the founding of the Nation. If there are other rights, that is what ammendments are for.

They are no man's, to give, they are taken up and held by the People.
Maybe it is too simple for you to grasp.

Unfortunately, for those of us trying to follow the outline of your arguments, you use of reds and blues intertwined with the comments of other posters makes it extremely difficult to sort out where you start and where other posters leave off. You might like to reconsider that style of presentation. It looks like a cheap flyer and there may be more to you than that.

If you ever learn the value of looking at anything for yourself, beyond its face value, you will always find that there is more to it.

Your premise that I've given over my rights, while you have not, is basically up a gum tree.

No man is more enslaved then he who only thinks he is free. I speak of what I know.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Your problem Tom is that those posters who agree with your original premise are deigned to have got it "correct." They're in.
Anyone, who challenges that initial premise just doesn't get it. They're stupid.
I share the belief that a right is shared equally by all people, which is the first half of your premise.
I do not share the belief that it does not impose an obligation on others.
That's the part that you don't get and Burls has rather sophisticatedly pointed out to you the reasons why. For starters, the possession of a right obliges me and the rest of society to honor it. Part of that is you are hung up on the concreteness of "cost." "Why should I pay for your right?" is what you cry. "Rights" don't cost anything, you say.
Unfortunately that is just not true. There are costs and obligations with all rights and the maintenance of them. That's the part that you haven't wanted to discuss. Instead, you imply how thick we are that we don't see the obvious. Sorry. But I'm not prepared to leave unto Caesar what Caesar thinks is his.

You are up a rootless tree that sits on shifting sand, Burls is very smart to send you up first.
jdl

[Lefty]

git, GOP Evangelicals opposing gay marriage? You mean there are no Dem evangelicals? When pressed, I know of no Dem that is running for Pres or has been Pres that will say he/she is for Gay marriage. Wasn't it Bill Clinton himself that passed the "defensive marriage act?

[Greyfox]

You are up a rootless tree that sits on shifting sand, Burls is very smart to send you up first.
jdl

Sorry jonnielu, I'm getting the impression that if I don't use the exact word that you use, you start firing disagreements, not bothering to check if there is some common agreement of any type.

Why am I reminded of Leo Gorcey and the Bowery Boys? :lol:

[46zilzal]

Greyfox has always been dependent on the kindness of strangers.:D

Explains his strange new friend, Mr. Wizzard.


IGGY, table for two. Smoking or non smoking?

The FAUX news maneuver: Can't debate them? Shout them down or eliminate the rational opposing view from your world and remain stuck and un-enlightened.

[Lefty]

zilly, no 1, you guys never come up with anything orig. Your distortion of Fox is not new, not true not funny. Fox Constantly presents both sides of arguments. It's the mainstream news with their one sided liberalism that created a need and a hunger for Fox News. They have many dem viewers as well as repubs, so stop distorting the facts.

[Tom]

Your problem Tom is that those posters who agree with your original premise are deigned to have got it "correct." They're in.
Anyone, who challenges that initial premise just doesn't get it. They're stupid.
I share the belief that a right is shared equally by all people, which is the first half of your premise.
I do not share the belief that it does not impose an obligation on others.
That's the part that you don't get and Burls has rather sophisticatedly pointed out to you the reasons why. For starters, the possession of a right obliges me and the rest of society to honor it. Part of that is you are hung up on the concreteness of "cost." "Why should I pay for your right?" is what you cry. "Rights" don't cost anything, you say.
Unfortunately that is just not true. There are costs and obligations with all rights and the maintenance of them. That's the part that you haven't wanted to discuss. Instead, you imply how thick we are that we don't see the obvious. Sorry. But I'm not prepared to leave unto Caesar what Caesar thinks is his.

Which is what I was trying discuss. Until Brainiac showed up, starting insulting everyone, you got cute with your replies, then accussed me of trying pass of Williams' ideas as my own. And stupid is your word, not mine. You keep saying rights are limited by others, and when I tried to argue that, you say that is not what you believe. I still say in order to be a human right, it must be shared equally by all and not impose an obligation onto others. I tried several time to set a scenario to discuss the basic concept and you avoided each one, prefering to clutter the debate with specific situations. Fine. Believe what you want, but you have still failed to grasp what my point was. And I could, by now, care less.

Smoking or non?
Last call.

[Tom]

The FAUX news maneuver: Can't debate them? Shout them down or eliminate the rational opposing view from your world and remain stuck and un-enlightened.

And what the hell do you know about anything in this thread?
Obvioulsy, you have not read much of it. Just your annoying little miserable self trying to go off toic again. What a loser. With zero to offer.

[Greyfox]

Alas. Me thinks that you really didn't want to discuss rights or their nature at all.
What you really wanted was agreement for a basis to abolish any reason for universal health care. Most of us saw that in Post 1 of this thread. ;)

[Gittup]

git, GOP Evangelicals opposing gay marriage? You mean there are no Dem evangelicals? When pressed, I know of no Dem that is running for Pres or has been Pres that will say he/she is for Gay marriage. Wasn't it Bill Clinton himself that passed the "defensive marriage act?
Lefty, my good friend,
I am not saying that there are no Dem evangelicals. For sure, the GOP base has held the votes of the evangelicals, whether during the 2000 "election", or the one in 2004, or even the recent primary in Iowa where their backing gave "Mikie the bass player" his victory.
Now, for a moment take a deep breath my friend, and put my statement back into the context wherein I said it. I was pointing to the fact that the right to marry a person is sanctioned by the "state", and rewarded through IRS advantages. It seems to me that a "right" should be granted to ALL citizens (whatever their sexual preferances). Within the context of "minimal obligation", it is only fair. I'm interested to see how the GOP evangelicals spin this, or is it not a fact that there is a desire to blur the line that separates "church" and "state" in violation of the 1st Amendment. Theocracy for the US will be its death.
btw, I'm not gay.

[Tom]

Alas. Me thinks that you really didn't want to discuss rights or their nature at all.
What you really wanted was agreement for a basis to abolish any reason for universal health care. Most of us saw that in Post 1 of this thread. ;)

Actually, I used that train of thought to, in my mind, justify a form of universal health care that did not favor some over others. Remember I tried to get the idea of benefits in there as opposed to rights? I was envisioning a HC system that was fair and worked, not just having one for talking points.

But, as you say, you had already read into it what you wanted, rather than really discuss it.

The natural flow of that thinking took HC from a right to a need and from there, it was easy to look at in a different way. That was the point of it all - how do we do what we need and not penalize people. We need a new paradigm to solve these problems. Redistirbution of wealth is not the answer.

[Greyfox]

Thankyou. I can now more clearly see where you are coming from.
In no way did I intend to take the discussion away from your initial ideas to open up the thread. Indeed, when 46Zil and I started disussing health care early on, I thought that you encouraged us to move beyond that.
Thank you for the clarification.

If some type of universal health care is ever brought in, of necessity it will not be able to favor some over others. That would violate rights of equality.

[Tom]

Not about HC alone - I was looking at HC, college tuition, gas prices, welfare, food stamps, public housing, not as entitlements, but as how do we, as equal citizens, best share the wealth of America? What is best for the country as a whole?

I heard an interview with the author of the book Free Lunch today.....sounds like a must read. If we can afford the stuff he talk about, we can afford a lot more to be shared by the taxpayers. OR better yet, we do not need to pay 1/10th the taxes we do.

[riskman]

.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?15ba16ea-e2fa-49e2-bfb0-03a852e4c86c


"This nation has become a giant shell game of one group robbing from another while other groups do the same to yet others, and they to yet others -- the first group included.

At heart of all these shenanigans is a simple principle: Getting something for nothing. Getting more in return than what one actually paid for. Getting an unearned benefit. In other words, socially accepted and approved greed. In the words of the French economic philosopher Fredric Bastiat, "Everybody plunders everybody."

Bastiat makes the point when the law becomes an instrument of plunder, "The law has come to be an instrument of injustice." Thus today, the law in the United States of America has routinely become an instrument of injustice, the very opposite of the principles this nation was founded upon. What's more, all of those that benefit from these entitlements demand them in self righteous indignation, as if they really had a right to the property and fruits of the efforts of others."

[Lefty]

git, the thing is, You singled out Repub Evangelicals. They don't blve in gays marrying gays, but a lot of others don't either. That includes Hillary. Don't know about Obama. Whether you're gay or not is none of my business.

[Gittup]

git, the thing is, You singled out Repub Evangelicals. They don't blve in gays marrying gays, but a lot of others don't either. That includes Hillary. Don't know about Obama. Whether you're gay or not is none of my business.
OK...let's get back to rights, Lefty, my good friend.
Males have the right to vote. Females have the right to vote. Agreed?
Males have the right to worship or not as they see fitting. Same with females. Agreed?
Males have the right of free speech. Same with females? Agreed?
I could list many more "rights" as specified by the Constitution.
Now back to my point. Males have the right to marry, as do females, and the Federal government encourages this via IRS tax advantages. Agreed?
The point is that this "right" is not applied equally to those that do not wish to participate in heterosexual marriage. Do you agree that "rights" should be applied equally to ALL citizens? If not, the Constitution is a farce.
Why should only heterosexuals be given IRS tax advantages?
As a secondary point, the Christian evangelicals hold much more power in the GOP thean they do in the Democratic party. GW Bush initially labeled his misadventure in Iraq as a "crusade".

[Lefty]

Well, for thousands of yrs we have had the right to marry people of the opposite sex. We do not have the right to marry animals or have a harem, least not in this country. So marriage seems to be something that is granted by the State. It's an interesting argument.
But saying the Evangelicals have more power in the Repub party is a specious one because people that ARE in power in the dem party talk a good game but when push comes to shove they aren't for it either. And don't worry, Huckleberry got more lib in him than conservative and won't get the nomination.
Don't know why you chose to throw that remark in about Bush and Iraq except to do a leetle more Bush bashing.

[Lefty]

The tax code changes all the time. Nothing in the Constitution about the tax code. Hey, did they finally get rid of the marriage penalty? I'm not up on the current tax code but at one time married people pd a penalty. Also, as a home
owner i can take a tax break but when I was a renter I could not. So guess you just can't declare anything and everything a right.

[Gittup]

Well, for thousands of yrs we have had the right to marry people of the opposite sex. We do not have the right to marry animals or have a harem, least not in this country. So marriage seems to be something that is granted by the State. It's an interesting argument.
But saying the Evangelicals have more power in the Repub party is a specious one because people that ARE in power in the dem party talk a good game but when push comes to shove they aren't for it either. And don't worry, Huckleberry got more lib in him than conservative and won't get the nomination.
Don't know why you chose to throw that remark in about Bush and Iraq except to do a leetle more Bush bashing.
OK, Lefty my friend, let's leave out political parties for a moment and focus our discussion on "what is right". Tom started by stating (and I'm paraphrasing) that someones "right" should not be at the monetary cost of another. At least that's what I thought was the gist of it.
Now, here's a good example of exactly what he's talking about.
I live next door to a Roman Catholic church. They pay no local taxes to the town. I do. The snowplow (which costs money for crew, fuel, maintainance, etc) plows the snow in the road in front of the Roman Catholic church, as it does my house. Only one of us is paying for it.
Does that seem "right" to you? Or, is the tax exemption afforded to organized religions a violation of the separation of "church" and "state"?
Do you agree that my rights are being violated by the state (and town) in that my tax dollars are subsidizing services for a religious institution?

[Lefty]

You're confusing rights with laws in my opinion. The govt makes laws that decree who pays taxes and how much. You do have the right to start your own Church.
That said, the CONGREGATION of that Church do pay those very same taxes as individuals that you do as an individual.

[JustRalph]

Any Tax credit, no matter who gets it, is not a right............give me a break

[Tom]

I live next door to a Roman Catholic church. They pay no local taxes to the town. I do. The snowplow (which costs money for crew, fuel, maintainance, etc) plows the snow in the road in front of the Roman Catholic church, as it does my house. Only one of us is paying for it. I am a Catholic, and I agree 100% with you - NO TAX breaks for any churches. Period. The Catholic church should be penalized back taxes going back to the first time a sermon included poltical activist language. They can afford it. Futher, the Bishops who relocated child preditors should be charged as criminal accomplise for every single count they failed to notify authorities.
Does that seem "right" to you? Or, is the tax exemption afforded to organized religions a violation of the separation of "church" and "state"?
Do you agree that my rights are being violated by the state (and town) in that my tax dollars are subsidizing services for a religious institution?

And as far as gay marriage, I will agree to them if:

ANY two people can marry - brother and brother, father and son, any combination.

It is recognized strictly as a civil union and the word GOD is never associated with the unions, so as not to make a mockery of REAL marriages.

[jonnielu]

Sorry jonnielu, I'm getting the impression that if I don't use the exact word that you use, you start firing disagreements, not bothering to check if there is some common agreement of any type.

Why am I reminded of Leo Gorcey and the Bowery Boys? :lol:

No GreyFox, I see where you agree, but we seem to part ways on the source of rights. In America the source is nature, not the prince or the people, this is fundamental. We are not a Democracy, people can not vote their rights in or out.

jdl

[jonnielu]

OK...let's get back to rights, Lefty, my good friend.
Males have the right to vote. Females have the right to vote. Agreed?
Males have the right to worship or not as they see fitting. Same with females. Agreed?
Males have the right of free speech. Same with females? Agreed?
I could list many more "rights" as specified by the Constitution.
Now back to my point. Males have the right to marry, as do females, and the Federal government encourages this via IRS tax advantages. Agreed?
The point is that this "right" is not applied equally to those that do not wish to participate in heterosexual marriage. Do you agree that "rights" should be applied equally to ALL citizens? If not, the Constitution is a farce.
Why should only heterosexuals be given IRS tax advantages?
As a secondary point, the Christian evangelicals hold much more power in the GOP thean they do in the Democratic party. GW Bush initially labeled his misadventure in Iraq as a "crusade".

You've got people confused with persons here, that causes confusion between rights and privileges. People have rights, persons apply for, and may receive privileges that are granted by the state. Those married by right would not need a license. Those married by privilege must first apply for state sanction. Persons have no rights, only privileges, when the state withholds privileges from persons, no ones rights are violated.

It is all very simple.

jdl