Basic Human Rights

[Immanuel Can]

None of your neighbors has to pay.

So you're going to pick up the entire cost of everybody's medical procedure? You're fine with doing that? So nobody ends up paying, except you?

You must be very, very rich if you can do that for everyone. I don't think Bill Gates has that kind of cash. I've got to call "bluff" on that one.

You should re-read a few posts up from here where you’ll find what I wrote about who pays if you cannot.

I don't need to reread. I know what you were really trying to say. You're talking about taking one people's money, and using it to meet the medical interests of another group. Henry might call it theft, but I'd just call it a forced arrangement. It has good aspects and bad.

And you can do that, if people will let you. But you can't call it a "right," because it's unrelated to anyone's status as human, is not intrinsic, and is not backed by the Creator's authority. So you could maybe call it a "social benefit."

I know why people want to call it a "right." Rights are things that no person can legitimately deny another. And people who love the universal health insurance idea want to invest it with the glow of a "right," so they can make others think they can't legitimately take exception to being taxed in order to produce it. But all of that is just a shell game.

Health care has never been a "basic human right," and lacks the fundamental characteristics of the human rights we know...life, liberty and property.

[commonsense]

If life is a God-given right, then certainly there are basic human rights to breathe and to circulate blood within the body as well as rights to eat and drink and to defecate and void one’s bladder.

In other words, if there’s a right to life, there must be a right to be free of deadly situations, including something as trivial as a splinter, which if left untreated can result in sepsis and death,

Obviously there are diseases and injuries with the potential to deny a legitimate claim to life. Amelioration of these conditions must be part and parcel to a right to life.

Healthcare in the service of a right to life (and arguably to liberty and property, as an unhealthy condition may interfere with liberty or livelihood) must be a God-given right as well.

[Immanuel Can]

...if there’s a right to life, there must be a right to be free of deadly situations...

Actually, no...that doesn't follow logically at all.

Life is full of risks and perils, and eventually, everyone dies. We are not guaranteed freedom from difficulties and dangers; what we are guaranteed, by way of our births, is that we have a right to be here in the first place, that we have liberty to move and act, and that some things are legitimately under our control and disposal. Apart from those three things, moral accountability is impossible, so Locke says that's why we know God has guaranteed them to us.

No such guarantee exists for health care, or even for freedom from injury or death. In fact, one guarantee we do have is mortality. The death rate around here is 100%...everybody dies.

[commonsense]

...if there’s a right to life, there must be a right to be free of deadly situations...

Actually, no...that doesn't follow logically at all.

Life is full of risks and perils, and eventually, everyone dies. We are not guaranteed freedom from difficulties and dangers; what we are guaranteed, by way of our births, is that we have a right to be here in the first place, that we have liberty to move and act, and that some things are legitimately under our control and disposal. Apart from those three things, moral accountability is impossible, so Locke says that's why we know God has guaranteed them to us.

No such guarantee exists for health care, or even for freedom from injury or death. In fact, one guarantee we do have is mortality. The death rate around here is 100%...everybody dies.

Ah! I see now my mistake. I had been all along tying healthcare to a right to life. Not anymore.

[Immanuel Can]

...if there’s a right to life, there must be a right to be free of deadly situations...

Actually, no...that doesn't follow logically at all.

Life is full of risks and perils, and eventually, everyone dies. We are not guaranteed freedom from difficulties and dangers; what we are guaranteed, by way of our births, is that we have a right to be here in the first place, that we have liberty to move and act, and that some things are legitimately under our control and disposal. Apart from those three things, moral accountability is impossible, so Locke says that's why we know God has guaranteed them to us.

No such guarantee exists for health care, or even for freedom from injury or death. In fact, one guarantee we do have is mortality. The death rate around here is 100%...everybody dies.

Ah! I see now my mistake. I had been all along tying healthcare to a right to life. Not anymore.

Hmmm...well, nobody's denying that healthcare is helpful to life...but it's not really a very good rejoinder.

After all, there are lots of things that are associated with "life" that nobody thinks of as "rights." In fact, food and water come before healthcare, for sure. But there is no proposal that says, "Human beings have an unalienable, basic human right to eat and drink other people's food and water." In fact, a person can live indefinitely, up to perhaps a hundred years or so, without healthcare, so long as illness or injury does not occur.

And what about "education"? Is that also a "basic human right"? We all need it. Or how about "a living wage," is that another? What about a "right" to vote, a "right" to choose gender...and so on? We can pile up allegations of "rights" like cordwood, as many as our imaginings can devise. But can we explain why we have a right to claim them in a society that doesn't yet have them? So the crucial thing is whether or not we have a rationale proving the right exists, and exists by the intrinsic nature of being human.

Barring that, it's a social privilege, yes. It may even be "a good thing," or "something we would all wish." Nevertheless, it's quite a different thing to say it's a basic human right. You'd need a rationale like Locke's to get it to that status. And I don't think you can find one. For it's true that no human being has ever come into existence without a right to life, liberty and property; but it's not true that healthcare has even existed in all times and places...far less a comprehensive, tax-funded system of Medicare, which is a very modern innovation indeed.

How can something so new ever actually be shown to be a "basic human right"? If you know how, go ahead. I'm listening.

[commonsense]

As I said earlier, healthcare is not a recent phenomenon.

Are we not much more likely to have a right to death than a right to life? Once born the only guarantee is that we will die.

[henry quirk]

...if there’s a right to life, there must be a right to be free of deadly situations...

Actually, no...that doesn't follow logically at all.

Life is full of risks and perils, and eventually, everyone dies. We are not guaranteed freedom from difficulties and dangers; what we are guaranteed, by way of our births, is that we have a right to be here in the first place, that we have liberty to move and act, and that some things are legitimately under our control and disposal. Apart from those three things, moral accountability is impossible, so Locke says that's why we know God has guaranteed them to us.

No such guarantee exists for health care, or even for freedom from injury or death. In fact, one guarantee we do have is mortality. The death rate around here is 100%...everybody dies.

Ah! I see now my mistake. I had been all along tying healthcare to a right to life. Not anymore.

Since you get it, what follows is unnecessary...meh...I'm postin' it anyway.

You belong to you; your life, liberty, and property are yours.

The only obligation I have is to recognize and respect your ownness (meaning it's not permissible to take your life, liberty, or property without just cause). I am prohibited. Personally, I believe I also have a limited obligation to defend your life, liberty, and property from predation. I can, however, make an argument that I have no such obligation, for reasons I'm about to state.

If you truly have a right to healthcare this would mean you have right to another's life, liberty, and property.

What you say when you claim that right is: I'm sick, cannot self-treat, so Joe, whether he agrees to it or not, is obligated to care for me or to pay for my care. You lay claim to Joe's life, liberty, and property.

You see the problem, yeah?

No longer does a man plainly belong to himself; no longer are his life, liberty, and property cleanly his own.

You've introduced exceptions.

You say Joe, you are yours except when I'm inconvenienced, or threatened, or in danger. You say my need or want trumps your ownness.

I'm sick: you must care for me.

I'm threatened: you must defend me.

I'm inconvenienced: you must accommodate me.

And, of course, if you can lay claim to another, it follows he can lay claim to you.

Gary mentions insurance, which is a fine idea. Folks choosin' to pool resources is a wonderful innovation. But he goes on to mention Medicare...Everyone pays into it with their share of taxes and everyone is eligible to use it...in other words: every man is obligated to pony up some portion of his resources...doesn't matter if he wants to, doesn't matter if he prefers to do otherwise...he's obligated to provide and he truly is not his own.

The danger inherent in talkin' about rights, I think, is that kind of rationalization that justifies anything as a right.

I have a right to be loved.

I have a right to be fed.

I have a right to orgasms.

I have a right to affordable housing.

I have a right to the internet.

I have a right to a smart phone.

And on and on and on...

No, you don't.

You don't even have a right to yourself, or your life, liberty, and property. These things -- yourself, your liberty, your life, your property -- are yours, naturally...you don't have to claim them...you only have to defend them and recognize them in others.

Thus endth this unnecessary post.

[Lacewing]

Thus endth this unnecessary post.

It must have been necessary to you -- some sort of payoff from the repetition.

[henry quirk]

Thus endth this unnecessary post.

It must have been necessary to you -- some sort of payoff from the repetition.

You have any thoughts on the substance of my unnecessary post?

[Lacewing]

Thus endth this unnecessary post.

It must have been necessary to you -- some sort of payoff from the repetition.

You have any thoughts on the substance of my unnecessary post?

Do you really care what I have to say?

[henry quirk]

It must have been necessary to you -- some sort of payoff from the repetition.

You have any thoughts on the substance of my unnecessary post?

Do you really care what I have to say?

I wouldn't ask if I weren't.

[commonsense]

There is no such thing as rights!

I would agree to the extent that there’s no such things as absolute, undeniable rights.

[Lacewing]

You have any thoughts on the substance of my unnecessary post?

Do you really care what I have to say?

I wouldn't ask if I weren't.

Hmm... that's unusual. Well, I think the best way to respond is to give a general description of where I think we're similar and where I think we differ (rather than responding point by point to your post).

I can see the value of what you say because I, too, am a very independent person, and I do not expect anyone to give me handouts or come and save me. I've made my own way while navigating and using the systems that support my journey (having a house, developing land, paying for public infrastructure that I use, etc.). I do not have healthcare because I'm an independent consultant in technology and it's too ridiculously expensive for me to pay for it individually when I may only use it occasionally. I do not expect the system to provide it for me because I do not take things for granted. But it would be nice to have it in exchange for what I already contribute in other ways.

I also don't like being told what to do or being controlled, so I don't like a lot of laws that do just that. I don't like being forced to wear seatbelts or helmets... but I appreciate safety regulations for food and water, and police protection when needed.

When ideas and controls become too extreme, I think they lose value -- and we humans tend to do that a lot.

Although I feel responsible for my life, I do not think I own anything. I'm genuinely focused more on what I can do, rather than on who I am or what I own. Everything could fall away, and I would deal with the new environment as best as I could. I feel gratitude for what I can experience in the moment... wherever.

I also see that a lot of very good people have taken different paths than mine, and I want them to have good experiences too. It is a tricky balance to create one's own experience, while others may have different needs and views that impact that experience.

I'm more inclined to think about sharing love and joy than think about pointing a gun at someone. And I think that what we think about is what creates our experience.

Hopefully I've expressed that well enough. I'm distracted with some other things going on...

[commonsense]

There is no such thing as rights!

I would agree to the extent that there’s no such things as absolute, undeniable rights.

Could there be relative rights or limited rights? Legal rights granted by virtue of government legislation?

If you say that rights can only be absolute or undeniable, then I agree that there are no rights.

[RCSaunders]

There is no such thing as rights!

I would agree to the extent that there’s no such things as absolute, undeniable rights.

Could there be relative rights or limited rights? Legal rights granted by virtue of government legislation?

I think the correct word for anything supposedly provided by a government would be license or privilege. Nothing can be made true or right by a bunch of corrupt men writing something down and calling it a, "law."

If you say that rights can only be absolute or undeniable, then I agree that there are no rights.

I say the so-called social/political concept identified by the word, "rights," does not identify anything.

If rights means anything at all it means, "what I'd like to be true, and would be, in my utopia." In the real world, nothing is a, "right;" no one has a claim to anything they have not earned or produced by their own chosen effort--not life, not wealth, not freedom, not security, not education, not food, or anything else.

Here's the ultimate principle of reality: produce or die.

If a government claims to provide what in reality is impossible, like, "rights," it can only do so by some form of oppression.

I'm not making an argument here. I'm just explaining what I mean by, "there is no such thing as rights."