BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 11:41 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

One can have concern for others without being compelled by law to enable
their bad decision making and behavior. Nobody's asking you to live
without
concern. You can have as much concern as you like. You can give all your
goods to the poor and spend your life serving the poor while wearing
sackcloth and ashes if you like. You may not, however, compel anyone else
to
join you unwillingly. That would be immoral and repugnant. Each individual
gets to choose how much concern he or she shows to others. It's not the
government's duty or authority to compel it.

I disagree. I think there are basic human rights that should be afforded
everyone. This includes education and health care.

Well, that's a reasonable argument to make. But are they basic human rights?

I say no.

I know. Becuase you are a selfish prig.

In essence, a human right is something that society is compelled only to
respect and not infringe upon. The right to life, the right to liberty, the
right to own a gun, the right to freely exercise religion, even the right to
obtain an abortion...if the service is available. All are things with which
others, in particular the government, may not *interfere.* But in no case is
anyone compelled to participate or facilitate the exercise of those rights.

What you refer to, however, are called "entitlements," not "rights." The
difference is that rights are inherent to a person's humanity, they are not
"provided" to them by someone else. No burden other than the respecting of
the exercise of one's rights is imposed on either society or individuals. No
affirmative act is required by another person to effectuate or enable those
rights.

ROFLMAO

So owning a gun is a fundamental human right, but a child getting medical
care is not? Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

Education and health care, however, require the active participation of
others if the "right" is to be exercised. In so doing, an affirmative burden
or duty is placed on someone else to provide or facilitate the enjoyment of
that right. In order to exercise the "right" to health care, someone must be
compelled to provide that health care, otherwise the person's "rights" are
"violated." Never has our society imposed an affirmative burden on another
in the exercise of a right by an individual.

There is great danger in doing so, because it leads to impositions on the
rights of those compelled to provide the services, who have a right of free
association...and disassociation.

Should the Catholic doctor be compelled to provide an abortion because not
to do so would violate the "rights" of the woman requesting it?

Should the Jewish teacher be compelled to teach a neo-nazi college student
because the student's "right" to an education outweighs the teacher's right
to not associate with neo-nazis?

Should the gun store owner be compelled to give a gun to anyone who asks
because failing to do so would infringe on a person's right to own a gun? I
think not. You may have a right to own a gun, but no one is compelled to
provide you with a gun as an affirmative act in facilitation of your rights.

The UN believes that housing is a "basic human right," which means that
someone is going to be compelled to provide that housing, perhaps against
their will and likely at their own expense. Such "entitlements" pose a
serious threat to the rights of people who do not choose to facilitate those
"rights."

Medical care and education are fundamentally the same. Using your plan,
anyone who refuses to provide medical care or education is violating the
rights of the person who wishes to exercise the franchise.

Er. No.

It means as a society agreeing that education and health care should be
available to all. If not infringing upon the religified is something
important to a certain society, but they still believe that health care is a
basic human right, then they will negotiate the situation.

In Canada most people think of health care as a basic human right. But a
doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions doesn't get forced into the
job.

This affirmative burden nonsense is so...so...goofy!

Any society will have "affirmative burdens" all over the place.

That's neither reasonable nor fair, nor would it comport with the
Constitution

As you are aware, I don't give a fig about that.

or the understanding we have of fundamental precepts. And
imagine the flood of lawsuits that would result. It would paralyze the legal
system.

No, you cannot impose an affirmative burden on others in the exercise of
your rights. If you must, it's not a right, it's something else.

Whatever you want to call it, I believe in a society where a child can get
help when they are sick and can go to school no matter what the financial
status of the family they are born into.

I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that comes
with it.

Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and
effective
means of showing concern for others.

Indeed. However, being compelled to to contribute to those causes by force
of law is morally repugnant.

Not to me. I'm proud to do it. I'm not proud when government does a poor job
of it, don't get me wrong on that. But I am proud to be a part of a society
that sees education and health care as necessities of life.

Which is fine. What about those who don't want to do it? Are their feelings
to be considered, or should they just shut up and pay for whatever you
happen to think they ought to pay for?

Selfish prigs are a part of every society, and you can't worry much about
their feelings, or you'll soon have a society of paranoid freaks walking
around with concealed weapons ready to shoot at their own shadow.

My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as
they
don't harm others

The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to
those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector
health care are indeed harming others.

It's a rather large logical leap to blame those who dislike coercive
socialism and favor free-market health care for "harm" that others might
cause themselves through bad planning or misfortune.

Or having the audacity to be born poor.

Again, you finally make a reasoned argument. Should society provide free
health care for poor *children* whose parents cannot afford proper health
care? I'd say yes, because the children are innocent in the matter and have
no control over how they live or plan their lives, and simple compassion
dictates that the innocent be protected. Adults are a different matter
entirely, however.

Uhoh.

If you provide health care for children of poor families, that's placing an
affirmative burden on the other families. Gasp. Scott's a commie! A pinko! I
knew it!

Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.

Selfishness is a civil right, that's rather the point. You may not admire or
like it, but you don't get to dictate how other people live their lives...at
least down here in the US, which is a *good* thing.

It's ugly. And so are you :-/