Author Topic: "The health care you deserve"  (Read 33355 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #100 on: July 31, 2017, 05:58:51 PM »
The things you've listed, such as reporting crimes and getting things investigated by the police, are actually negative rights.
Negative rights do not require an action by another party.  You have a negative right not to have someone steal your bike.  Police investigating your bike theft, and taking your report is an example of a positive right.  I think you've conflated the two, which is causing some confusion here.


The things that are being conflated are negative rights vs their enforcement. I have the right to my bike. That's a negative right, i.e. I have the right to obtain and own a bicycle, but no one is obligated to provide one for me. My bike getting stolen is a violation of my right. The police step in not as a positive right, but as an enforcement of the negative right.

I am not entitled to police services, I am entitled to my own property, and the police are there to enforce that right, should someone violate it. Without my rights being violated, the police have zero obligation to provide me with anything. Even if my rights are violated, the police are there to catch/stop the offender, and not to help me per se. It is not the job of the police to provide me with a new bike, fix my house if it is broken into, or heal my wounds if the thief beats me up on the way out.

The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Agreed, keeping people alive and able to prosper is a core job of the government.  How alive/able to prosper is someone with a critical illness?  It therefore follows that health care is a core task of the government.

You are looking at it from a positive rights standpoint, which is not how our framework of government is set up.  It is not the government's job to keep you alive. It is their job to prevent your life from being taken away. The two concepts are quite different even though on the surface it is easy to conflate the two. I have no right to kill you, hurt you, or make you ill. However, if you get sick/hurt/are dying on your own, no one is forced to heal you.

The only way to ensure that is to have public services like the military and the police.

 . . . and health care, because not everyone will be healthy all the time.  In the same way that not everyone will be lucky enough to avoid crime all their life.

I don't agree. Some people will not have <blank>. It doesn't make <blank> a right. What about food/clothing/shelter/transportation/etc? Do I have the right to have all those? After all, I can't live/pursue happiness without those things. Can I just go to the grocery store and grab food if I don't have it? Can I move into a vacant house without the owner allowing me to do so if I don't have shelter?

If I report my TV stolen to the police, and they investigate it, it is the government protecting my negative rights. I have the right to property, my property was stolen, i.e. my right was violated, the government, in this case via the police force, steps in. They do not give me a new TV, or give me money to replace it, they simply ensure the violator of my rights, the thief, is caught and prosecuted.

If I contract a disease that will paralyze me without treatment and I go to the hospital to get it fixed, it is the government protecting my rights.  I have the right to live free and have the opportunity to prosper, don't I?  I mean, that's what you said . . . and that is taken away from me by the disease.

I'm not asking for money, I'm not asking for an upgrade in life.  The doctors and nurses simply ensure that I have the same chance to work hard and make my own way that those who were lucky enough to be born healthy get by default.

Like I mentioned earlier, you are talking about healthcare as a positive right. Unless someone is making you paralyzed, or someone inflicted you with this illness, it is not the government's job to treat you. You are free to pursue treatment, or to obtain medical services as you see fit, no one has the right to stop you. But, no one should be forced to treat you unless you think healthcare is a positive right.

When you say "I'm not asking for money", you actually are. There is a real financial cost to the treatment of your illness, that someone has to pay. The medical staff treating you are not working for free, the facilities that you visit have operating costs, the medical products you will use and receive all cost money. If you're demanding these things (which you are if you are calling them a right) and not personally paying for them, then someone else is. There is no such things as a free syringe.


Services like the police are by definition public. They are necessary for the existence of a free state, and for the protection of negative rights.

The right to public service is by definition a positive right.  I agree, you cannot protect negative rights without implementing positive rights.

See my first response to this post.



Medicine can be public, and it is in many countries, but only by choice. Medicine does not have to be public, and in the US it is mostly private. If we fully get into the realm of positive rights, and make healthcare a positive right, it will essentially turn the medical field into a government-run industry.

Sure. But as you indicated earlier . . .
The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Medical care is fundamental to living free and having the opportunity to prosper.  It is therefore a core part of the job of the government to provide it for citizens.

See above (food, shelter examples).

If healthcare is a right, it means I can demand it. What is to stop me from intentionally not getting insurance, and not taking care of myself, and then demanding medical help for free when I need it? It is my right after all.

Nothing.  It's no different than living in a city with a high crime rate and expecting to have the services of a police force to call upon should a crime happen to you.

You have the right to life and property no matter where you live. Your body is your responsibility.


If we say, well, it's life or death. Alright, how about food? If I don't eat I die. Can I just go to the grocery store and demand food? Why not? It's life or death.

You can't go to a grocery store and demand food because they are privately operated.  There are government programs to prevent people from starving to death though, and you can go to any one of those to demand food (or chits to trade for food) should the need arise.

If healthcare is a right, then I can go anywhere and demand it. Why does it matter if I go to a private doctor's office? It is my right to get medical help. I can demand it anywhere. I have the right to life regardless of public vs. private property. Are you saying I only have the right to medicine in a government medical facility? That's not much of a right.

I think healthcare is a privilege. We should strive our best to get costs low, and extend this privilege to everyone, but I cannot consciously label the labor of an entire industry, as my right.

This is not logically consistent reasoning.  You already have labelled the labor of entire industries your right.  The police industry, fire services, the military.  What you haven't done is shown that health care is any different than those.

I think I've explained exactly why those services are different. Rights needs enforcement, which is one of the core functions of government. The government does not give you your rights, they enforce them. What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

This is very different from a right to stuff. You might really, really need said stuff, but no one is violating your rights by not providing you with said stuff. You are free to get said stuff, and to own it, and if someone prevents you from doing either, the government should step in. However, whether you get said stuff, is up to you.

Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #101 on: July 31, 2017, 06:07:32 PM »
If you infringe on the rights of others, your own rights can be infringed upon. I have the right to my life. If you try to take it away by attempting to kill me, I can fight back, and potentially kill you instead. What good is my right to life if I cannot defend it?

Your right to live is not an absolute.  It's balanced against other things (like convenience).  Let me explain:

Air pollution caused by personal motor vehicles kills multiple thousands of people every year (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829).  How does one fight back and potentially kill those who are driving?

You can't prevent people from driving without impacting their freedom, they can't drive without impacting your health.  Which right is more important?

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #102 on: July 31, 2017, 06:14:33 PM »
Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

I profoundly disagree. I believe in individualism.

What you are describing is collectivism. I can mention countless examples in history where fundamental human rights were taken away in the name of "the greater good". Here be dragons.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #103 on: July 31, 2017, 06:16:16 PM »
I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

If negative rights are of no use without enforcement as you say, then negative rights require enforcement.  Enforcement is not free, therefore enforcement requires taxation.  Taxation infringes on property rights, which are negative rights.  Therefore negative rights also necessarily infringe on other's negative rights.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #104 on: July 31, 2017, 06:30:22 PM »
Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

I profoundly disagree. I believe in individualism.

What you are describing is collectivism. I can mention countless examples in history where fundamental human rights were taken away in the name of "the greater good". Here be dragons.

Oh dear god, save us from another Objectivist.

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #105 on: August 01, 2017, 03:38:19 AM »
Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

I profoundly disagree. I believe in individualism.

What you are describing is collectivism. I can mention countless examples in history where fundamental human rights were taken away in the name of "the greater good". Here be dragons.

Oh dear god, save us from another Objectivist.
Oh dear god, save us from another Relativist. ;-)
But seriously the problem with collectivism is that it usually ends up with a few people deciding what is good for the people and using the system to get their own agenda through. Fundamental rights are needed to protect the minorities and the weak from the strong. But it should be a based on a base level of human decency towards each other, not economic efficiency.
The only thing that seems to come back over and over in history is the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is a guideline that is flexible enough to adapt it's outworking with the times. It's not perfect, but as far as I know this is the best base for morality.

So the question is, would you feel others are morally obliged to provide some minimum care for you when you are sick and helpless, or is it your own responsibility to make a provision for such events?  I would say, if someone gets a heart attack right in front of you, you should stop what you're doing and help. Even if it costs you a bit. So it would be a right to receive emergency care, and it's shameful to charge people for it. How to organize this efficiently and effectively and prevent abuse is secondary.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #106 on: August 01, 2017, 07:26:27 AM »
Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

I profoundly disagree. I believe in individualism.

What you are describing is collectivism. I can mention countless examples in history where fundamental human rights were taken away in the name of "the greater good". Here be dragons.

Oh dear god, save us from another Objectivist.
Oh dear god, save us from another Relativist. ;-)
But seriously the problem with collectivism is that it usually ends up with a few people deciding what is good for the people and using the system to get their own agenda through. Fundamental rights are needed to protect the minorities and the weak from the strong. But it should be a based on a base level of human decency towards each other, not economic efficiency.
The only thing that seems to come back over and over in history is the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is a guideline that is flexible enough to adapt it's outworking with the times. It's not perfect, but as far as I know this is the best base for morality.

So the question is, would you feel others are morally obliged to provide some minimum care for you when you are sick and helpless, or is it your own responsibility to make a provision for such events?  I would say, if someone gets a heart attack right in front of you, you should stop what you're doing and help. Even if it costs you a bit. So it would be a right to receive emergency care, and it's shameful to charge people for it. How to organize this efficiently and effectively and prevent abuse is secondary.

Personally, I do see a moral difference between paying towards public health care and helping someone who is having a heart attack in front of you.  Paying towards health care is a significantly more moral decision to make because it's a much more efficient use of money . . . you're not waiting until things get to a critical state and are going to be able to help more people more easily that way.  I look at this in terms of economic efficiency because I want to do the most good possible with the limited funds available.  Economic efficiency is intrinsically linked to human decency in this case.  Doing less good with available money is a less moral choice.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2017, 09:53:08 AM »
I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

If negative rights are of no use without enforcement as you say, then negative rights require enforcement.  Enforcement is not free, therefore enforcement requires taxation.  Taxation infringes on property rights, which are negative rights.  Therefore negative rights also necessarily infringe on other's negative rights.

Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #108 on: August 01, 2017, 09:59:26 AM »
Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

This argument doesn't make much sense.  Without a police force I can simply go to your home, kill you, and take what I want.  You can have all the negative rights you want . . . but without enforcement they're simply words.  Protection of property can't exist without the manpower needed to protect it.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making between a right to protection of property (which requires people to enforce it) and a right to health care (which requires people to provide it).  Without the people being forced to provide you with a service, the 'rights' that you have in either case are really just academic.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #109 on: August 01, 2017, 10:03:25 AM »
Positive/negative/natural rights . . . I think we're getting off track a tad here.  When it comes right down to it, what's the purpose of having a right?

I'd say that rights exist to provide guidelines to make life in a society better.  The reason that you have the right to be free from people murdering you, is that you're worth more to society alive than dead.  The reason that you have a right to property is that without it there is a tremendous negative impact on the desire/will to work and create.  The reason that you have the right to be free of slavery is that the implementation of strictly hierarchical systems like that detrimentally impacts progress of a society through exclusion.

If someone murders you out of the blue in cold blood it's a problem for society.  We lose your ideas, your cultural contributions, your potential future children, and the taxes that you would have paid over the whole rest of your life.  If you contract a curable disease and are not treated it's got the same impact.  To me, it's nonsensical to treat one as totally different than the other.

I profoundly disagree. I believe in individualism.

What you are describing is collectivism. I can mention countless examples in history where fundamental human rights were taken away in the name of "the greater good". Here be dragons.

Oh dear god, save us from another Objectivist.

I sincerely hope you don't agree with the post I've responded to. Thinking murder and slavery are bad because society loses tax revenue, potential offspring, or "creativity", is downright evil.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #110 on: August 01, 2017, 10:07:50 AM »
Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

This argument doesn't make much sense.  Without a police force I can simply go to your home, kill you, and take what I want.  You can have all the negative rights you want . . . but without enforcement they're simply words.  Protection of property can't exist without the manpower needed to protect it.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making between a right to protection of property (which requires people to enforce it) and a right to health care (which requires people to provide it).  Without the people being forced to provide you with a service, the 'rights' that you have in either case are really just academic.

Why do you have to be forced to pay for enforcement? I can hire private security to protect me and my property. If you don't want the protection, don't pay for it. I can have my rights without it affecting you in any way.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #111 on: August 01, 2017, 10:23:58 AM »
I am surprised how many of you fellas have no problem with the government forcing people to provide services. Imagine at your own job, the government came in and said:

"Citizen, you are now required to provide services for person X, if you do not comply, you are prohibited from working in your profession. Remember, we are not forcing you to do anything. Feel free to quit your current career and switch to another one. That is, until we mandate something for that other profession and you quit that one too. But, you can quit as many times as you want. Freedom and all."

I mean, really?

And, sorry, but the police/military are not the same. Public sector jobs are, or at least, should be, for the essential functions of government, which is, or again, should be, the protection of negative, "natural" rights. They are not there to provide you with stuff you need/want, they are there to go after violators so you remain free to pursue said stuff.
Well, as an ex-military person, I'm used to being forced to "provide services".  Or more importantly, I signed up for that.  I agreed to do a job.

It's the same with any public job.  You can become a firefighter or policeman, and really not WANT to provide services to that crackhead, or the person who likes to fall asleep with a bunch of candles burning, but it's your job.

Teachers - go to college, get an education, and they teach.  You know, public education is a right.  If you don't WANT to teach at a public school, you don't have to - but most of the jobs are at public schools.

Doctors - go to college (for a lot longer, and make a lot more money).  Work as a doctor in a national healthcare system.  Or don't.  If you'd rather be a specialist - or work in a private setting - that's fine too.  Just like teachers.  But I'm sure already doctors work with people they don't like.  My doctor (I think) is happy to deal with me every couple of years on whatever age-related complaint and injury I am dealing with.  Maybe he's not so happy with other who drink, smoke, or are grossly overweight.  But...it's a job, just like any other.  I think you are blowing the whole "being forced to provide services" WAY out of proportion, especially when you compare medicine to any other job that is in the public sector.

Doctors are welcome to stay private.   Most likely, there would be far fewer private jobs for Doctors. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #112 on: August 01, 2017, 10:33:24 AM »
Thinking murder and slavery are bad because society loses tax revenue, potential offspring, or "creativity", is downright evil.

Why do you think that murder and slavery are bad?  If it's related to the suffering/misery that the actions cause, why do you think that suffering/misery is bad?  Suffering/misery is bad for society.  It reduces the will of the populace to be productive, it plants the seeds of discord and future revolution.  I'm not really seeing what's so evil about that viewpoint.





Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

This argument doesn't make much sense.  Without a police force I can simply go to your home, kill you, and take what I want.  You can have all the negative rights you want . . . but without enforcement they're simply words.  Protection of property can't exist without the manpower needed to protect it.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making between a right to protection of property (which requires people to enforce it) and a right to health care (which requires people to provide it).  Without the people being forced to provide you with a service, the 'rights' that you have in either case are really just academic.

Why do you have to be forced to pay for enforcement? I can hire private security to protect me and my property. If you don't want the protection, don't pay for it. I can have my rights without it affecting you in any way.

For the rich who are able to make those choices that's a possible option, but one that I'd argue is pretty inefficient.  If you're already hiring private security to ensure your rights, why not pay a little bit more and hire enough men to take what others have?  Of course, that means that you'll need to continuously hire enough men to protect you against all of the other rich people who have realized this.  At that point you basically end up with a large number of small fiefdoms . . . and over time they will become concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer.  Eventually you'll either end up with a couple warlords controlling everyone, or a return to a form of government and public protection.

It also means that the poor don't get a choice at all, virtually guaranteeing that their rights will be abused by those with more money.

I can't imagine a faster way to erode freedom in a country than do what you're describing.  I'm not saying that having government paid police is the greatest idea . . . but it's the least worst option.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #113 on: August 01, 2017, 10:49:18 AM »
Thinking murder and slavery are bad because society loses tax revenue, potential offspring, or "creativity", is downright evil.

Why do you think that murder and slavery are bad?  If it's related to the suffering/misery that the actions cause, why do you think that suffering/misery is bad?  Suffering/misery is bad for society.  It reduces the will of the populace to be productive, it plants the seeds of discord and future revolution.  I'm not really seeing what's so evil about that viewpoint.

I don't care if it is good for society or not, I don't want to be murdered or be someone's property.

Otherwise, I think slavery is good for society. We could get way more done, and for way less money. Plus, the slaves would do all the bad stuff we don't want to do. I don't think the people that are slaves would enjoy it, but hey, we're talking about the common good, right?




Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

This argument doesn't make much sense.  Without a police force I can simply go to your home, kill you, and take what I want.  You can have all the negative rights you want . . . but without enforcement they're simply words.  Protection of property can't exist without the manpower needed to protect it.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making between a right to protection of property (which requires people to enforce it) and a right to health care (which requires people to provide it).  Without the people being forced to provide you with a service, the 'rights' that you have in either case are really just academic.

Why do you have to be forced to pay for enforcement? I can hire private security to protect me and my property. If you don't want the protection, don't pay for it. I can have my rights without it affecting you in any way.

For the rich who are able to make those choices that's a possible option, but one that I'd argue is pretty inefficient.  If you're already hiring private security to ensure your rights, why not pay a little bit more and hire enough men to take what others have?  Of course, that means that you'll need to continuously hire enough men to protect you against all of the other rich people who have realized this.  At that point you basically end up with a large number of small fiefdoms . . . and over time they will become concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer.  Eventually you'll either end up with a couple warlords controlling everyone, or a return to a form of government and public protection.

It also means that the poor don't get a choice at all, virtually guaranteeing that their rights will be abused by those with more money.

I can't imagine a faster way to erode freedom in a country than do what you're describing.  I'm not saying that having government paid police is the greatest idea . . . but it's the least worst option.

Yes, having the government run the police and the military is the least worst option. I agree with you. My point isn't that I want to have all private security forces, it is that my negative rights don't need to force anyone into anything. Human nature eventually leads to the creation of government, taxation, and such, but it doesn't change what my rights are, or their existence. Positive rights require action from others, they simply cannot exist otherwise. If we didn't have government, I could still have my negative rights, potentially defending them myself, or hiring/grouping up with others to do it. How would you have your right to healthcare? Would you hire a few thugs, go into a doctor's home, and make him heal you? You'd have the right to do it, no?

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #114 on: August 01, 2017, 10:52:47 AM »
I am surprised how many of you fellas have no problem with the government forcing people to provide services. Imagine at your own job, the government came in and said:

"Citizen, you are now required to provide services for person X, if you do not comply, you are prohibited from working in your profession. Remember, we are not forcing you to do anything. Feel free to quit your current career and switch to another one. That is, until we mandate something for that other profession and you quit that one too. But, you can quit as many times as you want. Freedom and all."

I mean, really?

And, sorry, but the police/military are not the same. Public sector jobs are, or at least, should be, for the essential functions of government, which is, or again, should be, the protection of negative, "natural" rights. They are not there to provide you with stuff you need/want, they are there to go after violators so you remain free to pursue said stuff.
Well, as an ex-military person, I'm used to being forced to "provide services".  Or more importantly, I signed up for that.  I agreed to do a job.

It's the same with any public job.  You can become a firefighter or policeman, and really not WANT to provide services to that crackhead, or the person who likes to fall asleep with a bunch of candles burning, but it's your job.

Teachers - go to college, get an education, and they teach.  You know, public education is a right.  If you don't WANT to teach at a public school, you don't have to - but most of the jobs are at public schools.

Doctors - go to college (for a lot longer, and make a lot more money).  Work as a doctor in a national healthcare system.  Or don't.  If you'd rather be a specialist - or work in a private setting - that's fine too.  Just like teachers.  But I'm sure already doctors work with people they don't like.  My doctor (I think) is happy to deal with me every couple of years on whatever age-related complaint and injury I am dealing with.  Maybe he's not so happy with other who drink, smoke, or are grossly overweight.  But...it's a job, just like any other.  I think you are blowing the whole "being forced to provide services" WAY out of proportion, especially when you compare medicine to any other job that is in the public sector.

Doctors are welcome to stay private.   Most likely, there would be far fewer private jobs for Doctors.

What happens if doctors don't go into the public sector?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #115 on: August 01, 2017, 11:06:51 AM »
Thinking murder and slavery are bad because society loses tax revenue, potential offspring, or "creativity", is downright evil.

Why do you think that murder and slavery are bad?  If it's related to the suffering/misery that the actions cause, why do you think that suffering/misery is bad?  Suffering/misery is bad for society.  It reduces the will of the populace to be productive, it plants the seeds of discord and future revolution.  I'm not really seeing what's so evil about that viewpoint.

I don't care if it is good for society or not, I don't want to be murdered or be someone's property.

Otherwise, I think slavery is good for society. We could get way more done, and for way less money. Plus, the slaves would do all the bad stuff we don't want to do. I don't think the people that are slaves would enjoy it, but hey, we're talking about the common good, right?

Slavery is a way of making individuals a lot of money at the expense of society as a whole.  It runs contrary to the common good.  That's why nearly every society in this day and age has abolished the practice.



Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

This argument doesn't make much sense.  Without a police force I can simply go to your home, kill you, and take what I want.  You can have all the negative rights you want . . . but without enforcement they're simply words.  Protection of property can't exist without the manpower needed to protect it.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making between a right to protection of property (which requires people to enforce it) and a right to health care (which requires people to provide it).  Without the people being forced to provide you with a service, the 'rights' that you have in either case are really just academic.

Why do you have to be forced to pay for enforcement? I can hire private security to protect me and my property. If you don't want the protection, don't pay for it. I can have my rights without it affecting you in any way.

For the rich who are able to make those choices that's a possible option, but one that I'd argue is pretty inefficient.  If you're already hiring private security to ensure your rights, why not pay a little bit more and hire enough men to take what others have?  Of course, that means that you'll need to continuously hire enough men to protect you against all of the other rich people who have realized this.  At that point you basically end up with a large number of small fiefdoms . . . and over time they will become concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer.  Eventually you'll either end up with a couple warlords controlling everyone, or a return to a form of government and public protection.

It also means that the poor don't get a choice at all, virtually guaranteeing that their rights will be abused by those with more money.

I can't imagine a faster way to erode freedom in a country than do what you're describing.  I'm not saying that having government paid police is the greatest idea . . . but it's the least worst option.

Yes, having the government run the police and the military is the least worst option. I agree with you. My point isn't that I want to have all private security forces, it is that my negative rights don't need to force anyone into anything. Human nature eventually leads to the creation of government, taxation, and such, but it doesn't change what my rights are, or their existence. Positive rights require action from others, they simply cannot exist otherwise. If we didn't have government, I could still have my negative rights, potentially defending them myself, or hiring/grouping up with others to do it. How would you have your right to healthcare? Would you hire a few thugs, go into a doctor's home, and make him heal you? You'd have the right to do it, no?

In your scenario only the rich are able to enforce (and thus have) their negative rights.  The rich can hire armies to enslave those without the means to hire protection.  Seems like a shitty deal for the poor as they only have the right to submit or die.  The negative rights you listed don't actually exist for them without action from others.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #116 on: August 01, 2017, 01:11:41 PM »
You guys are in the weeds when you talk about morality and what rights and laws we "ought" to have.  That's irrelevant.  What's relevant is that we get the rights and laws that we enact and that we enforce.  If we want to have laws against killing people, great, we'll have them.  If we want to have health care as a right, then we can put that in place.  If we want to let people just die in the street (or in their homes) because they can't afford medical care, well we can have that too. 

If you were a Roman citizen, you got certain rights that non-citizens did not.  If you were a British citizen, same thing.  As Americans, we get rights that others don't (and vice versa).  Why?  Because we DECIDED we wanted these rights.  And other countries decided that they wanted different ones. 

Which is why I keep saying that our "rights" are whatever we say they are.  What we have now are the ones the founders thought were best, plus a bunch of others we added on a bit later (hence the "Bill of RIGHTS" which came later, along with several constitutional amendments).  The whole idea of rights being fundamental and unchangeable is false.  Hell it's even false within the context of our own Constitution. 

And no, socialism does not lead to slavery and murder.  Unless you think socialist countries like Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, etc.. are all murder/slave nations?  Haha, that's a funny fantasy world you live in.

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #117 on: August 02, 2017, 01:59:09 AM »
...

Personally, I do see a moral difference between paying towards public health care and helping someone who is having a heart attack in front of you.  Paying towards health care is a significantly more moral decision to make because it's a much more efficient use of money . . . you're not waiting until things get to a critical state and are going to be able to help more people more easily that way.  I look at this in terms of economic efficiency because I want to do the most good possible with the limited funds available.  Economic efficiency is intrinsically linked to human decency in this case.  Doing less good with available money is a less moral choice.
Optimizing is a separate issue. The point is whether you have an obligation to help or not. So it's not about the cost, but about who should pay.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #118 on: August 02, 2017, 07:24:26 AM »
I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

If negative rights are of no use without enforcement as you say, then negative rights require enforcement.  Enforcement is not free, therefore enforcement requires taxation.  Taxation infringes on property rights, which are negative rights.  Therefore negative rights also necessarily infringe on other's negative rights.

Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

Without enforcement, the right to life is not universal.  It only applies to the strong/rich/popular who can defend themselves and/or hire/convince others to defend them, as GuitarStv has been pointing out.  I think the disagreement that we're having stems from the fact that I don't think that a difference that only exists in theory actually matters much.  Sure, in a fantasy world where everything is already going right there is no need for enforcement of negative rights, but as long as we live in a world where enforcement of negative rights is required to make that right universal, your negative rights are infringing on others rights just as much as any positive rights we might implement.  So, as long as you continue to defend the enforcement of negative rights your not going to be able to convince me that positive rights are somehow different and worse because they infringe on others rights.  Positive rights may infringe on others rights from a certain perspective, but no more so than negative rights already do.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 08:42:45 AM by shenlong55 »

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #119 on: August 02, 2017, 08:49:19 AM »
I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

If negative rights are of no use without enforcement as you say, then negative rights require enforcement.  Enforcement is not free, therefore enforcement requires taxation.  Taxation infringes on property rights, which are negative rights.  Therefore negative rights also necessarily infringe on other's negative rights.

Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

Without enforcement, the right to life is not universal.  It only applies to the strong/rich/popular who can defend themselves and/or hire/convince others to defend them, as GuitarStv has been pointing out.  I think the problem that we're having is that I don't agree that a difference that only exists in theory actually matters much.  Sure, in a fantasy world where everything is already going right there is no need for enforcement of negative rights, but as long as we live in a world where enforcement of negative rights is required to make that right universal, your negative rights are infringing on my rights just as much as any positive rights we might implement.  So, as long as you continue to defend the enforcement of negative rights your not going to be able to convince me that positive rights are somehow different and worse because they infringe on others rights.  Positive rights may infringe on others rights from a certain perspective, but no more so than negative rights already do.

You guys are fusing two concepts into one. Negative rights and their enforcement should be treated separately. If only the strong/rich have defense, it doesn't mean the right to life goes away, it just means the enforcement system favors the strong/rich. You are still free to defend yourself, or hire/group with others to do so. In fact, there are always far more poor than rich, and many times in history, when pushed far enough, the poor rise up and kill the rich.

Regardless of that, your right to life never goes away. We somehow got into a debate centering around the fact that in order to have the right to life, you must be entitled to defense provided by others, which is not true. You do not have a right to be provided defense from others, which is a positive right, i.e. someone must be obligated to defend you. Defense/enforcement is a separate issue.

And, even if you want to make the point that without enforcement rights will be violated, it does not make them go away. If the US government decided to just throw people in prison upon arrest without a trial, would this mean our right to a fair trial no longer exists? No, it would mean that our right to a fair trial is being violated. Similarly, if you have a society where only the rich have defense, it does not mean there is no right to life, it just means only the rich have defense.

The distinction between negative and positive rights has already been stated, and I think where this confusion came from is from mixing enforcement and the rights themselves, which I myself admittedly contributed to.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 08:52:57 AM by SecretSquirrel »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #120 on: August 02, 2017, 10:17:48 AM »
You guys are fusing two concepts into one. Negative rights and their enforcement should be treated separately. If only the strong/rich have defense, it doesn't mean the right to life goes away, it just means the enforcement system favors the strong/rich. You are still free to defend yourself, or hire/group with others to do so. In fact, there are always far more poor than rich, and many times in history, when pushed far enough, the poor rise up and kill the rich.

Regardless of that, your right to life never goes away. We somehow got into a debate centering around the fact that in order to have the right to life, you must be entitled to defense provided by others, which is not true. You do not have a right to be provided defense from others, which is a positive right, i.e. someone must be obligated to defend you. Defense/enforcement is a separate issue.

And, even if you want to make the point that without enforcement rights will be violated, it does not make them go away. If the US government decided to just throw people in prison upon arrest without a trial, would this mean our right to a fair trial no longer exists? No, it would mean that our right to a fair trial is being violated. Similarly, if you have a society where only the rich have defense, it does not mean there is no right to life, it just means only the rich have defense.

The distinction between negative and positive rights has already been stated, and I think where this confusion came from is from mixing enforcement and the rights themselves, which I myself admittedly contributed to.

Why have you so far not advocated for the dismantling of the enforcement mechanisms for negative rights (police/courts/army/etc)?  We would still have our rights and we would also avoid infringing on others rights.  Under your view, shouldn't that be a goal?

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #121 on: August 02, 2017, 10:45:17 AM »
Why do folks even bother engaging with Objectivist types?  Their laughable attempts at creating a metaphysics based around their concept of individualism is an intellectual joke.  I mean the guy is here posting on the result of what he'd deem "socialism."  They never have even a passing grasp of basic economics and would shrivel up and die if they were plopped down in the middle of Galt's Gulch.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #122 on: August 02, 2017, 11:00:26 AM »
Why do folks even bother engaging with Objectivist types?  Their laughable attempts at creating a metaphysics based around their concept of individualism is an intellectual joke.  I mean the guy is here posting on the result of what he'd deem "socialism."  They never have even a passing grasp of basic economics and would shrivel up and die if they were plopped down in the middle of Galt's Gulch.

Their core mistake is that they believe that man is born tabula rasa (a blank slate), and that we just sort of 'reason' ourselves into everything after that.  Which is so utterly, laughably false. 

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #123 on: August 02, 2017, 11:14:11 AM »
Their core mistake is that they believe that man is born tabula rasa (a blank slate), and that we just sort of 'reason' ourselves into everything after that.  Which is so utterly, laughably false.

They tend to create mythic narratives in their heads that in no way reflects reality.  Man is a social animal and they try to convince themselves they're not "sheeple."  Couple this with attempting to create sound arguments, on topics they do not have adequate understanding of, and it's like talking to a chattering monkey.  It's cool they're trying to think but they need to listen and not block out things they don't want to believe as it will ruin that awesome narrative in their heads.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #124 on: August 02, 2017, 11:30:59 AM »
Why do folks even bother engaging with Objectivist types?  Their laughable attempts at creating a metaphysics based around their concept of individualism is an intellectual joke.  I mean the guy is here posting on the result of what he'd deem "socialism."  They never have even a passing grasp of basic economics and would shrivel up and die if they were plopped down in the middle of Galt's Gulch.
Why do folks even bother engaging with Objectivist types?  Their laughable attempts at creating a metaphysics based around their concept of individualism is an intellectual joke.  I mean the guy is here posting on the result of what he'd deem "socialism."  They never have even a passing grasp of basic economics and would shrivel up and die if they were plopped down in the middle of Galt's Gulch.

Their core mistake is that they believe that man is born tabula rasa (a blank slate), and that we just sort of 'reason' ourselves into everything after that.  Which is so utterly, laughably false. 
Their core mistake is that they believe that man is born tabula rasa (a blank slate), and that we just sort of 'reason' ourselves into everything after that.  Which is so utterly, laughably false.

They tend to create mythic narratives in their heads that in no way reflects reality.  Man is a social animal and they try to convince themselves they're not "sheeple."  Couple this with attempting to create sound arguments, on topics they do not have adequate understanding of, and it's like talking to a chattering monkey.  It's cool they're trying to think but they need to listen and not block out things they don't want to believe as it will ruin that awesome narrative in their heads.

Why do folks go online, and type a bunch of condescending comments directed at others? Does it help them block out things they don't want to believe to avoid ruining some awesome narrative in their heads?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #125 on: August 02, 2017, 11:50:09 AM »
...

Personally, I do see a moral difference between paying towards public health care and helping someone who is having a heart attack in front of you.  Paying towards health care is a significantly more moral decision to make because it's a much more efficient use of money . . . you're not waiting until things get to a critical state and are going to be able to help more people more easily that way.  I look at this in terms of economic efficiency because I want to do the most good possible with the limited funds available.  Economic efficiency is intrinsically linked to human decency in this case.  Doing less good with available money is a less moral choice.
Optimizing is a separate issue. The point is whether you have an obligation to help or not. So it's not about the cost, but about who should pay.

I don't think that optimizing is a separate issue for the reasons mentioned.  Your previous post already presupposed that there is a moral obligation to help.

Who should pay?  From each according to his ability to each according to his need . . . that's a reasonable place to start.



I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

If negative rights are of no use without enforcement as you say, then negative rights require enforcement.  Enforcement is not free, therefore enforcement requires taxation.  Taxation infringes on property rights, which are negative rights.  Therefore negative rights also necessarily infringe on other's negative rights.

Negative rights do not infringe on others negative rights. They do in our society due to taxation, as you said, but they don't have to. We don't have to have the police, or the military for our rights to exist. I don't lose my right to property just because there are no cops. I don't lose my right to live just because there are no soldiers. Our society established a form of government that requires taxation to operate, and the function of said government is to play cop and soldier for us. Taxation is a violation of your rights, it's true, but your negative rights can exist without it.

Positive rights cannot exist without infringement. If I have a right to healthcare, someone must provide it for me. Someone has to give me medical care.

No one has to do anything for my negative rights, that's why they're negative rights. I like having enforcement, and I think due to human nature it is necessary, so I am okay paying taxes for it, but my rights exist even without taxation or government services. Positive rights cannot exist without such things because they by definition force someone else to provide you with something.

Without enforcement, the right to life is not universal.  It only applies to the strong/rich/popular who can defend themselves and/or hire/convince others to defend them, as GuitarStv has been pointing out.  I think the problem that we're having is that I don't agree that a difference that only exists in theory actually matters much.  Sure, in a fantasy world where everything is already going right there is no need for enforcement of negative rights, but as long as we live in a world where enforcement of negative rights is required to make that right universal, your negative rights are infringing on my rights just as much as any positive rights we might implement.  So, as long as you continue to defend the enforcement of negative rights your not going to be able to convince me that positive rights are somehow different and worse because they infringe on others rights.  Positive rights may infringe on others rights from a certain perspective, but no more so than negative rights already do.

You guys are fusing two concepts into one. Negative rights and their enforcement should be treated separately. If only the strong/rich have defense, it doesn't mean the right to life goes away, it just means the enforcement system favors the strong/rich. You are still free to defend yourself, or hire/group with others to do so. In fact, there are always far more poor than rich, and many times in history, when pushed far enough, the poor rise up and kill the rich.

A right has no meaning without enforcement.


Regardless of that, your right to life never goes away. We somehow got into a debate centering around the fact that in order to have the right to life, you must be entitled to defense provided by others, which is not true. You do not have a right to be provided defense from others, which is a positive right, i.e. someone must be obligated to defend you. Defense/enforcement is a separate issue.

A right that is unenforced is meaningless.


And, even if you want to make the point that without enforcement rights will be violated, it does not make them go away. If the US government decided to just throw people in prison upon arrest without a trial, would this mean our right to a fair trial no longer exists? No, it would mean that our right to a fair trial is being violated. Similarly, if you have a society where only the rich have defense, it does not mean there is no right to life, it just means only the rich have defense.

Does violating a right that has no meaning make a difference?  If so, to whom?

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #126 on: August 02, 2017, 11:51:12 AM »
Why do folks go online, and type a bunch of condescending comments directed at others? Does it help them block out things they don't want to believe to avoid ruining some awesome narrative in their heads?

Block you out?  I read this entire conversation.  I mean this talk of negative rights?  So this comes mainly from Kant's work where he used the terms "perfect duties" for negative rights and "imperfect duties" for positive rights.  He felt a very important imperfect duty was giving aid to those in need which would seem to be the very opposite of what I'm reading.  This is a highly condensed summary of his thinking, but we are born frail and weak, grow old, and die frail and weak.  Being a social animal it should be obvious, and stem from the former observation, this "imperfect duty," or in your nomenclature a positive right, not only makes sense but is rational self-interest (a common phrase in Objectivist circles.)

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #127 on: August 02, 2017, 12:02:09 PM »
Why do folks go online, and type a bunch of condescending comments directed at others? Does it help them block out things they don't want to believe to avoid ruining some awesome narrative in their heads?

Block you out?  I read this entire conversation.  I mean this talk of negative rights?  So this comes mainly from Kant's work where he used the terms "perfect duties" for negative rights and "imperfect duties" for positive rights.  He felt a very important imperfect duty was giving aid to those in need which would seem to be the very opposite of what I'm reading.  This is a highly condensed summary of his thinking, but we are born frail and weak, grow old, and die frail and weak.  Being a social animal it should be obvious, and stem from the former observation, this "imperfect duty," or in your nomenclature a positive right, not only makes sense but is rational self-interest (a common phrase in Objectivist circles.)

Objectivists do not believe we are a social animal.  They also do not believe we are tribal or inherit anything by way of personality traits or thought processes.  I swear to god the world would have been a lot better off if Ayn Rand would have had some children.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #128 on: August 02, 2017, 12:04:38 PM »
interesting thread.
An awful lot of social disagreements boil down to different opinions on the definition & application of 'rights'. Good to discuss.

Cowardly Toaster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #129 on: August 02, 2017, 12:20:30 PM »
Why do folks even bother engaging with Objectivist types?  Their laughable attempts at creating a metaphysics based around their concept of individualism is an intellectual joke.  I mean the guy is here posting on the result of what he'd deem "socialism."  They never have even a passing grasp of basic economics and would shrivel up and die if they were plopped down in the middle of Galt's Gulch.

Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #130 on: August 02, 2017, 12:23:35 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Why do folks go online, and type a bunch of condescending comments directed at others? Does it help them block out things they don't want to believe to avoid ruining some awesome narrative in their heads?

Block you out?  I read this entire conversation.  I mean this talk of negative rights?  So this comes mainly from Kant's work where he used the terms "perfect duties" for negative rights and "imperfect duties" for positive rights.  He felt a very important imperfect duty was giving aid to those in need which would seem to be the very opposite of what I'm reading.  This is a highly condensed summary of his thinking, but we are born frail and weak, grow old, and die frail and weak.  Being a social animal it should be obvious, and stem from the former observation, this "imperfect duty," or in your nomenclature a positive right, not only makes sense but is rational self-interest (a common phrase in Objectivist circles.)

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

To add insult to injury, instead of others valuing my labor and paying me accordingly in voluntary transactions, my pay is now at the whim of the government, independent of what people are actually willing to pay me.

That said, you're also assuming what my views on healthcare in general are, and are labeling me an objectivist. For the record, I am not against having something like Medicare For All as an option. This does not make healthcare a right.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #131 on: August 02, 2017, 12:24:27 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #132 on: August 02, 2017, 12:28:25 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #133 on: August 02, 2017, 12:40:01 PM »
Why have you so far not advocated for the dismantling of the enforcement mechanisms for negative rights (police/courts/army/etc)?  We would still have our rights and we would also avoid infringing on others rights.  Under your view, shouldn't that be a goal?

The point here is that the police and the military, i.e. defensive services, are not a right. Neither is healthcare. I have no right to demand that soldiers fight for me, just like I have no right to demand that doctors treat me. I support them doing both, and I am willing to pay for both, but their labor is not my right.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #134 on: August 02, 2017, 12:50:51 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

I am not sure what you mean. If I am sick, and I have the right to healthcare, where does this healthcare come from? What does "society has an obligation" mean when we get down to the details? No matter how you slice it, healthcare means the labor of medical professionals. If I need medical help, it means I need medical goods and/or services. Individuals make those goods, and provide those services. If I have the right to healthcare, it means medical professionals are obligated to make those goods for me, and/or provide their services.

The problem with making positive rights isn't always immediate. No one is suggesting that if you make healthcare a right, our medical system will implode overnight. Yes, people can opt out of being doctors, or teachers. They can even opt out of simply working in the public sector. But, if their service is a right, it must be provided by the government. What happens if doctor pay is low enough, or burden too high, and not enough people go into medicine, or quit it? What happens if people don't become teachers? Remember, if it is a right, it *must* be provided. In the Soviet Union, you could not choose what profession you wanted easily. You might want to become an engineer, but the government might tell you that you'll be a teacher instead, because more teachers are needed. What's to stop the government from doing the same here?

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #135 on: August 02, 2017, 12:52:34 PM »
I am surprised how many of you fellas have no problem with the government forcing people to provide services. Imagine at your own job, the government came in and said:

"Citizen, you are now required to provide services for person X, if you do not comply, you are prohibited from working in your profession. Remember, we are not forcing you to do anything. Feel free to quit your current career and switch to another one. That is, until we mandate something for that other profession and you quit that one too. But, you can quit as many times as you want. Freedom and all."

I mean, really?

And, sorry, but the police/military are not the same. Public sector jobs are, or at least, should be, for the essential functions of government, which is, or again, should be, the protection of negative, "natural" rights. They are not there to provide you with stuff you need/want, they are there to go after violators so you remain free to pursue said stuff.
Well, as an ex-military person, I'm used to being forced to "provide services".  Or more importantly, I signed up for that.  I agreed to do a job.

It's the same with any public job.  You can become a firefighter or policeman, and really not WANT to provide services to that crackhead, or the person who likes to fall asleep with a bunch of candles burning, but it's your job.

Teachers - go to college, get an education, and they teach.  You know, public education is a right.  If you don't WANT to teach at a public school, you don't have to - but most of the jobs are at public schools.

Doctors - go to college (for a lot longer, and make a lot more money).  Work as a doctor in a national healthcare system.  Or don't.  If you'd rather be a specialist - or work in a private setting - that's fine too.  Just like teachers.  But I'm sure already doctors work with people they don't like.  My doctor (I think) is happy to deal with me every couple of years on whatever age-related complaint and injury I am dealing with.  Maybe he's not so happy with other who drink, smoke, or are grossly overweight.  But...it's a job, just like any other.  I think you are blowing the whole "being forced to provide services" WAY out of proportion, especially when you compare medicine to any other job that is in the public sector.

Doctors are welcome to stay private.   Most likely, there would be far fewer private jobs for Doctors.

What happens if doctors don't go into the public sector?

We entice them to do so.  Much like we have already, but maybe up the ante.

Examples (from friends): military doctors (have a friend who is one) - free med school in exchange for a certain number of years.  Tuition reimbursement or federal loan forgiveness.

You know, generally - I have a number of doctor friends.  Being college-educated and (now) upper middle class, here's my perspective.

It's pretty rare for poor people to become doctors.  Or lower-middle class people.  It's not often even on their radar.  I mean, I grew up poor.  My spouse was middle class.  I went to college and got a job.  Eventually a master's degree at night, while working.  Having a regular income is very important to me.  Putting off getting an income for a higher degree?  Not on my radar (spouse has a PhD, on the 7 year plan).

So, of the doctors that I know - they all grew up upper middle class or middle class. It was not a real big deal to give up income and go into debt for med school. 
- MK went Ivy league for undergrad on parents' dime.  Paid own way through med school but knew a good job was on the horizon.
- LY (20 years younger than MK, by the way) also went Ivy on parent's dime for undergrad, and got parental help during med school.
- JB went to a top-10 engineering school for undergrad, is at Ivy for med school.
- SM was upper middle class, had parental help during undergrad

So, much like I paid for college by joining the military (first one in my family to go to college out of HS) - the folks who use military for med school, or public loan forgiveness tend to be people who don't have the same opportunities.  And in many cases, I assume they are like me, and are just happy to be able to be there.  Thankful to be given the opportunity.

So, if a bunch of would-be doctors think "hey, I don't want to pay $500,00 for a med school degree if I have to go into public service and only make $150k per year" - how do you make it worth their while?
- Aim to open the pool of potential doctors (H1B's?  I see similarities with foreign-born doctors being willing to work for less, much like former poor kids)
- Aim to lessen the pain of med school bills
- What do other countries do?  I mean, Canada, UK, Australia, etc...these countries all have doctors.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #136 on: August 02, 2017, 12:59:09 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

I am not sure what you mean. If I am sick, and I have the right to healthcare, where does this healthcare come from? What does "society has an obligation" mean when we get down to the details? No matter how you slice it, healthcare means the labor of medical professionals. If I need medical help, it means I need medical goods and/or services. Individuals make those goods, and provide those services. If I have the right to healthcare, it means medical professionals are obligated to make those goods for me, and/or provide their services.

The problem with making positive rights isn't always immediate. No one is suggesting that if you make healthcare a right, our medical system will implode overnight. Yes, people can opt out of being doctors, or teachers. They can even opt out of simply working in the public sector. But, if their service is a right, it must be provided by the government. What happens if doctor pay is low enough, or burden too high, and not enough people go into medicine, or quit it? What happens if people don't become teachers? Remember, if it is a right, it *must* be provided. In the Soviet Union, you could not choose what profession you wanted easily. You might want to become an engineer, but the government might tell you that you'll be a teacher instead, because more teachers are needed. What's to stop the government from doing the same here?

Healthcare means the labor of medical professionals.  Who are PAID.
Education means the labor of teaching professionals.  Who are PAID.

It is no different.
When we have teacher shortages, pay goes up, or student loan forgiveness options come out, or states make changes to encourage people to come into teaching as a "second career".
Have we ever forced people to become teachers?  No.  I have a friend who tried to become one as a second career, but changes over the last decade means there was a glut of teachers in his area (science) and his location.

Has the government ever forced someone to become something?  I mean, come on now.  You are getting to be ridiculous.  Aside from the military (where you sign up KNOWING that there's a chance you are going to be put wherever they need you) - the answer is NO.  We aren't reinventing the wheel here.  It's already done.  In many places.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #137 on: August 02, 2017, 01:20:11 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

+1

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #138 on: August 02, 2017, 01:25:10 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

I am not sure what you mean. If I am sick, and I have the right to healthcare, where does this healthcare come from? What does "society has an obligation" mean when we get down to the details? No matter how you slice it, healthcare means the labor of medical professionals. If I need medical help, it means I need medical goods and/or services. Individuals make those goods, and provide those services. If I have the right to healthcare, it means medical professionals are obligated to make those goods for me, and/or provide their services.

The problem with making positive rights isn't always immediate. No one is suggesting that if you make healthcare a right, our medical system will implode overnight. Yes, people can opt out of being doctors, or teachers. They can even opt out of simply working in the public sector. But, if their service is a right, it must be provided by the government. What happens if doctor pay is low enough, or burden too high, and not enough people go into medicine, or quit it? What happens if people don't become teachers? Remember, if it is a right, it *must* be provided. In the Soviet Union, you could not choose what profession you wanted easily. You might want to become an engineer, but the government might tell you that you'll be a teacher instead, because more teachers are needed. What's to stop the government from doing the same here?

This is a really silly randian nonsense. The obligation isn't on you to provide service; the obligation is on society to make you (well, anyone capable of it) want to provide your services (in exchange for some benefit). It's absurd to argue that the only way this can be accomplished is through force.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #139 on: August 02, 2017, 01:26:12 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

+1

The things I posted are things Objectivists actually believe.  I can't help it that they are ridiculous ideas. 

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #140 on: August 02, 2017, 01:26:32 PM »
Healthcare means the labor of medical professionals.  Who are PAID.
Education means the labor of teaching professionals.  Who are PAID.

So as long as there is reimbursement, it is okay for the government to control your profession, and your day-to-day work?

It is no different.
When we have teacher shortages, pay goes up, or student loan forgiveness options come out, or states make changes to encourage people to come into teaching as a "second career".
Have we ever forced people to become teachers?  No.  I have a friend who tried to become one as a second career, but changes over the last decade means there was a glut of teachers in his area (science) and his location.

Has the government ever forced someone to become something?  I mean, come on now.  You are getting to be ridiculous.  Aside from the military (where you sign up KNOWING that there's a chance you are going to be put wherever they need you) - the answer is NO.  We aren't reinventing the wheel here.  It's already done.  In many places.

You are only looking at one side of the coin, which is Western society in the last several decades. I am looking at it from a human nature/history standpoint. Has a government ever forced someone to become something? Oh, yes. It has been done. In many places.

By calling healthcare a right, you are mandating the professionals involved provide their labor, and you are placing the government as the ultimate arbiter of said profession. Aside from the philosophy of rights that I've been discussing, knowing how human beings are, and have been throughout history, I do not want whole industries being told how much they should be paid, who they need to work with, and how they must provide their labor to others. You might think it is fine and dandy today. I am worried it won't be so tomorrow, and could lead to much larger issues, which history shows happens more often than not.

The core issue here is cost. Healthcare is incredibly expensive, and a sizeable percentage of the population simply cannot afford it. Somehow people think if you make it a right, issues with that aside, the problem will go away. It won't. And, you will introduce new problems, if not now, then later.


SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #141 on: August 02, 2017, 01:29:46 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

I am not sure what you mean. If I am sick, and I have the right to healthcare, where does this healthcare come from? What does "society has an obligation" mean when we get down to the details? No matter how you slice it, healthcare means the labor of medical professionals. If I need medical help, it means I need medical goods and/or services. Individuals make those goods, and provide those services. If I have the right to healthcare, it means medical professionals are obligated to make those goods for me, and/or provide their services.

The problem with making positive rights isn't always immediate. No one is suggesting that if you make healthcare a right, our medical system will implode overnight. Yes, people can opt out of being doctors, or teachers. They can even opt out of simply working in the public sector. But, if their service is a right, it must be provided by the government. What happens if doctor pay is low enough, or burden too high, and not enough people go into medicine, or quit it? What happens if people don't become teachers? Remember, if it is a right, it *must* be provided. In the Soviet Union, you could not choose what profession you wanted easily. You might want to become an engineer, but the government might tell you that you'll be a teacher instead, because more teachers are needed. What's to stop the government from doing the same here?

This is a really silly randian nonsense. The obligation isn't on you to provide service; the obligation is on society to make you (well, anyone capable of it) want to provide your services (in exchange for some benefit). It's absurd to argue that the only way this can be accomplished is through force.

Who is arguing that the only way to provide the services is through force? The argument is that what if someone is not willing to provide the services? You can claim that it won't happen, but I am asking what if it does? What do you do with a right that demands labor that is not being provided?

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #142 on: August 02, 2017, 01:30:11 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

+1

The things I posted are things Objectivists actually believe.  I can't help it that they are ridiculous ideas.

Honestly, I don't much care what Objectivists believe.  I was discussing SecretSquirrel's and my own beliefs.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #143 on: August 02, 2017, 01:33:17 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

+1

The things I posted are things Objectivists actually believe.  I can't help it that they are ridiculous ideas.

Honestly, I don't much care what Objectivists believe.  I was discussing SecretSquirrel's and my own beliefs.

Same here. I don't even know who the Objectivists here are, that Tyort1 is smugly referring to.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #144 on: August 02, 2017, 01:37:29 PM »
Welp looks like the conversation is over, people have stopped discussing stuff and resorted to snark. Pretty rude thing to do to people who are making a bona fide effort to articulate things. Save that crap for people who are ranting.

Thank you.

+1

The things I posted are things Objectivists actually believe.  I can't help it that they are ridiculous ideas.

Honestly, I don't much care what Objectivists believe.  I was discussing SecretSquirrel's and my own beliefs.

Same here. I don't even know who the Objectivists here are, that Tyort1 is smugly referring to.

It's been my experience that when people start throwing around the words "individualism" and "collectivism" and taking the stance that individualism is good and collectivism is evil, that they are usually Objectivists.  Hence why I decided to call out some of their silly beliefs. 

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #145 on: August 02, 2017, 01:52:36 PM »
This whole discussion has gone off the rails.
There is plenty of precedent for governments regulating professions, and not in a fascist way. As an engineer, my profession is regulated, as it should be, to prevent my work from killing people. Same goes for doctors, and anyone else who's work impacts the health and safety of others. It doesn't mean that for health care to be a right people are forced to be doctors at gunpoint, as some seem to be suggesting.
Health care will always be needed, someone will always do it for a fee, anyone pretending otherwise is living in a fantasy world. Health care does not need to be as expensive as it is in the states, mostly because plenty of that money goes to things other than health care (insurance, bureaucracy, lawsuits, etc.) The point of this discussion shouldn't be to imagine some alternate fantasy world where rich people have their own hospitals and armies while poor people starve on the streets (or on the grass, since there'd probably be no publicly funded infrastructure like roads in this fantasy world). We have plenty of examples of countries where access to health care is a right, and those society have not imploded yet. And their measures of health and life expectancy are often far better than those of the US.
The discussion about health care as a right should be more along the lines of what level of care should be provided to everyone, how do we ensure access, where should the money for that come from, who should contribute and how much, etc.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #146 on: August 02, 2017, 01:58:53 PM »
We have plenty of examples of countries where access to health care is a right, and those society have not imploded yet. And their measures of health and life expectancy are often far better than those of the US.

These 2 things are directly related, actually. 

But the "TAXES ARE THEFT!" crowd will never acknowledge that any system other than vulture capitalism can possibly be successful.  So rather than observing and trying to model the successes of other countries, you see them spend all their time arguing about irrelevant stuff like negative/positive rights.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #147 on: August 02, 2017, 02:01:32 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #148 on: August 02, 2017, 02:13:18 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right? Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated? North Koreans have the same rights as you and I, but they live in a terrible, oppressive place.

If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away. And, this is precisely the problem with thinking rights come from governments. This is why people such as myself believe in inalienable rights, which every human has, regardless of government.

Rights cannot be taken away (exceptions exist in case of crime and such). This is the key difference between rights and privileges. If your right goes away because you cannot exercise it, then you don't believe it is a right to begin with. Free societies fight for their rights, and demand they be upheld by their governments.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #149 on: August 02, 2017, 02:18:34 PM »
We have plenty of examples of countries where access to health care is a right, and those society have not imploded yet. And their measures of health and life expectancy are often far better than those of the US.

These 2 things are directly related, actually. 

But the "TAXES ARE THEFT!" crowd will never acknowledge that any system other than vulture capitalism can possibly be successful.  So rather than observing and trying to model the successes of other countries, you see them spend all their time arguing about irrelevant stuff like negative/positive rights.

Who are you to say what is and isn't relevant to this discussion? Is continuously acting in a condescending manner towards those who do not share your views relevant here?

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!