Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't. I am not even sure there is such a thing as a "basic human right" as at any given point in history, there are always people living in situations where they do not have said rights. The only "natural" right is the law of the jungle... we layer societal rights on top of that to attempt to make our lives as humans interacting in a society easier.
So healthcare, education, liberty, ETC all to me would be classified as potential societal rights but not "basic human rights". So if you are in Canada, you would have healthcare as a societal right... and in America you do not.
No, I don't. I am not even sure there is such a thing as a "basic human right" as at any given point in history, there are always people living in situations where they do not have said rights. The only "natural" right is the law of the jungle... we layer societal rights on top of that to attempt to make our lives as humans interacting in a society easier.
So healthcare, education, liberty, ETC all to me would be classified as potential societal rights but not "basic human rights". So if you are in Canada, you would have healthcare as a societal right... and in America you do not.
Kind of related to one of my last posts...people violating your rights doesn't mean they aren't rights. I remember Austin Peterson (the libertarian candidate who I can't stand) argued once that you have no rights unless the government protects them. That's wrong.
Every human has the same rights, regardless of what government they live under. Even if the government says you have the right to free speech, someone could kidnap you and lock you in their basement for speaking your kind...doesn't mean you don't have that right, just that they're violating it.
Kind of related to one of my last posts...people violating your rights doesn't mean they aren't rights. I remember Austin Peterson (the libertarian candidate who I can't stand) argued once that you have no rights unless the government protects them. That's wrong.
Every human has the same rights, regardless of what government they live under. Even if the government says you have the right to free speech, someone could kidnap you and lock you in their basement for speaking your kind...doesn't mean you don't have that right, just that they're violating it.
Hmm I could see that point... to me it is a bit of a chicken or egg situation and mostly an academic argument. You can tell a person on their way to the gas chambers in a concentration camp they have basic human rights... but they will derive no benefit from it. In the end it really does require societies' consensus/approval for said rights to receive the protection they require to actually be effective principles and not just a pipe dream. Imagine a serf in the middle ages asserting their basic human rights before the king - does not tend to end well.
Hmm I could see that point... to me it is a bit of a chicken or egg situation and mostly an academic argument. You can tell a person on their way to the gas chambers in a concentration camp they have basic human rights... but they will derive no benefit from it. In the end it really does require societies' consensus/approval for said rights to receive the protection they require to actually be effective principles and not just a pipe dream. Imagine a serf in the middle ages asserting their basic human rights before the king - does not tend to end well.
Yep, true. You need people to recognize your rights in order to get any benefit from it. I still think it's important to make the distinction though, because you can get into situations where everyone just accepts that the government can grant or revoke your rights, meaning anything they do is acceptable. Obviously that isn't true when you look at something like Nazi Germany.
I really don't want to but in but... What you're saying is complete nonsense. Being a Libertarian (which I am) or an anarchist does not mean not working with others, capitalizing on the efficiencies of another person's specialized labor while offering that same person the benefit of their own specialized labor. Adam Smith wrote about this when he described the "Invisible Hand" theory where an individual in the pursuit of their own best interests actually benefits society by doing so. That person isn't meaning to benefit society, yet through free trade, where one buys, sells or trades their goods and services for the goods and services of others, society benefits regardless of the fact that the person wasn't working toward a societal goal, rather toward a goal of improving their own lot in life.
Libertarians are for extremely limited government. Anarchist see no need for any rulers. Neither of these groups are promoting living as hermits, withdrawn from societal interaction. They merely believe that the best, most efficient means of benefiting the society as a whole comes from VOLUNTARY cooperation, not forced compliance.
How you manage to equate this to some "rugged individualism" where a person or family does everything they need for survival themselves, i.e. growing their own vegetables and livestock, building their own homes, etc., is beyond me as it is hardly what Libertarians or anarchists typically advocate.
Please go read a book or two, and not from some socialist, Marxist or communist perspective, on what Libertarians and anarchists advocate because it's abundantly clear you haven't got a clue.
LOL
You say you don't want to BUTT in, but then you do.
Yes, I have suggested that "libertarians" (or whatever you want to call yourselves) ought to practice what they preach and live independent of all government (i.e. public) assistance. It's pretty logical. And, by saying you should live off the land, I'm using the very same "slippery slope" rhetorical device that conservatives and libertarians use ALL the time, often here on CD and in other online forums. When a left-leaning or liberal poster (or "libta*d" in con/libertarian speak) says they believe in social democratic principles, that could only mean one thing, according to the cons and libertarians: that poster is a "socialist" or a "commie" or a "traitor," etc. (in fact, you employed this very tactic in your post above. Because I believe in universal health care, I MUST be a "Marxist." The fact that I'm not even especially liberal is, apparently, impossible).
"If X, then, of course, Y." Is that it? Well, I'm turning your "logic" back on you.
I employed the same exaggerated logic you all do. Clearly, my suggestion that y'all become independent mountainmen is hyperbole. It's meant to be. My real point -- again! -- is that, if so-called libertarians and conservatives preach "limited government," if you rail against government-sponsored social programs, such as universal healthcare, because they're "communist" or "Marxist," then why do you many of you self-proclaimed libertarians and conservatives so often use plenty of other government social programs when it suits you? Why do you apply for housing assistance? Why do use unemployment insurance? Paid vacations and holidays? Disability insurance? Food/nutrition assistance? Government sponsored rehabilitation programs? I work for a government nonprofit in an overwhelmingly red state. I see this EVERY day.
I noticed that YOU, too, ignored the points I made about so many conservatives/libertarians (ie. red states) being so unhealthy. I'm not making that up: national health data proves this over and over again. So, since the topic of this thread IS healthcare (not Adam Smith or your own political ideologies), I'll ask these questions for the THIRD time now:
Why do most of you have employer-sponsored health insurance? Why don't you pay for your OWN insurance? And WHY do so many of you allow yourselves to become so unhealthy, which, in turn, demands the need for so much health care, which, in turn, drives up the costs of everyone else's health insurance? MY insurance.
And all of that is even BEFORE you go on Medicare at 65. As senior citizens, you cost me even MORE money with all the expensive medical procedures lots of you end up needing. As someone who has always lived pretty cleanly, I resent having to pay higher insurance rates because so many of YOU don't take care of yourselves. YOU are stealing from ME. YOU are imposing your careless, irresponsible lifestyles onto ME.
Using your formula, why should people who try to live healthfully have to pay higher insurance because of people who CHOOSE to eat poorly, do little to no exercise, smoke and/or engage in other addictions, drink too much, etc?
Could someone answer these questions? Maybe?
Oh, and I read a lot of Adam Smith in my economics, political science, history, and philosophy classes as an undergraduate. My dad, a stoic, frugal Scotsman like Adam Smith, was also a voracious reader, and often discussed economics. So, I'm quite familiar with Smith. Thanks, though. It was awfully nice of you to "school" me in Econ101.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 05-10-2017 at 07:38 PM..
It is for the common good. Just like you pay school taxes even if you have no children in school.
Agree.
Apparently some folks are not so fond of the concept of the 'common good'. Gotta admit it is an abstract idea of sorts although not a very challenging one to understand in real time reality. It's measurable & is observable & applicable in every day scenarios & in varying circumstances. As here.
Some folks like to say stuff like "individuals in the pursuit of their own best interests actually benefit society" which sounds something like the concept of the 'common good'. The 'benefit to society' part does anyhow, although it appears to be an afterthought, or incidental to the pursuit of one's self-interest.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, but since its enactment in 1986 has remained an unfunded mandate.
Quote:
Congress passed EMTALA to eliminate the practice of "patient dumping," i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual seeks treatment for a medical condition "or a request is made on the individual's behalf for examination or treatment for that medical condition."
We all need to work together. Only the government can give us free healthcare.
I don't need to work with you. I only need to work to provide for myself. Maybe consider getting a job, working to a goal and being responsible for yourself? It will do wonders for providing for yourself!
I am very giving but I just don't have anything to give. I'm not attacking you for your beliefs.
Isn't always the people who have nothing demanding we all sacrifice to help the people who have nothing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that I'm not even especially liberal is, apparently, impossible).
Agree.
