in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 11:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?

The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a
major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits.

BWAHAHAHAHA

That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting
your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate
based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips.

Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking."


That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get
sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care
for
onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by
taking from everyone else to cover your bad health.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they
can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging
my
liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the
government health plan!!!

Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which
is bad for your liver.

Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are
deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care!

That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always.

That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity
has
been all but eliminated there.

I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only
that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every
person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose.
What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to
heal them when they screw up.

LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach.

Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility,
mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences.

More like paranoid assholes walking around with concealed weapons and living
their life in fear.

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema
to you?

Living without a concern for others is anathema to me.

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

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.

and other people neither interfere with them nor do they
require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others,
even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude
anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude
the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do
not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another.

Yup, I know that's your vision. Everyone in their own little cabin with
their own little guns with their entire life devoted to protecting what's
theirs.

None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual
from obtaining private medical insurance

That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well
here. I wonder how they stay in business?

By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised
to put in the bank.

?

First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say
Canadians are paying to much for it?

Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't
use and don't need. Sheesh.

Well, which is it...is there not such thing as private medical insurance in
Canada? Or is there such a thing?

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema
to you?

Living without a concern for others is anathema to me.

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.


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.


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.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone
living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect
them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where
people
might care about each other.

I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish
without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is
anathema
to you?

Living without a concern for others is anathema to me.

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.

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.

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.

Talk about repugant. You define selfishness.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?


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.


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.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

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 :-/

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion.


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?

Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is.

Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.


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.

Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.


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.

What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of
"rights" says yes.


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

Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.


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

Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.


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.

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.


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.

Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero.


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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden
on others without their consent.


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.

Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..."



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 :-/

And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/23/05 12:23 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

No, because unlike you, I have a reasoned argument to support my assertion.

No, your just a selfish prig who for some reason feels the need to try and
justiry your selfishness through goofy arguments. Do you actually experience
guilt, or what is it that drives you to such foolishness?

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?

Yup. Well...the right to keep and bear arms, including guns, is.

LOL. That's so pathetic. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

Heehee. Now I know you are just putting me on. Nobody is that
stupid.

And yet you're the one who doesn't have the wit to formulate a rational
rebuttal. Stupid is as stupid does.

You're right, I can't think of a "rational rebuttal" to someone who thinks
having guns is a fundamental right but an infant who is dying should fend
for themselves.

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.

Sorry, but once again, anything that imposes on others a burden or duty to
affirmatively act in furtherance of the exercise of the "right" is not a
right, it is, at best, an "entitlement," which is an entirely different
thing.

Any society can declare whatever rights they want to declare.

This can be as bizarre as the "right to bear arms" and can certainly extend
to fundamental needs like health care and education.

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.

What about the doctor who doesn't want to treat the indigent patient? Does
he violate that person's "rights" by refusing to do so? Your definition of
"rights" says yes.

Sounds good to me. What kind of a dickhead doctor would let someone die
because they are poor?

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

Only because your fractional wit is incapable of understanding the
subtleties of my argument.

It's not subtle at all.

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

Indeed, but are the underlying precepts that impose those burdens
characterized as "rights" which accrue to an individual, or are they instead
merely societal obligations created as a part of the social contract under
which people live in community, according to some method of ratifying those
obligations, such as democratic voting?

I say the latter.

You have yet to rationally explain how my thesis is wrong.

Your thesis, in English, is nothing more than "Scotty wants certain things
to be rights and other things not to be rights." That's all there is to it.
You like guns, so you want the right to carry one. You don't give a damn
about children in poverty, so you don't want them to have the right to
education or health care.

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.

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

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.

Then provide the funding for such a society and be called a hero.

I do provide the funding, as do the rest of my fellow citizens. But it has
nothing to do with being a hero.

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.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and healthcare
- as a burden.

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.

Classic socialist swill: "Shut up and do what we tell you..."

No, grow up, and stop being a selfish prig, an infant born into poverty
should not be denied access to health care.

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 :-/

And therein lies the difference between us: I respect and treasure
individual liberty and freedom, while you have no problem forcibly imposing
your worldview on others. It's only a short journey from where you are now
to the Gulags and the Highway of Bones.

ROFL.

I want innocent children to get medicine if they are sick and have a chance
to learn how to read.

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.