Hetero, You’d better have a little talk with Bill.

Yes Ed, if there were no such things as rights, you would be correct.

however, there are a set of things that are called rights.

If there is no such thing as a “right”.....a
“legal” right is a misnomer and is not a right at all.  It is something that is forced by one party onto another. For example, the legislature and/or court forcing the medical industry to service some segment of the popultion.

bill—- when you’re demanding the creation of a legal right to healthcare…..then
you’re going to have to be specific. establishing legal rights via legislation have to
be less vague .

we’ve already a legal right to expect that licensed physicians and licensed
hospitals will not turn us away untreated if they believe that we have an
emergency life-threatening problem.

what more would you have us establish to be rightfully ours?

I’m dizzy ed.

No Man, I would have thought it was my right, before I had it hammered into me that I don’t have any rights, and as a matter of fact there is no thing as a right….it’s all a figment of old pernicious philosophies…but, now that we’re modern, we’ve smartened up a lot and adopted some fresh ideas. But before I was taught that rights are no more real than a sweet smelling skunk in the forest, and was called some nasty names for thinking there were maybe a few… that is when I was so foolish as to think I had a right to at least a few things….a drink of water from a nearby stream, for example, if I was dying of thirst…before I learned that I didn’t, and began to wonder what the old timers were talking about when they said we all had inalienable rights endowed on us by a Creator,....before that.. what I might have said, fool that I am, is it seems that you are beginning to have it dawn on you….yes,it’s still permissible to have a dawning ....beginning to have it dawn on you that the “circular discussion” you’ve been caught up in is not an accident. You have been a victim on the whirlwind carousel of circular thinking, caused by people who take delight in making you dizzy and where everything you say finds tremendous opposition just because you said it. And you wonder if this is by accident or if there may have been a cause. Now, you may think it is your right, because you have not not yet reached the point in your rotating excursion where it was explained to you that you’d better not do it…...you may think it is your right to wonder what this merry go round you’ve been on is all about. But, actually, you don’t have that right because as I’ve explained here with precise, mathematical logic….there is no such thing. Oh, you can do it alright, but don’t think you have a right. I learned this from the operator of the carousel, and now ,it appears, maybe you too?

Simply making an discussion-wide observation that after more than a week
of colorful (albeit respectful) prose and vibrant dissection, we are no closer
to defining, understanding, resolving or reaching consensus on this issue
and are most likely further from it. In fact, we’ve probably only succeeded
in disagreeing on what a society is or what it’s responsibilities are. I don’t
know everything but I do know a clusterfuck of unherdable cats when I see
it. Not that I haven’t enjoyed or find no value in our discussions however.
There has been. It’s become rather circular at this point though.

Whoops, NML - missed your latest effort while posting my own.

It would be nice if you actually learned something from that otherwise lost week - otherwise it will indeed have been wasted.

You’re conflating a couple of different issues, tic:

1.  Protection for minorities was not why our democracy was set up to make changes take a while:  it’s what the Bill of Rights was for (not just to protect ALL of us from government over-reach but to protect minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’).

2.  Our system of representative government was indeed set up to give people some chance to mull things over before they became law, and that’s precisely the system of government that I’ve been advocating we should DEMAND universal access to health care from (because it’s been mulled over far too long already).  It will still take some period of time to get it enacted, but the DEMAND should occur NOW (if indeed the majority want to make that demand, and I believe that they do).

NML, my objection to calling something a ‘right’ before we’ve used our democratic process to define it as such has nothing whatsoever to do with whether adequate facilities to address that ‘right’ (AFTER it has been so defined) already exist:  it has to do with pulling such an assertion out of one’s ass (to put it bluntly) when there’s no real basis for calling it a right save one’s desire (or personal belief) that it be one.

The minority (if it actually is a minority - I’d suggest that in some senses it’s the majority) who suffer from lack of adequate access to health care do not need protection from anything because they’re not being actively oppressed by anyone (at least in this specific area):  rather, they need to change the system so as to make it work better for them (and arguably for everyone).

It’s fine by me to use all the approaches the civil rights movement used to try to OBTAIN this as a right, but not QUITE the same thing - because the civil rights movement was in large part aimed at obtaining rights that were ALREADY defined as such by our laws.  Additional rights did not become rights until additional law was passed to define them as such.

Ok. So all I’ve been able to glean from this week-long+ conversation is that:

A) Healthcare is a nice to have and that people ought to have the ability to
ask for it (which they have, of course, and which is most likely going to be
denied again). We have not been able to agree on why they should have it,
other than we think they should.

B) Rights are not inherent; we don’t really know what they are, where they
come from, or if they exist but we do know that we prefer not to define the
healthcare issue in terms of them.

C) Since we are unable to articulate a reason people SHOULD have access,
the only way we’re comfortable framing this issue is through highlighting
individual benefits.

D) We don’t really have a legal, moral or philosophic basis for making this
demand, request, or wish-upon-a-star other than it can be made in limited
form, in the context of a limited democracy, with limited expectations of
care, all amid limits that we cannot define anymore than we can our rights.

That’s a week of my life I’ll never have back.

I feel that only those demands should be made that are demandable within the limits of things that fall within the scope of what a demand might be. Undemandable demands should be left to those who demand too much in the first place because there are limits to what those demands might be demandably speaking. Furthermore, and I’m speaking off the top of my head here, this is a limited democracy we have here so any demands that are demanded must take that into consideration so that minorities won’t be making them so often for better or worse as far as demands are concerned. Some people feel that the majority should not be satisfied with living a life of counter demands, but should, of necessity, demand to be heard while the demanding is good. I disagree with that completely, and you of course are…take your pick
    1. a donkey
    2. a horse’s behind
    3. a megalo maniac charlatan
    4. a swishy fellow
....if you disagree.

It’s already been built, Bill. It’s not a matter of setting it up, its a matter of
access to something that has already been built. Waiting for the majority to
define something as a right is a bit counterintuitive to concept of a right,
which exists to protect a minority from the majority. Civil rights were not
realized in this country because people waited for the majority to define
them as such. It took people defining it for themselves and then peacefully
obstructing civic machinations to have the rights they considered existential
irrespective of the political process or majority preference recognized (as
opposed to granted). It was not a nice to have. It was a must have.

———I feel that we unquestionably have the ‘right’ to DEMAND universal access
to health care from our society because that’s what a democracy is all about:  the
right of people to set it up - hopefully within defined limits that protect minorities
- as they in the aggregate see fit.——

and that’s why we have a limited democracy….so that the majority can not simply
DEMAND whatever they wish at any given moment

some people think that democracies work better when the majority is not
immediately satisfied and that demands are considered for a while before being
put into practice.

Still one perhaps subtle distinction to make, NML:  I don’t agree that access to health care IS a ‘right’, though I certainly agree that it SHOULD BECOME DEFINED AS a right in this country via the democratic process.

On the matter of emotional appeals, you seem to be restricting your view of emotions to ‘empathy’.  Without endorsing what I believe is a gross overgeneralization on your part regarding the degree to which empathy exists in EITHER half of the population which you’re describing, you should recognize that the portion with may not respond to appeals to empathy is unquestionably responding to OTHER emotional appeals and that BOTH halves are responding to the emotion of fear perhaps more strongly than anything else these days.

“Not having it causes undue harm to members of this society”  I agree with -bill on ‘undue’.  ‘harm’ to any member of the society is unacceptable.  All for one, one for all? 

“It is our society because we built it and it exists for our benefit.”  And participation is not optional.  This is part of being an American.  We the People and our ancestors make and made sacrifices for a better life for future generations.  The standard of living includes very good health care by now, and we are not going to retreat from this position, ‘rights’ or not.  Dig the vibe?

Again with regard to ‘optionality’......if you want to opt out….leave the country.  Trying to subvert the right of Americans to work together to provide health care for everyone, the rich and poor alike, is by definition what it means to be an American.  Emotional?  Perhaps a tad.

And yes, I agree we need to spell out the rights, but I think it equally important to to build the just and proper rhetorical tools to communicate ownership of these rights, so we may indeed codify them. Constitutionally?  Hell yes.

Fair enough Bill. I guess all I was trying to capture is that we agree that it is
a right, whether on grounds of natural rights, participation and sacrifice or
via the democratic process. Although I don’t see it surviving the democratic
process unless it is predefined as a right.

On emotional appeals, that approach appears to resonate with half of the
population while the other half reflexively rejects anything based on
empathy. If we want to make inroads, we’ll have to start speaking their
language.

Not quite, NML:  I appreciate the attempt to define areas of agreement, but I think you got a bit carried away.

I feel that we unquestionably have the ‘right’ to DEMAND universal access to health care from our society because that’s what a democracy is all about:  the right of people to set it up - hopefully within defined limits that protect minorities - as they in the aggregate see fit.  I also feel that in such a democracy we have every right to demand that the society DEFINE access to health care as a right (via Constitutional amendment if we don’t trust our lawmakers not to subvert it later on).  But those are quite different from feeling that we have some kind of inherent CLAIM to such a right beyond our defined right under democracy to define it as a right if we, in the aggregate, choose to do so.

And while it’s certainly clear that harm comes to those who do not have access to health care, and that this harm has adverse effects on our society as a whole that we should be concerned about (even if we’re not concerned about those individuals per se), I balk at the adjective ‘undue’ because that implies that it is somehow INHERENTLY their ‘due’ not to be so harmed (though once our society has defined such access as their right THEN any harm which arose from limiting such access could, indeed, be legitimately termed ‘undue’).

I feel that this is ‘our society’ because (again) that’s what a democracy is defined to be, not because of something more ‘inherent’ (sorry).  If we did not like the society, as long as we had the option to decline to participate in it and/or leave it (as we do) I believe that we would have no OTHER legitimate claim to a right to change it than the claims embodied in its definition.

Given the degree to which emotional (as contrasted with rational) appeals COMPLETELY DOMINATE our political discourse I can’t agree that they have ‘limited effect’.  And I’m not above using them myself in a good cause, though my personal preference would be to focus more on making rational appeals more persuasive.

I would, however, agree that PHILOSOPHICAL appeals have ‘limited effect’ (is that what you meant?), especially in our current environment:  that’s why I’d like to side-step the ‘rights’ question entirely save for emphasizing that our goal is to define - not ‘claim’ - such a right, and instead focus on the obvious benefits of doing so.

Take it in a good way Ed.  An intricate dance of a post, I’m too thick and lazy for to really absorb it though, on it’s content or the more subtle pokes I think you intended.  All in good fun.

———It is our society because we built it and it exists for our benefit.

Our healthcare system is part of that society and we therefore have a
rightful claim to access it.——-

these don’t work…......and certainly the latter doesn’t follow from the former.

you have a problem in that you describe the collective institutions w/o
considering that they’re the labor of individuals.  Where are the rights of the
individuals considered in your theory?

Must a doctor treat anybody or does the worker have the right to choice?

John, What do think that “hell of a post ” might be trying to say ?

No Man, If you mean that ordinary Americans are the ones principally responsible for the “building” of the nation….a good case can be made that you’re absolutely right….But when you write that the nation exists for our benefit( the majority )you are under the spell of a major delusion.

NML, you have a good good start.  I suggest continuing to refine the concepts and when they become worded in a really memorable way, they will take on a life of their own.  They will self-amplify.  Opponents will try to twist your product, which is clearer and more graspable language, subtle phrasing, memorability, etc.  Directness, clarity, sunlight, they are the enemy of those who would deny the rights of the common people.  Be prepared for obfuscation.  What you started in enumerating that list will send up antennae, and you’ll see all forms of subtle troll attacks.  Attempts to misdirect, to cover in noise, etc.  I’m in though.  Beware this is a very public forum, and the lap-dogs will be baying to bring in the pack.  On a positive note, some percentage of the readership may assist in spreading the thinking. 

One thing to consider is the ‘Reagan Democrats’, the working people who have been convinced for decades now, that the government is your enemy.  The idea that they are entitled* to health care by virtue of simply being an American might appeal to many, and it should.  They have earned the right, over generations.  *Entitlement has become a dirty word. It is used in the context of the ‘welfare queen’ deliberately by the lap-dogs to smear it.  In reality, veterans are entitled to VA benefits.  They are entitled to a GI bill.  There are many more entitlements, and entitlements are rights, yes?  There are legal means one can secure a true entitlement.  There are many ‘entitlements’ in the corporate world, such as an entitlement to a tax break, and they are ‘rights’.  They have a legal claim, enforceable through the power of the government. 

So, I am suggesting to incorporate the sense of ‘entitlement’, and ‘legal claims’ into the concepts of ‘rightful claim’ and ‘personal benefits’ you suggest.  Im my mind, I know what you mean by ‘rightful claim’ and ‘personal benefits’, at least I think I do, but how does that translate to ‘We the People’?  This is the real war, the war of language to win over heart and minds.  So when legislation is written, politicians can’t stand behind verbiage with a variety of interpretations.  I rant.  Time to stop.  Sit back and watch the trolls pop up.

John/Bill,

My hope on these forums is that at some point, we can reach a level of
agreement rather than continuing to debate for its own sake. I sometimes
find it useful to list the itrms we seem to agree on as a way to clarify where
we’re at and to begin to identify further decision points.

If I’m correct we seem to be reaching a consensus on a few things:

Not having it causes undue harm to members of this society

It is our society because we built it and it exists for our benefit.

Our healthcare system is part of that society and we therefore have a
rightful claim to access it.

Emotional appeals have limited effect. The discussion should focus on
personal benefits and individual rights to that which we’ve built.

Anything to add?

(Now, if we could only get someone with a loud enough voice to amplify
some of that and begin to alter the discussion.)

NML…...I agree completely.  It’s just an honest approach to claim the rights we earn by working together to maintain the economy and infrastructure our ancestors built.  We’ve earned the right by blood sewat and tears.  Nothing more is needed and anything more complicates the issue and allows for subterfuge.

hetero, I skim too.  No problem.  I share the common fault of some around here of being verbose.

Bill,

Moving away from foundations and onto tactics for implementation, You’re
absolutely right. It probably is much more pragmatic and productive to
focus on the immediate personal benefits. Though I’m not sure discussing
them as rights is necessarily an appeal to one’s better nature. I almost feel
that such emotional appeals have been tried for a long time with very
limited effect (ie Sicko). Framing the issue as a right is not something I hear
in the public domain very often. I find it empowering. and I wonder if
others would as well. Perhaps it should be framed in such a way that
people understand that they own this society, that its supposed to be here
for their benefit, that they built this system and have not only a stake in it
but a rightful claim to its benefits. That to me seems to be the one
approach even Occupy hasn’t tried to verbalize.

JB—- i thought that I understood your point. I didn’t wish to discuss it as I find
that it’s not something that is obviously true…. and it wasn’t a major point anyway

Ed, that was a hell of a post below.

heterochromatic, on your post of April 5 at 10:41 am, you took my point wrong.  I’m trying to contrast what those two particular hypotheticals actually do to make money.  What value do they each add, really?  And yet, the poor farm worker gets screwed regarding health insurance.  Taint right.

Come, come gentlemen( and ladies as the case may be ) while it’s certainly true that resources were once available only insofoar as we could impound our penchant to vitiate the very philosophy on which they depended for observable verification, I would argue that a relapse of nature’s piccadillos and a production schedule more reliant on a stiff embrochure offers a surer path without the trappings of effervescent bereavement. The obscure but ever present stagnation experienced on a trip to the emergency hospital bespeaks an iron law that cannot be defrayed or even administered without remaining a viable alternative. Built on this foundation, and the proper placement of punctuation, the question becomes…is the entire edifice of societal perogatives safe while we are awake and thinking ?

JB—-  I don’t know why you’re asking me about some imagined failure of mine to
consider eating safe and healthy food?

————

it’s pretty much SOP around here and has been since the mrs and I were teens.

Yes, we’ve kept the trappings of the age of enlightenment without their heart.  Meanwhile, we’ve regressed to a feudal society.  Hollow ceremonies and hollow tradition which destroys equal opportunity and egalitarianism are the tools of the lap-dogs.

JB—- resources are scarce in comparison to infinite need….. HOW scarce and
how much of our resources are devoted to healthcare needs to be examined.
———-

...“By the way, by the time much care becomes ‘urgent’, it’s way, way too late. 
Preventative screening should not be a priviledge of those working at a given
time or of the wealthy, should it?”...

no it definitely should not. preventing illness is WAY more efficient than is
treating.

BUT…. people rarely are willing to devote THEIR OWN time and effort and
resources toward educating themselves and involving themselves in preserving
their health ...and far too often neither make the correct choices nor go for
exams when they don’t feel ill.

And hetero, would it kill you to acknowledge that one of those examples is actually handling the food that goes to your table?  The other is just trying to get it cheaper.  Well, isn’t that good?  Cheaper food?  SURE it is…...I’ll cot costs by eliminating half the porta-pots and let the workers do their business wherever they can.  That’ll save me some production costs, which will get absorbed by profits all up the line except, the saving stops with the consumer.  And the stockholder in the farm?  Do they even see a profit?  Probably not.  That’s how the system has become.

Hetero—resources are scarce?  how scarce?  Look at what we waste in this society.  Scarcity is a myth until we try.

By the way, by the time much care becomes ‘urgent’, it’s way, way too late.  Preventative screening should not be a priviledge of those working at a given time or of the wealthy, should it?

OM, freedom for who under the ‘European traditions’?  Those inside the castle?  And what about those outside?  Much Europeans ‘freedom’ at home, (freedom from want, etc) was had at the expense of the subjugation of others.  Yes, it did trickle down to the lap-dogs.  Progress is keeping what is good in tradition, and recognizing what is bad.  ‘Traditions’ of social Darwinism and dispensation of medical care on that basis is anti-Christian, and anti-American.  Rather than look at the good Europe has to offer, you choose the worst part.  Contrary to your continuous harping, you sir are not down with the common people, no.  You are the elitist.  I did not call you the lap dog of the aristocracy, you took it upon yourself to claim that title.  So there you have it.  Ozark Michael is the real elitist.  Self-proclaimed lap-dog of the would-be aristocracy.  Good to finally see exactly where you stand.

No, I think the whole ‘natural law’ stuff is a way to get wrapped around the axle, to play in a game where someone else can change the rules by a few scholarly arguments by lap-dogs of the would-be aristocratic class.

I ponder how you see the world and I wish you were right. If only we could simply invent yet another path to freedom as if all roads lead there. If only we could simply jettison the tarnished past, untangle ourselves from the traditions of thought and of culture and of religion that “wrap around the axle” of the Progress you wish to achieve. If only freedom arose everywhere all the time! Oh, if only that was true!

Unfortunately, there is reality to deal with. Unfortunately, freedom has been a rare thing in the world. Unfortunately, freedom arose from specific religious, cultural, and philosophic traditions…specifically the religion of Christianity, the culture of Europe, and the very philosophies you dislike and wish to Progress past.

Unfortunately, as we ‘Progress’ past those ideas and traditions, it is possible that we wont be able to maintain a free society anymore.

That is why, (most unfortunately!), “lap dogs” like myself are going to remained wrapped around the axle of what is called Progress.

This looks so fun - as my grand daughter says. Let me try to jump in here.Perhaps I too can add something toward helping to solve the problem presented by the five hypocrites with one bad plan…...
  A citizen’s obligtion, equitably speaking, may be percieved within the mundane parameters of a partial or wholly inadequate social contract theory and conditional upon such right being abrogated by past proclivities sectioned in a precise, if nuanced ,definition of the need for further eqivocation.
  Furthermore, a vague ambiance may be all the proof we need that our unassailable position is regulated by nothing more than a replicated mandate compensated solely by absolute control of the exigencies of marketable determinism.
  It follows therefore that, barring any addtional expenditures, we must ensure that this tendency   reamins pliable in any further declension of portable philosophy. Others may disagree ,but they are dancing on the slippery slope of obstinate obstructionism wherein any debate may be beyond assimilation.

Best—- your hypothetical concerns two people who have spent years working
and producing some value…. and I don’t wish to attempt to say which one has
made a slightly larger contribution. 

other people contribute little or nothing. and some contribute a great deal.

NOT a damn bit of it adds up to anything other than everyone should get SOME
healthcare resources devoted to them at the moment they’re in urgent need.

My personal preference is for universal care, but it’s simply not an ethical
certainty that everyone must receive equal shares of the healthcare pie.

the resources are scarce compared to the infinite need…..and the need IS
infinite

NML, I don’ t mean to be too critical of your view…...it’s extremely useful, the idea of inalienable rights, birthright.  That we the people have fought, bled, died, worked or lent meaningful support to someone who did.  We claim the right as a birthright because we and previous generations have paid our dues. 

Hetero, I’ll give an example and you tell me who has the greater right to health care.  A farm worker who after years of working in the hot sun needs screenings to catch skin cancer before it can kill him, or, some desk jockey who orders produce for a big supermarket chain, and needs frequent checkups because he’s had it so easy, working in an nice air conditioned office, that he overate and became a coronary/stroke/diabetes risk?  Which has contributed more?  And the third case, the complete slacker.  The one who clearly never made any contribution whatsoever?  In my view, it muddies the wters too much to try and sort them out.  Just make it universal, period, and let the lazy bastards get away with it.  Who cares?  It’s a small price to pay to be sure the people who really do the back breaking rotten grunt work that built this country get what they have earned.  Nothing should get in the way of that. 

Don’t get caught up in the idea that what you earn monetarily has anything to do with your contribution to society, that is a huge mistake we make, and a very practical one to remedy.  Nothing too theoretical there.  Often, the opposite is true, where the annual income is in inverse proportion to contribution (to our common wealth).  In the final analysis, I don’t worry about who ‘deserves’ health care or not.  They’re all people, the hard-working and the parasites, and they’re all Americans, so damnit, I agree with the ‘right’ to good preventative and comprehensive health care for every last one.

——-It should be simple:  We (all the people) built the wealth, and We will see the
benefits of it.——

It might be nice if the statement was not so very untrue…...wealth was not built by
everyone and some folks built none at all, while others built a great deal of it.

John

Perhaps you’re right. It is a way to get wrapped around the axle and just I
subscribe to it doesn’t everyone must or that it’s the last. My big concern
though is that if we don’t define them as rights (something that cannot ve
taken away by government or power, our understanding of what you
describe, perhaps for lack of my own better terms, as ‘deserve’ or “should
share in” then our sense of justice borne entitlement to that which we’ve
built will continue to be dismissed out of hand or removed altogether. My
personal philosophy is that rights come with birth and that I think those
rights come from an instinctive sense of justice going back to our earliest
days. But I’m not here to force anyone to talk specifically about what I think
is important. I’ve shar ed my thoughts which all I could ever hope to do.
Thank you for listening.

——- Do “we the people” govern or does the market?———

govern WHAT?

in this country, we the people govern those things which the government is
obliged to govern and some other things which the government has decided to
govern.

in this country, the government is supposedly is not empowered to govern
every thing and we the people are expected to allow we the people some
freedom from government control.

we the people do not exercise absolute control and we the people may not
command that every physician, nurse and hospital janitor work for government
wages or not at all.

we the people might properly demand that no person be without some minimal
care, but not that no person may receive superior care.

NML, I do agree we need a social contract which is clear, and specific regarding education, healthcare and retirement.  I just disagree with the way in which we arrive at social contract, via ‘theory’ of natural rights. 

It should be simple:  We (all the people) built the wealth, and We will see the benefits of it.  Money represents wealth, and those who have custodianship over it have a responsibility to re-seed and fertilize the soils which produced that wealth.  They specifically can not use it ‘as they wish’, they do not ‘own’ the wealth, they merely possess it.  Further, that by using it irresponsibly, for the benefit of the few, they lose claim to it. 

I like bits of Carnegies ‘Gospel of Wealth’.  I also dislike ‘natural laws’ as the basis for justness because ‘We the People (the common man) is playing on a field created and manipulated by those that live parasitically from the common good.  Social Darwinism in the late 19th century arose as a ‘valid’ (by who’s system?) means to justify extreme disparity in distribution of wealth. 

No, I think the whole ‘natural law’ stuff is a way to get wrapped around the axle, to play in a game where someone else can change the rules by a few scholarly arguments by lap-dogs of the would-be aristocratic class.

The Irish famine is a particularly good example of a broken contract. As
people starved to death, their British overlords had shiploads of food that
rotting as they sat in port awaiting movement for export to be sold abroad.
Ireland still has not recovered from its loss of population or the violence
the consumed it for more than a century.

A modern example of what I’m describing is a credit score. Employers are
increasingly turning to credit scores before they hire. Yet, particularly in a
bad economy, everyone does not have the ability to get a job, earn money
and improve that score. Nor are they allowed to know exactly how it’s
calculated. That is an unwinnable loop. The purpose of the society begins to
deteriorate and as more harm befalls the people who are willing to work
and improve that score, the contract is increasingly broken. Such are the
reasons people leave a society and migrate to other areas or in the worst
cases, then to violence to alter their lot.

Forgive the smart phone errors…

Shenonymous

I derive my justification by asking what us the purpose of a society?
Perhaps there is disagreement about that but from my perspective, its
most basic purpose is the common welfare. Do the hunters of a tribe share
in yhe bounty for benefit of all? Perhaps in early days, all a society could
offer it’s people was food and protection. However, as the caring capacity
of that society grows, the expectations of it’s to continue to share in the
bounty grows in kind and proportionate complexity. Does everyone have
an equal right to an education? If we built it, shouldn’t we? If we are going
to hinge our ability to obtain sustenance and security (basic human needs)
around x, then everyone must have the ability to obtain x. Otherwise, the
original of society is negated. The contract is broken.

John,

I understand the need for the here and now. Believe me. But as I said, our
problems are not the identification of problems. Our problems are
specifically philosophic. Do “we the people” govern or does the market?
Believe it or not, there is a rather powerful political movement out there
that believes only specific people should be allowed to participate. Those
are the questions of our time and until they’re answered, problems like
healthcare will continue to stagnate. Besides, if we the people (a concept
based on natural rights to begin with) have no rights other than to die, then
we have no business complaining to those in power. We should simply
accept our lots in life as the the way the cards were dealt and focus on
being the best serfs we can possibly be.

No_Man’s_Land, April 3 at 5:44 am – You are correct, social
contract theory is not in any sense similar to religion. Your argument
here is interesting but not clear.  I find your notion that there is an
innate expectation from the society of which people are a part vague. 
You say, “Part of that expectation is that the society nurtures a safe
and healthy environment for themselves and their children. That
expectation is proportionate to that society’s capacity to care for
and nurture.” What kind of rigorous thinking led you to this “theory”?

Trying to imagine the fantasy about a car becoming the center around
which life “orbits,” and its subsequent relation as a necessity for life, I
found the difficulty in why it becomes incumbent on a society to provide
it?  Even if not having the car could cause undue harm.  Saying society
“should” provide is moral determination not a necessary and sufficient
reason it is required to.  This necessarily calls for a precise definition
of what is a society and what are its duties?  The same with the Living
Wage Argument.  It is no different than the car.  What is a society’s
obligation is debatable and also what a living wage means.  Who will
determine how much is a living wage?  Is there some floor amount, and
what would it cover?  What about a ceiling amount?  How far should it
go?  Perhaps it would be more just and equitable to say that a society’s
obligation is not to provide either partially or entirely a living wage or a
life-saving car but to provide a socio/economic ambience, a safe and
protective environment, where everyone has the guaranteed opportunity
to earn the car and living wage through work compensation that is
regulated from the danger of what would be expropriated by those who
have already proven to exploit any and every one they can?

The healthcare issue is of a different species.  The government is not
providing the health care, but would administer the service.  It is
demanding that all people be insured which originally was due to the
astronomical costs the health care industry imposed on this society
and millions of people from infants to elder citizens could not afford.
It is a matter of trade off, to not insure and allow the millions of trips to
emergency hospitals that by law cannot deny care, the costs of which are
then defrayed by charging everyone who does have access to health care
either by being insured or able to pay out of their own pocket having to
pay higher costs of insurance and health care both.  This cost is what
spurred health care reform in the first place.  The question is whether
all people have a right to health care at an affordable cost to some one!
Who that is will be either the ill person or someone else and who is that
someone else?  The requirement of single payer health care insurance
seems to be the better solution. Single-payer health insurance collects
all medical fees, and then pays for all services, through a “single”
government (or government-related) source.

Short of that it seems the individual mandate is next best.

NML, you say, “Those are all terms that strongly indicate that a natural right or law (aka a moral code we instinctively sense or “hold self evident” with or without a system of government and law) has been violated.”

Fine, some of us want a veneer of justification, a philosophical logic, ultimately boiling down to a divine right, or the alternative ‘natural right’, fine and dandy.  You may need this ‘academic basis’ for action, I don’t.  I say We the People have worked to produce great wealth, and we will by force institute laws which return an adequate fraction of that wealth toward the care of health of the general population.  We don’t need no stinking reason.  We built that wealth through generations of labor, and we will not allow it to be used to finance the luxurious lifestyles of the rich and famous. 

We can play about with various philosophical justifications till the cows come home…...and counter arguments can be made.  The concept of ‘natural rights’ is man-made.  Artificial.  There are no rights, there is only the here-and-now situation.  There are laws and who controls the power enforcing those laws. 

I skimmed the posts between this one and yours down below, and if I understand, -bill has some idea about the ‘end run’ and not getting bogged down.  Being extremely direct, as I did above.  I think the ‘academic justification’ is a great exercise in certain small circles, but those ‘Newtonian derivative’ systems are from another time.  It is fascinating how they linger in our institutions and among academics.  But they were never real, except insofar as they had an ability to persuade, to for political consensus.  They were a tool for that purpose, and that purpose alone, no apology for the cynicism.  Now, the notions of ‘natural rights’, etc, are dull, and rusty to the point of being un-sharp-able.  What is needed to cut through the thick fat surrounding the average Americans brain?  Stark reality.  Contrast.  Video. 

The eloquent prose and philosophical constructs of the 18th century are simply no match for the conscience piercing power of modern mass media tools.  One might argue the use of these tools, modern mass media has calloused what passes for the modern mind against the subtitles of forms of previous learning and understanding.

Good Morning Comrades,
    This just in…. The state of Pennsylvania has cut 90,000 children from the Medicaid roles, while Massachusetts, hospitals are reporting a significant rise in the number of malnourished children coming through the emergency rooms. Well, maybe this windfall can be used to bolster our woefully inadequate military budget. After all what have these children ever done to benefit the economic system ?
Kinda makes you proud to be all red, white and blue, doesn’t it….Amber waves of grain and all that.

‘Tribal times’ indeed.  And made worse by the deliberate polarization that both major parties so aggressively foster.

Ironically, that’s a large part of the reason that I tend to AVOID philosophical discussion when discussing issues:  what passes for philosophy among most of the electorate is regurgitated political sound bites, and the deliberately-induced fear of the utter disaster that will inevitably occur if the ‘other party’ wins helps set such attitudes in concrete.

Rather than go up against that solid wall I consider it more pragmatic to do an end-run around it.  It disgusts me to sign letters to Congress emphasizing that we should get out of Afghanistan because it costs too much money and takes too many American lives, but I grit my teeth and do it because those arguments help by-pass the jingoistic “my country right or wrong” policies that BOTH major parties seem dedicated to pursuing - so it’s worth some personal disgust if tackling the issue from that direction may help get people and politicians on board to wind down the war without having to get them to agree that we should do so because it is illegal and morally wrong to pursue it (hell, we couldn’t even get anywhere using that argument to get out of Iraq, despite the blatant lies about the presence of WMD and Al-Qaeda that got us in there).

So when it comes to universal health care I prefer to avoid a debate analogous to those old ‘welfare queen’ claims used to battle against social programs 20 years ago and instead emphasize the potential savings and benefits that can occur to the country as a whole - avoiding the need to appeal to the ‘better natures’ of a whole lot of people who are scared as hell and focused on their own problems right now.  Sure, they’re still a lot better off than many third-world inhabitants, but they’ve seen enough RELATIVE decline in financial security that telling them that they should feel morally obligated to ensure access to health care for everyone (rather than emphasizing how it will help THEM) is likely to be an extremely hard sale to make.

Now, calling access to health care a ‘right’ does have appeal, because these scared people would like it to be a right not so much for others as for themselves (hardly the kind of high-minded ‘philosophical’ reasoning that I suspect you have in mind).  Getting them to fight to ESTABLISH it as a right is likely to be an extremely effective tactic.  But I’ll suggest that trying to convince them that it’s a right that somehow already exists on some higher plane may just confuse the issue.

No, I don’t have a very high opinion of the American public, and haven’t for decades.  But I do think that if we can manage to work around (rather than directly confront) the propaganda that they’ve been fed so continuously for those decades they’re still reachable.

That’s my real reservation about the approach you’re in favor of.  I couldn’t care less that we personally disagree about whether access to health care is some kind of ‘natural right’:  what worries me is that if agreeing on that were made a precondition to working on actually GETTING universal access to health care it might sufficiently muddy the waters to keep such universal access from occurring at all.

Bill,

Fair enough. In that regard I think you are one of the few exceptions in
terms of why you’re here and perhaps particles of learning and expansion
do pass between posters from time to time. It would be more beneficial in
my opinion if the authors of these pieces plucked relevant concepts and
discussions from these forums in order to amplify worthwhile ideas. Then I
think an argument can be made that these forums are worth the effort and
time to participate. Sadly, they respond more the media they criticize more
than those who try to expand upon what they’ve written so my sense is that
we’re doing little more than trying to shout down a gail. Though I must
admit, I too hope to be heard even in small ways.

Were this not such a time of confusion and foundational redefinition, I
probably would not place as much emphasis on underlying philosophy. Yet
these are tribal times, particularly in the realm of information
consumption. I therefore consider those philosophies more than incidental
reference point in times like this. They are a place to begin, starting points
for agreement and essential if we are to ever move in a common direction.
For such foundational questions of life and death, roles of government or
human rights, I don’t think its an avoidable conversation in the slightest
way since our present day problems stem precisely from philosophical
differences as opposed to the technicalities of implementation. This is
much more than a time of problem solving. It’s a time of redefinition the
likes of which we have not seen since perhaps the civil war.

Hmmm.  I certainly come to forums like this to try to reach some degree of shared understanding (which involves sharing ideas and shared learning), though agree that little beyond that is likely to occur (and even that can easily get derailed when people talk past each other - which is why I tend to visit only sporadically until the noise level becomes sufficiently discouraging).

However, I’m old enough to have worked through my own philosophy pretty thoroughly (though there’s always the possibility that something new will be brought to my attention), and I’m sufficiently aware of how much individual philosophies differ that I don’t spend much time worrying about that rather than about specific issues of common interest (it being hard enough even to reach consensus at that level).

That said, underlying philosophy does sometimes crop up in unexpected details, and needs to be considered when that happens.  However, it often turns out that agreed-upon solutions to concrete problems can be found that do not require high levels of often much harder to reach philosophical agreement - and my impression is that Truthdig is a forum where the primary focus tends to be more on the former than on the latter (I don’t even know where I’d go if I were looking for really abstract discussion).

To honest Bill im quite skeptical of the value of these types of forums to
begun with. Ideally, people would come here to understand, define and
resolve issues in a fair, open and respectful exchange of ideas but that isn’t
what these types of forums are usually about, at least on anything more
than a momentary basis. Mostly they a mechanism for people to vent on
and simulate being heard.

I’ll discuss the philosophical, practical or technical to the best of my ability.
My preference when solving to problems us to reach consensus on a
philosophical foundation so that we can begin to work toward solutions
from a common understanding and definition, which isn’t something that
open forums lend themselves to well.

Beyond that, it’s a way to kill time that is a bit more stimulating than
American Idol.

NML, we can certainly continue to discuss the question of ‘natural rights’ until we’re blue in the face, but I don’t see how that will advance the cause of universal health care one iota.  To that extent it seems at least a distraction; to the extent that it actually puts off people who would otherwise join in the effort it’s even worse (i.e., divisive:  it’s already having a bit of that effect right here).

I’ve always been a sucker for a good, abstract discussion but I don’t make the mistake of considering that a very productive use of my time (i.e., I consider it recreational) and usually try to get back to more substantive issues after a while (in fact, that’s a point on which I can agree with Ed:  discussions like the one we’re having right now have seldom been conspicuously effective in causing changes to the real world - though they do sometimes lead to catchy slogans which can stir ‘the masses’ to action if they’re already sufficiently otherwise aroused).

So what’s your priority?  Philosophical bull-session, or something more concrete?  I wouldn’t criticize either choice, but would encourage you to be aware that you’re making one.

Bill,

I think we’ll have to simply disagree about natural laws and rights or the
prudence of discussing them, which is a true matter of personal value and
hence opinion. We are united in our agreement that this is a need we all
share.

No Man, You’re wasting your time trying to fight your way through a devious semantic jungle.

NML - those terms certainly don’t ‘indicate’ (or even ‘suggest’) that to me, so once again this is a matter of personal opinion and one which I submit really shouldn’t have much effect on being able to get together to try to cause the changes that we all seem to want in this area.

If so, then pursuing that debate may be more of a distraction than a productive use of our time and (as I’ve observed before) could even be counter-productive if enough people whom we need on our side get put off by calling what we’re working toward some kind of natural right rather than simply something which makes eminent sense for our society to pursue.

To try to clarify my own reservation, I’m perfectly willing to “Fight, demand, take a stand…” with my employer if I feel that I’m being paid less than I’m worth but in no way consider that some fundamental right is at issue there:  it’s simply a difference of opinion or even just one of perception.  The same in principle applies to my willingness to “Fight, demand, take a stand…” for universal access to decent health care:  I think it’s an extremely good idea, one which our society can easily afford, and one which would, in fact, have more than compensating societal benefits if it existed, but that’s a far cry from considering it to be some kind of absolute ‘right’ (especially since I’m not at all convinced that any such thing as an ‘absolute right’ exists).

Incidentally, my previous posts talked about possibly limited resources only in the context of UNLIMITED care, and I explicitly stated that we DO have the resources to extend to everyone a standard of care AT LEAST equal to that offered currently by good private insurance plans (plus I believe coverage for things like dental, eye, and long-term care) if we use those resources wisely.  Once again, as simply a matter of prudence I’d suggest that taking things one step at a time (getting everybody’s care at least up to that enjoyed by those currently covered by good insurance plans before starting to discuss whether truly ideal care can be attained) may be the more realistic approach (since ‘all or nothing’ too often winds up getting ‘nothing’ rather than something as worthwhile as, say, Medicare for All would be).

Bill:

I don’t think its a foregone conclusion that we don’t have the resources. We
have the resources. We have the highest GDP in the world. What we lack is
the will to tap or harness those resources for the public good. You’re
correct in saying that we must alter the system. We hemorrhage most of
our wealth through our banking system. A parallel public banking system
that injects low or no interest loans and revenue into human and
infrastructure development would go a long way to paying for high levels of
care or in creating the conditions that would make it more affordable.

John

Fight, demand, take a stand…

Those are all terms that strongly indicate that a natural right or law (aka a
moral code we instinctively sense or “hold self evident” with or without a
system of government and law) has been violated.

‘demand’ can mean many things.  I hope it doesn’t come to violence, but que sera sera.  I don’t think anything short of massive strikes or violence will secure rights.  And as I pointed out, rights are only those which are held by power.  Real power.  Frankly, We the People have probably gotten too fat, stupid and lazy to take, hold or wield power anymore…..perhaps there never was such a time.  a resurgence of the ‘labor movement’ is probably the only chance, but those dip-shits have become too stupid to appreciate their kids education, such as it is.

You REALLY need to read posts more carefully before responding to them, tic:  I EXPLICITLY noted that we don’t have the resources to “insure everybody the very best of care” (well, you used the term ‘unlimited’ care in the post I was responding to so I used that wording in mine) - and why that didn’t constitute any obstacle to getting everybody at least the level of care that the reasonably-adequately-insured enjoy today.

I also specifically responded to your original alleged road-block that the “service is paid for somehow” by describing exactly how that could occur without any additional total spending.  It’s rather silly for you now to propose an additional requirement that this be done with no changes to the system:  NOTHING can be done with no changes to the system, and the appropriate changes to make are what we’re trying to discuss here.

billl—- pointing out that the money is inefficiently spent….doesn’t change
anything…... the system doesn’t become more efficient thereby…..and the people
blocking some of the changes that would improve efficiency haven’t ceased their
blockage.

and

we sure as shit DO NOT have resources sufficient and dedicated to insure
everybody the very best of care….that’s simply nonsense.

you can’t ever have had any time working in health care and hold that position.

No. I don’t care to rejoin any discussion with you. I flunked talking to brick walls in school, but I knew a few of the responses I’d get would be precious.

Neither of those is actually an impediment, tic:

1.  We’re already spending more than enough on health care (even if you limit the subject to necessary health care to keep things like vanity-based cosmetic surgery out of the equation) in this country to fund it for everyone:  we’re just not spending it sensibly.  Recovering the roughly 25% of every health care dollar wasted on supporting the private insurance industry and substituting something like Medicare for All would by itself alone take care of this issue, and beyond that there are other economies available as well (negotiating Medicare Part D drug pricing and negotiating other provider pricing, for example:  we could even go as far as to nationalize health-care PROVIDERS, using a model like the VA uses, but I’d be happy to see us stop short of that until we saw how effectively the other measures dealt with the financial problem).

2.  We also already have sufficient provider resources to handle the load (though the mix of resources might change a bit).  Many of the uninsured in this country do receive health care, very often from emergency rooms - the costliest and most resource-inefficient way to provide it.  If covered, such people would use FEWER resources than they are using now (and to some degree the same applies to the tens of millions of underinsured in this country as well).

We don’t need more of anything:  we just need to be smarter in using what we already have.  Now, your use of the term ‘unlimited’ might call some of the above into question (since none but the extremely wealthy even CURRENTLY have access to ‘unlimited’ care), but since the rest of us are currently getting along without ‘unlimited’ care we clearly don’t NEED it at least initially to get things moving in the right direction.

Ed, you forgot the last man to encounter the robbery victim - the one who stood there spouting high-minded parables until the man died.

Care to rejoin the discussion with something more substantive and less judgmental of those who see things just a bit differently than you do?

A certain man was on the road to the big city when he was set upon by robbers who beat him and left him almost dead by the side of the road. A Republican passing by saw him and continued on his way saying, every man has to learn how to take care of himself in a dog eat dog world. Likewise, a learned man passed and contined on his way saying, I percieve that this human has happened on some misfortune and has fallen somewhere between a philosohpic dilemna and uncertain placement on the nebulous list of arguable rights….. But finally a certain poster from the forum of five hypocrites stopped and approached the prone figure of the battered man, knelt beside him and spoke….I vow to take every legal and political action that is available to prevent compassionate people from destroying my children’s future. And I wonder why a person who cannot speak or work or do anything to contribute to society would think they have a right to partake or be given anything….And he left the man there and went on his way continuing to think of himself as a righteous citizen and a prince among men.

——- I say We the People should demand as our right that the most wretched,
deformed, stupid, poor son-of-a-bitch among us will, by virtue of being one of
our countrymen, have no less access to health-care as the most wealthy among
us.———-

demand away…. how will it happen? do you think that demanding a pony
means you’ll get one?

unlimited goods and services from health care providers is not a right nor even
a real possibility unless and until 1) unlimited service is paid for somehow; and
2) the healthcare resources are greatly expanded subsequent to the provision
of sufficient funding.

2 cents?  The only natural right one has is the right to die.  We only have the rights we can enforce.  All this about ‘natural’ and ‘inalienable’ is the wishful thinking of some wonderful idealists, bless them. 

Real rights, rights in the here-and-now are only secured through real power, the power of the people, through the instrument of the peoples will, their government, to impose force as needed on those who would deny the peoples ‘rights’.

We do have some health care ‘rights’ in this country, suppose one goes to the ER for treatment.  You might lose your house before it’s all over, but I think they are legally obligated to stabilize your situation.  What other ‘rights’ do we have?  Even insured, can one go to a doctor and demand to have a screening procedure, knowing if the doctor doe not provide the service you can sue?  No.  We have no right to preventative care.  We use money to buy what we don’t have as rights.  Effectively, those with money have rights.  If we equate money to status, (big ‘if’, I know) then health care is a ‘natural’ right insofar as one does see it occurring naturally.  Look at the dominant cat or wolf or monkey getting the best and eating first, being preened, receiving deference, having underlings to order about.  In nature, the strong have the rights.  So, I’m sorry to say, but trying to formulate a moral justification based on ‘natural rights’ seems a waste of time.  If people want rights, they damn well better stand up and demand them.  Petition the government, and if the government has become so corrupt as to not hear the people, then throw it out, and per the Declaration of Independence.  Inconsistent use of the Declaration you say?  HA! Tough nuts.  The foes of social justice care not a whit about consistency, why the hell should you? 

Speaking of consistency, that’s all the damn jibber-jabber-flibber-flabber-legal bullchicanery of the supreme court is…...the appearance of consistency, ultimately the imposition of the appearance of justice, so we’ll accept more inequity.  Hey, under their robes, they’re ugly wrinkled old naked people and We the People are providing them with the best health care any of us could hope for! 

I say We the People should demand as our right that the most wretched, deformed, stupid, poor son-of-a-bitch among us will, by virtue of being one of our countrymen, have no less access to health-care as the most wealthy among us.  For Christs sake, can we agree to have some decencies we apply without regard to money, power or class?  And to those who would deny this ‘right’, I hope sincerely you find yourself on the street someday, unable to work.  Nature can do that to you, and your chances are better than winning the lottery.

Ed

Haha. Good point. At some point you just have to lead by example and
hope that it dies some good.

No Man, Re your answer to Ozark @ 9:33…. I’m sure you will think this is funny if you think about for a minute….Just suppose the Good Samaritan had stood over the helpless, beaten man lying by the side of the road and recited everything you posted to Ozark before agreeing to help him.

Ozark,

That’s a trickier question. On the surface I do believe that people have a
responsibility to be socially conscious and own their actions. However, since
I do believe that a reciprocal relationship between society and the
individual is essential, I think there are additional considerations that need
to made. For instance, how much opportunity is someone given to
contribute in substantive ways? Do we create the conditions for success
and if not, are we willing to alter our thinking to create those conditions?
Are we more given to mercy or retribution? Have we empowered many or
only a few to affect their outcomes? Are people who make mistakes given
adequate opportunity to contribute or are they forever locked out? Do we
address problems and causes or perceptions and spurious correlations?
Are we recognizing and valuing all the different ways that people contribute
beyond mere labor and taxation? Do we even recognize that our success is
intertwined with the fate of others?

I acknowledge that these are broad questions and that answers will vary
based on who we talk to, but for many of these questions there is strong
historic, scientific and researched evidence that we have answers to many if
these questions and we know how to fix them but before any of it can be
adopted we have to respect the institutions that study them.

No Man…Good for you.

Ed: for certain we have many social problems but I’m not a fan attributing
them to genetics it immigration even as a matter of humor given how many
people have actually been manipulated into believing those very ideas
these days.

Ozark, Only if you belive in the teachings of the man who gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan.

No Man- I’m not talking about the employees or the way the place is run. It’s actually pretty efficient. I was writing about the patrons. The scene was like a vast genetic nightmare….Ever see that movie with Burt Lancaster I believe…. The Island Of Doctor Moreau ? God bless them, but what happened to the U.S. Immigration Service ? When my mother came over she said that they would send you back where you came from if one of your eyes was crossed. We’ve now got a gene pool that doesn’t bode well for the future. Then again, perhaps it’s just what we deserve after grinding these people down in the own countries for the past 100 years.

What happened at the DMV?

Meanwhile, NML, i wonder what you think of a person who cannot work, cannot speak, cannot do anything to contribute to society. Since they havent ‘built’ society in any way, do they thus have no right to partake or be given anything?

Not following the whole motor vehicle registry thing Ed which is usually
governed by states and probably isn’t managed uniformly.

Good Morning Comrades, I think perhaps the little arguments, both petty and vicious, that we see and engage in on these forums are a bit like discussing the dinner menu on the Titanic just after it struck the iceberg. This morning I went to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and it was quite an education. You may not credit this, but the US of A that many us of grew up in no longer exists. What has taken its place is something we might call Troglodyte Heaven. The new inhabitants don’t look they know from the Bill of Rights and the menu at Sal’s Pizza, but if forced to make a choice I’d bet a buck they’d choose the menu. Yes, Yes, I know…I’m not being politcally correct, but before dismissing what I’m saying you should take a long peek inside a Resistry of Motor Vehicles or a super market in any large city here in the United Corporations of America. Then I suggest you go home, put bars on all your windows and move all your stuff down cellar…. Stay tuned for the next intallment in this on going saga…the title is…Evolution Is A Two Way Street.

Thank you for the clarification bill, and you’re right we’ve probably been
having somewhat different conversations.

I don’t have a problem per se with defining healthcare as a human-borne
right. What I do feel is a natural right is for people expect the fruits of the
society they participate in and contribute to. I believe that type of
reciprocity between individual and community is the natural right that
springs from the raw definition of society. If from that we delineate a
socially granted right of some form, I have no particular disagreement or
concern with. That linkage between the right granted and the concept of
social reciprocity is important though. Without it, there is no basis for the
right on either moral or ethical grounds and becomes just another parade
of Caesar’s mercy.

Your next-to-last comment to me, NML, suggests that you haven’t a clue what we’ve been talking about.

I have no problem “defining access to health care as an individual right” - in fact, I whole-heartedly agree with doing so.  What I vehemently disagree with is the assertion that it’s some kind of intrinsic ‘natural’ right (and hence not subject to debate) rather than something which a society can (and in my personal opinion should) CHOOSE to define as a right.

If you agree that such things are indeed matters of personal opinion rather than some kind of natural law (as your last sentence in that post might suggest), then we’re in complete accord in this area.

As for your more recent comment to me, I also have no problems with ‘thought experiments’ in ‘natural law’ and attempts to develop improved insights therefrom:  again, all I object to is taking the RESULTS of such thought experiments as some kind of absolute truth rather than simply as potentially useful food for thought.

I’m not particularly interested in ‘selling’ anyone on the merits of my opinions, but I do try to ensure that they’re not misunderstood.  HTH.

OzarkM

I think that is the fairest request from someone who has a disagreement
with us that I’ve ever heard.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think many share your concerns here. My
sense is that what causes it or what the solution is will vary greatly.
Because we likely have different understandings what the cause it fix is,
doesn’t mean that we necessarily disagree on the problem (ie corruption).

So, Mike if we can have a respectful and mature dialogue. I’ll listen to your
concerns and recommendations if you’ll hear mine.

Bill, you have said you do not believe humans have a right to the goods of the planet they are born on…and you have the goomies to call me a maniac ?
What is your argument based upon if not personal opinion ?

@bill

There is no ‘scientific rigor’ to the study of natural (political law). It has
always been a philosophical though experiment to suppose what types of
laws or moral codes existed before governments, legal documents or
societies. Yet these thought experiments influence us with enormity. We
don’t have data sets but as in science previous work is applied, reapplied
and built upon to create new approaches.

bill—- perhaps you should understand that there terms are totally different in the
physical sciences and political philosophy and that in the physical sciences
“natural law” is not the preferred term and used less often than physical law or
scientific law.

calling one a travesty of the other is simply inappropriate and silly.

the problem is within yourself, bill.

It exists not because of a few of us but because of all of us. Even if my only contribution was to pay a compliment to a child that gave him the
confidence he needed to pursue a career in medicine, I contributed. It is my right because I am part of this society that I helped build.

Even if I do not appear to affect compassion as great as that one instant of a ‘compliment to a child’, even if my only contribution is that I give three or four months or my life every year(in taxes… roughly 30% of my labor, which is to say 30% of my working life) to the government, I humbly ask to be viewed as part of this society, as someone who helped build this society…just as much as the ‘complimenter’ of the one kid. I would like to have my say about what our rights are just as much as you compassionate people do.

I would like to say that the government wastes so much money in every area of its budget… it is immoral. I would like to say “I am Taxed Enough Already!”, it is immoral.  Epecially when the Leftists demagogue the tried-and-true line that i am “not paying my fair share.” That is also immoral.

Worse yet, when i realize that as my children enter the workforce…they will in future be paying even higher rates because of our budget busting ‘stimulus’, our wasteful bailouts, our ever-growing entitlements, and the money pit called Obamacare. They will pay for it and for more.  That means they will be stripped of more of their working lives, perhaps as much as 50%. It is immoral.

Even though it makes you appear so compassionate, it seems to me that placing such a heavy burden on the next generation of workers is not compassionate.

Actually, i shouldt ask for equality with the ‘compassionate’ ones because I am your equal whether you like it or not. I will speak and i will not back down. Call me fascist if you must, but I dont care anymore: Taking so much of my children’s life(30% 40% 50%) away from them… that is immoral.

I will be heard. The more I think about it the more certain i become.

I vow to take every legal and political action that is available to prevent the ‘compassionate’ people from destroying my children’s future. Its your own children’s future as well.

Which is precisely why people who subscribe to varying philosophical
perspectives have discussions, Bill.

I don’t recall anyone saying that because one historical figure said x,
therefore y is an absolute. What we have seen discussed, ad nauseum, is
the nature and use of specific terminology, which again, I find an
appropriate and responsible discussion as terminology has profound
ramifications.  For instance, defining access to heatlhcare as an individual
right vice a market based service (read here as privilege) will ultimately
shape how the entire field if medicine is taught, practiced and understood.
Out of that springs personal opinions and visions of that future should be.

Personal opinion is absolutely a factor of those competing visions. So what?
Sell me on the merits of yours…

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension, tic:  I used the words ‘travesty’ and ‘perversion’ in a COMPARISON with what ‘natural law’ means to a scientist rather than in some absolute sense.

I’m sure there are many people who find the idea that some kind of ‘natural law’ regarding rights can be inferred using only personal conviction plus some philosophical hand-waving as the basis for ‘proving’ it - but they’re just not using the phrase with anything like the rigor which is required in science and therefore do not command anything like the respect accorded to the scientific concept (IMO, obviously).

bill——- you’re perhaps not well informed viv-a-vis “natural rights” and political
philosophy.

natural rights theories are more than respectable. travesty is better applied to
your opinion concerning the issue.

It’s one thing to argue from historical perspective, NLM, but quite another to assert that such perspective constitutes natural law.  After all, the phlogiston theory DID address certain aspects of combustion and is indeed historically interesting, but it turned out to be pure bunkum.

Locke, for example, fumbles around betwixt and between religion and - something - in discussing natural rights.  Our founders had the humility to write “WE HOLD these truths to be self-evident” rather than “These truths ARE self-evident” when appealing to the concept of a creator in referring to natural rights.

The important thing about established legal principles is not that those who established them had some divine insight but that they give us huge amounts of data to let us decide which worked well (the idea of rights for the masses seems to me to have done so) and which did not (the divine right of kings being \one obvious example).

‘Natural law’ is a well-established concept in science, and at least in the modern era refers to that which is reasonably PROVABLE by exhaustive experiment rather than simply more-or-less agreed-upon.  The kind of ‘natural law’ to which you’re appealing is a travesty (and indeed a perversion) of that concept, though it arose in parallel with it before the distinction between actual science and interesting but by comparison essentially insubstantial philosophy had become clear.

You seem to be drifting into Ed’s “if you don’t agree with me you’re obviously a shill for the status quo” defensive babble.  I’ve said nothing to suggest that CONSIDERING the wealth of thought and historical experience that we have to work with is useless, merely that conferring upon those things some kind of ‘higher’ and therefore unquestionable authority is wildly inappropriate (in a debate, at least:  you’re certainly free to consider them articles of personal faith if you care to).

Bill,

Natural law is the bedrock of our legal and political systems. These are philosophies that entire societies have been built upon. At a time when American politics is addressing such fundamental questions about the role of government or the relationship of that government to the individual, up to and including habeas corpus, it seems not only appropriate and logical, but responsible to explore these questions through the foundational thoughts they were largely based on.

What I haven’t heard from critics of these perspectives is why their criticism is based on anything more than a dogmatic defense of the status quo. I too am willing to have that discussion, but to imply that referencing some of
the most influential theories, philosophy and history of western civilization and arguing from those perspectives is a matter of mere personal opinion is intellectually disingenuous.

When someone claims that what appear to be mere personal opinions on their part are based on more than that, Ed, it’s hardly unreasonable to press them to define exactly what that extra something may be.  And it’s rather presumptuous (or should I say paranoid?) of that person to infer nefarious motives from such a search for understanding.

I’m happy to discuss the subject of rights in terms of what rights are reasonable for a society to define as such.  That is a potentially productive exchange of personal opinions and beliefs during which one can find areas of agreement (hurrah!  let’s get those rights defined!) and disagreement (whoops - more work required here:  perhaps we can at least find some limited points of agreement).

But I’m not interested in discussing the subject of rights with people who feel that their opinions on that matter are beyond question or debate, regardless of why they may believe that.

To me, the assertion that certain rights have intrinsic existence based on anything OTHER than personal belief (perhaps bolstered by eminently debatable reasoning) - in the face of the fact that other people clearly believe differently - seems somewhat megalomaniacal.  What people choose to believe is certainly up to them, but I won’t yield a millimeter when they start trying to impose those beliefs on those who think differently with assertions that their beliefs constitute some kind of natural law.

Hetero,

Same here. Thank you for a.good discussion. I appreciate your points and
apologize for any misinterpretations.

NML—- I agree with you that we should expect more than emergency care ...and
education….......

the slight details of how much, on what basis and how it’s to be paid for, I guess
we can leave for another time.

thanks for sharing your thoughts with me…. and please understand that I find
them worthwhile and good despite my possibly slight disagreements.

Hetero

I misunderstood what you were implying with your last post. My mistake.

I use the word rightful quite deliberately because I believe this issue should
be discussed in a moral context. To discuss in neutral, scientific terms of
simplistic observation neglects the fact that we are first and foremost social
creatures and because of that we expect society to act in a specifically fair
and equitable manner when it comes to our needs. Our society has the
capacity to provide greater than emergency care for all with out
bankrupting them. It is a rightful expectation to live at that higher capacity
in the same manner that we no longer expect the members of our society
to grow or hunt all of our own food. To live in a society that forces us to live
in such a way when there is no need for us to live that way negates the
purpose for being a part of it. It is nothing more than an expectation (or the
right) to enjoy the benefits of a society that we have contributed to, helped
build and maintained in many different ways beyond our labor and
taxation. if we are members of a society, we have a right to participate in it
and to enjoy the value it brings to our lives. If tomorrow I found myself the
member of a society that has the capacity to immunize everyone against
cancer, I have a right to expect some return on my investment for being a
member of that society. Since our society can provide an education for all,
we have a right to expect that we get it. It is a right because we helped build
it. It exists not because of a few of us but because of all of us. Even if my
only contribution was to pay a compliment to a child that gave him the
confidence he needed to pursue a career in medicine, I contributed. It is
my right because I am part of this society that I helped build.

Bill, I’m not going to try to decipher a rigorous semantic argument aimed at proving that people don’t have a right to a drink of water…. especially when I strongly sense that this argument is prelude to a justification of human exploitation. We are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this and I’m
pretty sure there is no possibility of mutual agreement. But hey, that’s why God made barricades. Thanks for your imput.

NML—-Nowhere did I say or suggest that healthcare SHOULD be rationed…..I
never discussed anything germane to that.

——pS—- yes we expect to receive help from healthcare providers….but
...please——don’t simply slip “rightful” into that in such bald manner.

by rightful…do you mean that correct and in accordance with isial practice?

do you assert a legal right, an ethical expectation based on the feeling arising
in other that helping us is a correct action, or are you asserting a natural right
and corresponding set of obligation s arising from natural right?

healthcare is not one simple thing…....NML….. emergency medicine when
people are in immediate threat of loss of life is one end of the spectrum and
there are several other levels from there.

we can not say that claims to service by right are the same on the various levels
of healthcare needs and desires.

when you get into serious discussion of rightful expectation , you probably
should considers the differences.

Ps Hetero

That is precisely the point. Yes we get sick, maybe through the fault one
person or not, but regardless of why the person got sick, that person has a
rightful expectation to have access to the system of aid our society devised.
If we choose to turn our healthcare system into a gated community, we
should be forewarned that we can just as easily find ourselves on the other
side of that gate if we ever fall out of favor with the homeowners
association…

Come on hetero, you can’t seriously be suggesting that healthcare is or
should be rationed out based on an assumption of who is the most
deserving. Should people who sweat or work more have to pay higher rates
for their water bill because they consume more? Perhaps we should offer
tiered pricing for water plans. That way people who sweat a lot can have the
option to purchase bronze, silver or platinum water plans based on how
much water they expect to use. Don’t see why we should have to pay the
same rate as those who drink twice as much.

Nor should we forget that it’s our *society* that provides and promotes
twinkies and bacon ad nauseum. Although, your statement does make
some sense in terms of the social contract on one level. Just as there is an
expectation that society provide certain needs and qualities, so too is there
an expectation of the individual to act in a socially conscious and
responsible manner. It becomes murky though when there is a mixed
message to the individual, when twinkies and bacon are advertised and
held in our faces everyday by that society only to have that same society
penalize us for taking the bait.

———Simply put, to say a person merely needs healthcare ignores the fact that
the person was actually denied healthcare. To say that healthcare is a ‘right’
is to say, in essence, that no one has the ‘right’ to deny it to me.——

that’s an absurd assumption . people become ill without anyone else having
denied them any care of anything else.

you smoke 10 blunts per day and contract emphysema ..... you eat bacon and
deep-fried Twinkies and become morbidly obese and unable to tie your shoes
or run from danger…....you wear sneakers in a blizzard and end up with
frostbitten toes…...

If you require help with your health it simply can not be said to be necessarily
the result of being denied anything.

@Bill

My use of the term innate or “natural right” comes from the relationship
between the individual and the society. If we view it in terms of a
relationship, I think the language changes due to its implied mutuality. For
instance, if a man refuses to divulge to his wife that he is HIV positive, we
consider her ‘need’ to know that information a ‘right.’

To say I need water is quite different from saying I was denied water. One
is a passive observation of the human condition while the other is a
statement of an injustice with regard to that need. The term ‘right’ is almost
always used to describe a form of justice in a social context. It carries with
it more than a simple definition of physical need but a certain moral
authority. it also recognizes the individuals have value. Otherwise, why does
the word exist? To not use that word is to eliminate the value of the
individual. 

Simply put, to say a person merely needs healthcare ignores the fact that
the person was actually denied healthcare. To say that healthcare is a ‘right’
is to say, in essence, that no one has the ‘right’ to deny it to me.

Unfortunately, when the founders used the term ‘right’ in conjunction with
‘their creator’ the word took on a connotation of having been derived from
a higher religious authority in the same way that monarchs claimed their
unique powers over others. More than anything, the American use of the
word is a statement of innate morality that was understood and described
in religious terms which is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the word. At
its heart was a simple statement of justice that dared to suggest that
individuals have innate and uncontestable expectations from their society.
Perhaps they didn’t enumerate healthcare in the bill of rights simply
because they couldn’t fathom a society that denied its citizens such aid and
assistance.

Honestly, if we are having a discussion about the relationship with the
individual and society as it pertains to healthcare, to simply say that we all
need it almost rises to a lie of omission. We are in fact being denied
something we need. We have a right not to be subjected to that type of
treatment in the same way no one has a right to deny us water. We have a
right to expect that the society we live in be accessible to those who live in
it. And we have a right to define this debate in the context of injustice that
it richly deserves.