Basic Human Rights

[Age]

I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.

Okay. But on what would you base that right?

For there was surely a time in human civilization when there was no reasonable degree of healthcare for anybody...

If this was even remotely true, then how did human beings exist for millions of years, hitherto the day and age when this is being read?

so it couldn't possibly be a basic human right...because it's clearly not intrinsic to being human.

Healthcare is supplied and provided by Nature, Itself. Refusing or withholding access to the available healthcare, at any particular day or age, is a human behavior.

What, exactly, are you proposing here is NOT intrinsic to being human?

If providing care for those who are injured or unhealthy is NOT intrinsic to being human, then human beings would have died out years or millennia ago.

Caring for the sick and injured is VERY intrinsic to being human. Just look at how the vast majority of parents behave, in regards to their sick or injured child.

Humans have often been without it, and it was not even possible for them to have it for most of human history.

Again, how have 'you', human beings, existed without 'healthcare'?

Firstly, what is 'healthcare', to 'you'?

Even today, many countries do not even have the means to offer what you might consider a reasonable level of health care...

What do 'you' consider a, so called, "reasonable level of health care"?

To some, the 'level of health care' 'you', human beings, had in the days when this was written was a complete and utter joke. Relatively speaking that 'level' is laughable, to the 'present time', and would be considered completely unreasonable.

Consequently, we could argue that we want people to HAVE it, but it couldn't be basic, and couldn't supervene purely upon their status as human beings. It could only be a special privilege granted by those advanced polities with the means to offer it...

[Age]

If the OP had asked for only those rights that have been or currently are actualized, you would be right to exclude this.

It's not just that. "Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away, such as the right to life, to freedom of choice (within the bounds of respecting the choices of others, of course) and the right to own property.

How could the right to (basic or) any healthcare, for any human being, be 'legitimately' taken away?

Also, the right to life can be and already has been taken away, through the signing of law/s, which some claim is "legitimately".

The freedom of choice (within the bounds of respecting the choices of others) has been taken away, again through just the signing of some made up laws, which again some claim is 'legitimately' done.

Also, the right to own property for some has also been taken away, which, again, has also been, Falsely, 'legitimized'.

These things are had by the bushmen of the Kalahari just as much as they are owned by the Queen of England. They are, to borrow a word from the American constitution, "unalienable." There is no legitimate way of taking them away, and you're born with those rights.

Have you NOT heard of 'abortion', which is written into law, and so the right to life has already, falsely "legitimately", been TAKEN AWAY, for some?

Have you NOT heard of the countless laws, which are written down and thus are "legitimized" falsely, that deny or restrict the freedom of choice?

Have you NOT heard of the colonizers who have not just restricted the right to own property, to some, but actually took and stole their property, which the colonizers claimed they now owned, "legitimately".

If you have NOT previously heard of these examples, then you have NOW.

Health care is not like that. It's a wish, or a privilege, because you're not born with it, most people don't have it, and it simply cannot always be guaranteed to you. It's' not a property of your humanity.

I disagree TOTALLY, in that what baby born is NOT entitled to be cared for?

If you can not think of ANY, then EVERY baby, human being, has the right to be cared for, or health care.

Thus, it's not capable of being made into a right.

Just about everything you said here is refutable.

[Age]

How about a right to adequate or a reasonable level of health care. Humans have always had ways of treating illness or injury. Medicine in one form or another has always been with us. Granted no one was performing open-heart surgery in prehistoric times but people treated their ailments in one way or another. As technology has progressed it seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life.

Why only when "technology has progressed" it, supposedly, seems wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life?

Why not throughout ALL of human history it would not be wrong to deny someone essential medical treatment that could save their life?

From my perspective, it does NOT matter at what period in Life, if essential medical treatment, which could save a life, is wanted, then denying that would just be plain Wrong.

In that respect, it's similar to denying a member of your clan a splint for a broken leg or something. We should look out for our own to the best of our ability and not just sit back and let people die of curable health problems.

This is a VERY separatist view you have here.

Who and/or what are the members of "your clan", exactly? In other words, how selective, or how big, or small, is "your" group of people that you would care about? Or, in more clearer words, WHY do you only care for SOME, and not for ALL?

Therefore, I would say that adequate medical care (according to the prevailing technology) could be made a right for a society that would like to make it so. I don't see where rights cannot be improved upon or extended where technology and circumstances allow. Perhaps it may or may not be an inalienable right but it could still be made a right to a member of a society that is capable of affording it.

What society could NOT 'afford' to just do what it takes to care for ALL of the members of that society?

[Age]

"Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away, such as the right to life, to freedom of choice (within the bounds of respecting the choices of others, of course) and the right to own property.

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

The EXACT SAME amount, and EQUALLY, by the way.

[Immanuel Can]

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

It is the act of possessing itself, not the specific amount that is the inherent right. What's yours by honest means is yours to steward and dispense. What's not yours is not yours to covet, steal or misappropriate.

[henry quirk]

why do you not just say; "A human belongs to them self; a human's life, liberty, and property are theirs"?

Look, you asked why I phrased sumthin' the way I did, and I explained why. I got no interest in a dissection.

Leave it be.


"Any life belongs to its self; every animal and plant's [everything's] life, liberty, and property are theirs."

If I had meant to say that I would have. I don't agree with that. Simply, persons belong to themselves. Most of the life on earth are not persons (not as I see it).


Have you ever considered that what you have said here, along with your other beliefs, which you have expressed clearly, are EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY?

There's nuthin' contradictory about observin' folks disagreein' about abstracts and not understanding why they disagree.

As for my other beliefs: cite an example.

[henry quirk]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

[henry quirk]

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

If gotten honestly: as much as they like and can acquire.

[henry quirk]

I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.

We don't cuz I don't believe one person has a claim on another's time, labor, or resources.

[tillingborn]

What's yours by honest means is yours...

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

If gotten honestly: as much as they like and can acquire.

I think everyone has an intuition of what 'honesty' entails, but it is much harder to specify how one acquires property honestly. Can either of you suggest how an honest person acquires property?

[henry quirk]

What's yours by honest means is yours...

How much property does one inherently have a right to possess?

If gotten honestly: as much as they like and can acquire.

I think everyone has an intuition of what 'honesty' entails, but it is much harder to specify how one acquires property honestly. Can either of you suggest how an honest person acquires property?

One way: to buy it. To meet the seller's price...this may entail hagglin'...the transfer of property from seller to buyer by way of freely agreed to transaction is the most obvious.

Another (dovetalin' on the first): purchasin' raw materials which are then used to make sumthin'...a craftsman buys oak then works the wood to produce chairs, tables, etc. ...he uses his property, transforms it into sumthin' more...he potentially adds value to to his property.

Now, land, as property, is potentially more dicey...there's always the possibility a tract that's purchased or claimed (on the largely extinct frontier) may be subject to prior claim. In such cases: bring in the clowns, er, the courts.

[Gary Childress]

Why only when "technology has progressed".

Because you can't give everyone a right to medical treatment that hasn't been invented.

This is a VERY separatist view you have here.

No. When I say "our own" I mean one's own country or society. Tax payers shouldn't have to guarantee health care to citizens living in other countries. It's up to the people of each sovereign country to guarantee their own.

[Gary Childress]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused."

[henry quirk]

Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?

If I believe individual persons belong to themselves it follows I believe they ought not be abused.

Considering all the abuse Age slings out to people whom he quotes out of context, it's quite surprising that he believes in a right "not to be abused."

No doubt he doesn't see it as abusive.

To be honest, I don't see it that way either...just annoyin'.

[commonsense]

I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.

We don't cuz I don't believe one person has a claim on another's time, labor, or resources.

I don’t disagree with you here, because a person owns only himself and his time, labor and resources.