PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Ron Paul: Education and Medical Care are not a right


dirk digler
03-03-2011, 04:39 PM
but something you earn

Interesting...

What does everyone think about that?

I understand what he is trying to say about student loans though I am hoping he doesn't believe that applies for K-12.

As far as medical care I disagree completely. If I am dying on the side of the road I believe I have a right for emergency care to try to save my ass.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/rep-ron-paul-education-is-not-a-right-video.php?ref=fpb

For Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), education and medical care are not rights but rather "things that you have to earn."

In an exchange about U.S. credit policy with MSNBC's Cenk Uygur on Wednesday, Paul was asked whether people should be able to borrow money to buy a house, or car. "Oh, in a free market, you can do that," Paul said, but only so long as that credit is backed up by real money, and not something that "comes out of thin air."

Uygur asked the Congressman if students who can't afford tuition should be able to get government loans. "No one has a right to anyone's wealth, I don't have a right to come to you and say my poor kid needs 500 dollars for an education," Paul replied, "an education is not a right, medical care is not a right."

The potential 2012 presidential candidate said Uygur was asking the wrong question about student loans: "Kids today as soon as they work, we tax them. If they're a waitress or waiter, we tax their tips. We encourage them to work, then they don't have enough money. Prices go up on the tuition and then we give them grants and then they get out of the college and they owe $200,000. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think how anybody can justify it."

ROYC75
03-03-2011, 04:50 PM
Can't deny he's spot on this comment.

Cave Johnson
03-03-2011, 04:52 PM
Kids have been freeloading for way too long.

Stewie
03-03-2011, 04:59 PM
The problem with education is that it went from local to State to Feds. With that... it became big money and about pay and what to teach. We've been suffering with HS graduates that can barely tie their shoes in many communities. Let's keep on going down that road.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:02 PM
As far as medical care I disagree completely. If I am dying on the side of the road I believe I have a right for emergency care to try to save my ass.

Would you have that right in a state of nature?

Or


Would you receive help because others were concerned for you and were helpful?

KC Dan
03-03-2011, 05:03 PM
The problem with education is that it went from local to State to Feds. With that... it became big money and about pay and what to teach. We've been suffering with HS graduates that can barely tie their shoes in many communities. Let's keep on going down that road.Yeah but isn't that there is now velcro?:doh!:

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:03 PM
Parents have been freeloading for way too long.

FYP

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:04 PM
The problem with education is that it went from local to State to Feds. With that... it became big money and about pay and what to teach. We've been suffering with HS graduates that can barely tie their shoes in many communities. Let's keep on going down that road.

Yeah, national education that is centrally planned—>recipe for disaster and thought control.

SNR
03-03-2011, 05:04 PM
My friend George at 4:20 in this video has a few things to say about this matter

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hWiBt-pqp0E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:04 PM
Yeah but isn't that there is now velcro?:doh!:

Well when we get to machines that can think what then? :shake:

KC Dan
03-03-2011, 05:09 PM
Well when we get to machines that can think what then? :shake: They win money on Jeopardy

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:13 PM
I like Carlin SNR. he's poignant and makes good points. However, he doesn't understand that the Constitution doesn't give rights and the European Constitutions do. Ours is a negative rights document. There are different kinds of rights too. Natural rights are rights that simply pre-exist.

fan4ever
03-03-2011, 05:13 PM
Why should someone provide me goods or service at a cost to them, whether it be individuals or taxpayers? Why should that be my "right"?

FD
03-03-2011, 05:26 PM
Who cares if its a "right" or not, its smart policy.

Chocolate Hog
03-03-2011, 05:27 PM
He just made sure he won't win the Republican nomination.

googlegoogle
03-03-2011, 05:31 PM
Cenk should have asked Paul why tuition is so high.

cdcox
03-03-2011, 05:52 PM
Who cares if its a "right" or not, its smart policy.

This.

Everybody wins when your society is educated. Everyone loses when it isn't. Yes costs need to be controlled. Yes the individual should contribute to the cost of their education. But to eliminate public subsidies for education would hurt everyone. I can never-ever support a libertarian.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 05:57 PM
This.

Everybody wins when your society is educated. Everyone loses when it isn't. Yes costs need to be controlled. Yes the individual should contribute to the cost of their education. But to eliminate public subsidies for education would hurt everyone. I can never-ever support a libertarian.

Ah yes! The collectivist argument—everybody, the group is all. As if education wouldn't have happened otherwise.
You can make this argument for just about every need or good that makes life better. One way of doing it is to have faith in govt and the other is having faith in people. There should be a balance between group and individual and that balanced was lost years ago.

Pitt Gorilla
03-03-2011, 06:18 PM
The problem with education is that it went from local to State to Feds. With that... it became big money and about pay and what to teach. We've been suffering with HS graduates that can barely tie their shoes in many communities. Let's keep on going down that road.It must suck to live in a state/community full of dumbasses. Honestly, our local kids are doing very well.

Don't you think the common core will help to alleviate your local issue?

J Diddy
03-03-2011, 08:09 PM
You know what I think. I think fuck him. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on that idiot if he was on fire.

Jenson71
03-03-2011, 08:17 PM
How can we expect a 4 year old to earn his education? And does he think it is legitimate for a xhild to be placed in a new family if his current family treats him well with the exception of refusing to provide him with a formal education of any kind?

DJJasonp
03-03-2011, 09:17 PM
I think people earn education/health-care rights by contributing to society in some form (paying taxes sounds the most reasonable).

There are those that cannot (whether that is due to physical or mental disabilities) - and those individuals should be helped.

KC native
03-03-2011, 09:33 PM
Stupid shit like this is why he isn't a viable national candidate.

dirk digler
03-03-2011, 10:17 PM
There are those that cannot (whether that is due to physical or mental disabilities) - and those individuals should be helped.

Ron Paul says screw those people. He don't care

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 10:37 PM
Ron Paul says screw those people. He don't care

Please show me where he has said this specificially? He's a medical doctor, of course he cares. He just feels there are better ways to deal with it which do not require socialist solutions.

I think if you have heard him at length, which you obviously haven't, you'd know has never used such words. What he would tell you, having been a medical doctor back before govt came to "help", is that nobody was turned away because there were charity hospitals and church hospitals resulting. Govt intervention crowded most of these out of existence. Govt intervention, in the name of "help" resulted in medical care becoming more expensive turning delivery into being done by corporations benifitting corporations instead causing both doctors and patients to be unhappy. Believe it or not, medical care was more affordable back then and it was the envy of the world too.


Remember that saying: "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help.":rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 10:38 PM
You know what I think. I think **** him. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on that idiot if he was on fire.

But he would rush over to save you from a fire and give you medical care all on his own without the govt coercing him.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 10:39 PM
I think people earn education/health-care rights by contributing to society in some form (paying taxes sounds the most reasonable).

There are those that cannot (whether that is due to physical or mental disabilities) - and those individuals should be helped.

" Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help." Yeah, uh huh! If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Jenson71
03-03-2011, 10:51 PM
So as a devoted follower of Paul's, are you aware of his stance on the existent or non-existent right of a K-12 education?

cdcox
03-03-2011, 10:54 PM
Ah yes! The collectivist argument—everybody, the group is all. As if education wouldn't have happened otherwise.
You can make this argument for just about every need or good that makes life better. One way of doing it is to have faith in govt and the other is having faith in people. There should be a balance between group and individual and that balanced was lost years ago.

I've got some news for you: the government is made up of people. Many of them very good people. So the two aren't mutually exclusive.

dirk digler
03-03-2011, 10:56 PM
But he would rush over to save you from a fire and give you medical care all on his own without the govt coercing him.

No he wouldn't because he hadn't earned it

Superbowltrashcan
03-03-2011, 11:16 PM
Folks the reason student loans and grants are a winner involves looking no further than the actuarial data for the situation. These so called benevolent acts by the federal government are nothing more than " startup costs" for the business that is you the student soon to become taxpayer. Educated individuals in general generate income taxes over their lifetime that far exceeds the cost of the grants received, let alone interest differential on loans. Furthermore educated populations place much less burden on the public sector in terms of violent crime and prison populations. Uncle Sam isn't some kind hearted old relative. He is a heartless bastard out to squeeze every penny he can out of you, even if it means paying for getting you smarter so you can get a better job and pay all the more to him. They know exactly what they are doing.....

FD
03-04-2011, 12:36 AM
Folks the reason student loans and grants are a winner involves looking no further than the actuarial data for the situation. These so called benevolent acts by the federal government are nothing more than " startup costs" for the business that is you the student soon to become taxpayer. Educated individuals in general generate income taxes over their lifetime that far exceeds the cost of the grants received, let alone interest differential on loans. Furthermore educated populations place much less burden on the public sector in terms of violent crime and prison populations. Uncle Sam isn't some kind hearted old relative. He is a heartless bastard out to squeeze every penny he can out of you, even if it means paying for getting you smarter so you can get a better job and pay all the more to him. They know exactly what they are doing.....

Interesting theory. So government lending you money so you can get an education and greatly increase your lifetime earnings is some kind of conspiracy to screw you over?

KILLER_CLOWN
03-04-2011, 12:50 AM
Interesting theory. So government lending you money so you can get an education and greatly increase your lifetime earnings is some kind of conspiracy to screw you over?

Sure after the economy collapses, there are no jobs to be had and you're left owing student loans and all other incurring debts while slinging burgers. Overqualified gets you nowhere in this economy.

SNR
03-04-2011, 12:51 AM
Sure after the economy collapses, there are no jobs to be had and you're left owing student loans and all other incurring debts while slinging burgers. Overqualified gets you nowhere in this economy.If that's during hyper-inflation, then you can pay off all your student loans in one sitting and still have a wheelbarrow left over to buy bread

KILLER_CLOWN
03-04-2011, 12:54 AM
If that's during hyper-inflation, then you can pay off all your student loans in one sitting and still have a wheelbarrow left over to buy bread

Ok, i'll concede that one unless of course we are dealing in yen by then.

Amnorix
03-04-2011, 06:54 AM
I like Carlin SNR. he's poignant and makes good points. However, he doesn't understand that the Constitution doesn't give rights and the European Constitutions do. Ours is a negative rights document. There are different kinds of rights too. Natural rights are rights that simply pre-exist.

The portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights does give rights.

The document is NOT a negative rights documents, whatever that means. It doesn't go on and on listing what people, or states, or the federal government can't do.

It primarily apportions power between the federal and state governments. It is not a "negative rights document".

Amnorix
03-04-2011, 06:58 AM
Would you have that right in a state of nature?

Or


Would you receive help because others were concerned for you and were helpful?


I find it odd that you would make decisions regarding how to govern based on what would happen in a Lord of the Flies situation.

Fat Elvis
03-04-2011, 08:28 AM
I've got some news for you: the government is made up of people. Many of them very good people. So the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Government is nothing more than ominous light absorbing monolithic structures that emit low frequency sounds causing your bowels to gurgle. Get with the program.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2011, 08:59 AM
I've got some news for you: the government is made up of people. Many of them very good people. So the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I've got news for you: govt is force and coercian. So those people working in govt or using govt for their ends are using force and coercian. It's a necessary evil so a little is necessary but it is not to become a fearful master but rather be afraid of the people it governs. When you have that it is called liberty.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2011, 09:01 AM
No he wouldn't because he hadn't earned it

No, you have it wrong. Paul supports doing things voluntarily instead of coercing them. Paul would do that voluntarily because he is a medical doctor, a Christian and a good man who has done that for others.
You still fail to differentiate the private and the govt sectors which is key to understanding Paul's positions.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 09:38 AM
If we agree that a right is something that can't legitimately be taken away, how can medical care and education be a right? What happens if a massive pandemic wipes out everyone but one surviver. Where does that surviver go to collect on his right to medical care and education?

dirk digler
03-04-2011, 09:42 AM
If we agree that a right is something that can't legitimately be taken away, how can medical care and education be a right? What happens if a massive pandemic wipes out everyone but one surviver. Where does that surviver go to collect on his right to medical care and education?

Are talking about the entire world or just the United States?

You bring up an interesting question would it be the government's responsibility to try to save people from dying from this pandemic or should they just say screw them?

Amnorix
03-04-2011, 10:02 AM
If we agree that a right is something that can't legitimately be taken away, how can medical care and education be a right? What happens if a massive pandemic wipes out everyone but one surviver. Where does that surviver go to collect on his right to medical care and education?

Rights are much broader than that. You're just limiting it to what the old philosophers would call inalienable rights.

And your example is pretty Lord of the Flies'ian. What's the point?
Freedom of assembly is probably troublesome under your scenario also, no?

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 10:10 AM
If we agree that a right is something that can't legitimately be taken away, how can medical care and education be a right? What happens if a massive pandemic wipes out everyone but one surviver. Where does that surviver go to collect on his right to medical care and education?

Strange to strip our rights from the context of human society, especially since the very idea of rights in a significant and basis sense is that which people owe other people.

But, I ask you, and I still await Buc's answer: does a child have a right to an education such that if denied by his parents one, the state can legitimately place child in a foster home?

Jaric
03-04-2011, 10:25 AM
The document is NOT a negative rights documents, whatever that means. It doesn't go on and on listing what people, or states, or the federal government can't do.

Have you read the Bill of Rights? That's precisely what it does.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Rights are much broader than that. You're just limiting it to what the old philosophers would call inalienable rights.

It's clear that that's what Paul is talking about so you can either join that discussion or make up your own definition and start a new, irrelevant one. :shrug:

And your example is pretty Lord of the Flies'ian. What's the point?
Freedom of assembly is probably troublesome under your scenario also, no?

No, not troublesome in any new way. You have the freedom to assemble, but only with those who choose to assemble with you. In the sole survivor scenario, you're not likely to find any takers, but you still have the same right.

The analogous situation would be the idea that health care and education are only rights but only if you can find someone who willingly provides them for you.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Have you read the Bill of Rights? That's precisely what it does.

He was talking about the Articles.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 10:31 AM
Strange to strip our rights from the context of human society, especially since the very idea of rights in a significant and basis sense is that which people owe other people.

No, that's not the very idea of rights.

But, I ask you, and I still await Buc's answer: does a child have a right to an education such that if denied by his parents one, the state can legitimately place child in a foster home?

No, the child has no such right. That's not to say that society can't require it's people to allow their children to be educated or that the penalty for failure to do so can't be removal of the child to a foster home.

Amnorix
03-04-2011, 10:31 AM
Have you read the Bill of Rights? That's precisely what it does.

Pretty obviously yes, since the first sentence of my post said this:

The portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights does give rights.


And the Bill of Rights, which is certainly part of the Constitution, was added after the adoption of the document and certainly is NOT all or substantially all of the document or anything.

The Constitution is a document that apportions power between the state and federal government, and then has a specific section (the Bill of Rights) which provides specific rights to the people upon which the federal government cannot tread. But to describe the document as a whole as a negative rights documents is ludicrous. That statement would apply ONLY if you were talking JUST about the Bill of Rights, which is only a relatively small part (though a very important part of course) of the overall document.

Cave Johnson
03-04-2011, 11:13 AM
Ron Paul says screw those people. He don't care

Ron Paul don't give a f*ck.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2011, 11:42 AM
Ron Paul don't give a f*ck.

:lame:


He's a doctor and has done charity work. Of course he cares. You're just coloring him that way. Spin!

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 12:25 PM
No, that's not the very idea of rights.

Of course it is. (You) don't kill me, I have a right to live. (You) don't take my money, I have a right to it. (You) don't set up a camera in my shower, I have a right to my privacy. Those are all violations of my rights, and they are essential to our society. You owe me the respect of those rights. And if you violate them, society has agreed to punish you.

No, the child has no such right. That's not to say that society can't require it's people to allow their children to be educated or that the penalty for failure to do so can't be removal of the child to a foster home.

I think the child has a right to be educated to help him reach his potential, and thus, the state can take the child away if the parents fail to give a minimum amount of education.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 12:30 PM
Of course it is. (You) don't kill me, I have a right to live. (You) don't take my money, I have a right to it. (You) don't set up a camera in my shower, I have a right to my privacy. Those are all violations of my rights, and they are essential to our society. You owe me the respect of those rights. And if you violate them, society has agreed to punish you.

You're describing a duty to refrain from acting in certain ways not a duty to act. The examples of health care or education necessarily impose a duty to act.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 12:34 PM
You're describing a duty to refrain from acting in certain ways not a duty to act. The examples of health care or education necessarily impose a duty to act.

I said that the very idea of rights in a significant and basic sense is that which people owe other people.

You said no, that it was not. Are you still with that position?

patteeu
03-04-2011, 12:45 PM
I said that the very idea of rights in a significant and basic sense is that which people owe other people.

You said no, that it was not. Are you still with that position?

The concept you're describing with the word "owe" is too broad for this context. I'll accept your definition, but it becomes fairly useless for this discussion if it can mean both a duty to act and a duty to refrain from acting.

Strange to strip our rights from the context of human society, especially since the very idea of rights in a significant and basis sense is that which people owe other people.

I don't think it's strange at all since the very idea of rights in a significant and basic sense is that they don't impose a duty to act on others but instead impose a duty to refrain from certain actions. If all the other people in the world disappear, they will naturally refrain from taking any more actions and therefore it provides a good test for whether or not we are talking about a real right.

stevieray
03-04-2011, 12:49 PM
He's correct.

....especially about medical care. you don't even have the right to your health.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 01:07 PM
The concept you're describing with the word "owe" is too broad for this context. I'll accept your definition, but it becomes fairly useless for this discussion if it can mean both a duty to act and a duty to refrain from acting.

I don't think it's strange at all since the very idea of rights in a significant and basic sense is that they don't impose a duty to act on others but instead impose a duty to refrain from certain actions. If all the other people in the world disappear, they will naturally refrain from taking any more actions and therefore it provides a good test for whether or not we are talking about a real right.

I'm not talking about duties to act or refrain from acting. I'm talking about rights in the sense that I deserve something. I've met the four requirements of the award, so I deserve it, so it's my right to have it.

If all the world disappear but you, who will you enforce your rights to? The bears? "Hey, bears, don't eat me, because I have a right to my life." That'll last you long.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 01:09 PM
He's correct.

....especially about medical care. you don't even have the right to your health.

If someone purposefully or intentionally took your health away (I don't know, by giving you AIDS or something), you don't think you'd have a case against them?

patteeu
03-04-2011, 01:24 PM
I'm not talking about duties to act or refrain from acting. I'm talking about rights in the sense that I deserve something. I've met the four requirements of the award, so I deserve it, so it's my right to have it.

If all the world disappear but you, who will you enforce your rights to? The bears? "Hey, bears, don't eat me, because I have a right to my life." That'll last you long.

I suggest that you start talking about those things because it's that distinction that separates real rights from artificial "rights" like that of education and of health care.

It doesn't matter whether there's someone else to enforce your rights to, they won't become an impossible ideal simply because you're left alone if they're really rights. Your part about getting eaten by bears is a complete non-argument.

Why do you deserve to force someone else to provide you with health care or an education?

ROYC75
03-04-2011, 01:26 PM
If someone purposefully or intentionally took your health away (I don't know, by giving you AIDS or something), you don't think you'd have a case against them?


That's a malpractice case, of which you would receive a lot of compensation. What you don't spend on past medical bills you can leave to somebody else ( family ) when you die.

Don't you feel that if you have no insurance to take care of yourself before the malpractice case is cleared you would receive more money than if you had insurance or some type of coverage ?

stevieray
03-04-2011, 02:53 PM
If someone purposefully or intentionally took your health away (I don't know, by giving you AIDS or something), you don't think you'd have a case against them?

strawman

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 03:09 PM
strawman

Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you clarify your position? You stated: "You don't even have a right to your health." Would did you really mean?

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 03:14 PM
I suggest that you start talking about those things because it's that distinction that separates real rights from artificial "rights" like that of education and of health care.

It doesn't matter whether there's someone else to enforce your rights to, they won't become an impossible ideal simply because you're left alone if they're really rights. Your part about getting eaten by bears is a complete non-argument.

Why do you deserve to force someone else to provide you with health care or an education?

The distinction between "real rights" and "artificial rights" seems to be one of opinion based on your subjective theological or moral views. Practically, we determine that children have a right to an education by society's enacting and enforcing laws. If their parents deny them that, then they have been wronged. They deserved some amount of formal education.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 03:41 PM
The distinction between "real rights" and "artificial rights" seems to be one of opinion based on your subjective theological or moral views. Practically, we determine that children have a right to an education by society's enacting and enforcing laws. If their parents deny them that, then they have been wronged. They deserved some amount of formal education.

It seems to me that we should be using the same definition that's being used by the subject of the OP article if we're going to discuss whether he's correct or not.

Would it help if I called real rights "Ron Paul rights" and artificial rights "dirk digler rights"?

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 03:47 PM
It seems to me that we should be using the same definition that's being used by the subject of the OP article if we're going to discuss whether he's correct or not.

Would it help if I called real rights "Ron Paul rights" and artificial rights "dirk digler rights"?

I'm mostly concerned with the idea that a United States congressman does not think that American children have a right to an education, as in they don't deserve one, unless they earn it somehow (meaning more than just being citizens). I guess I don't have enough interest right now to argue if there is some natural right to it.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm mostly concerned with the idea that a United States congressman does not think that American children have a right to an education, as in they don't deserve one, unless they earn it somehow (meaning more than just being citizens). I guess I don't have enough interest right now to argue if there is some natural right to it.

They don't have a "right" to it.

Now, you can argue that it's a good idea to make sure they have one, but there is no "right" to it.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 03:58 PM
They don't have a "right" to it.

Now, you can argue that it's a good idea to make sure they have one, but there is no "right" to it.

But isn't it the case that in our country, the state can take a child away if the parents do not provide him with some schooling, either at a public or private school, or some homeschooling equivalent?

I might be completely wrong, but I think it is the case.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:05 PM
But isn't it the case that in our country, the state can take a child away if the parents do not provide him with some schooling, either at a public or private school, or some homeschooling equivalent?

I might be completely wrong, but I think it is the case.

Nowhere in the constitution (the document that explains what Rights all citizens have) does it say that you have a right to an education.

You have the right to a trial but a jury of your peers. You have the right to decline to quarter troops in your house. You have the right to bear arms. You have many other rights spelled out there. You do not have the right to an education.

Is it a good idea to educate our children? I say so. But it is not a right.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:11 PM
Nowhere in the constitution (the document that explains what Rights all citizens have) does it say that you have a right to an education.

You have the right to a trial but a jury of your peers. You have the right to decline to quarter troops in your house. You have the right to bear arms. You have many other rights spelled out there. You do not have the right to an education.

Is it a good idea to educate our children? I say so. But it is not a right.

The Constitution just sets up a basic outline of the federal government. It doesn't list all your rights.

If a cop arrests you, and never says, "You have a right to remain silent, etc." what happens? You get off! You could have had four lbs of cocaine in your backseat. But you had a right to the Miranda warnings and it wasn't given to you.

Constitution never says cops have to do that, though. But it's a right we have.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:15 PM
The Constitution just sets up a basic outline of the federal government. It doesn't list all your rights.

If a cop arrests you, and never says, "You have a right to remain silent, etc." what happens? You get off! You could have had four lbs of cocaine in your backseat. But you had a right to the Miranda warnings and it wasn't given to you.

Constitution never says cops have to do that, though. But it's a right we have.

5th amendment. Due process. Testifying against yourself.

There is no right to education.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:20 PM
5th amendment. Due process. Testifying against yourself.

There is no right to education.

The Miranda warnings are not expressly given in the 5th Amendment, or any Amendment for that matter.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:24 PM
The Miranda warnings are not expressly given in the 5th Amendment, or any Amendment for that matter.

Case law determined that it is part of due process (a protected right in the 5th amendment) for police to explain the 5th amendment (which is what "miranda rights" really are) before arresting someone.

Sorry, there is still no right to an education.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:26 PM
The Constitution just sets up a basic outline of the federal government. It doesn't list all your rights.
Sorry, didn't address this.

That's actually precisely what the Constitution does. It spells out what rights you have. If it's not in the constitution. It's not a "right."

It might be a good idea, but it's not a "right."

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Case law determined that it is part of due process (a protected right in the 5th amendment) for police to explain the 5th amendment (which is what "miranda rights" really are) before arresting someone.

Sorry, there is still no right to an education.

Yeah, case law. That's one way to determine your right. But also, all states have statutes that say kids must go to school, giving them a right to an education.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:28 PM
Sorry, didn't address this.

That's actually precisely what the Constitution does. It spells out what rights you have. If it's not in the constitution. It's not a "right."

It might be a good idea, but it's not a "right."

The Constitution is just a federal outline, not a list of the rights you have as a citizen.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:29 PM
Yeah, case law. That's one way to determine your right. But also, all states have statutes that say kids must go to school, giving them a right to an education.

Ummm...what?

States also have statues that say before making a left turn I must signal 200 yards before making said turn. Does that mean I have a "right" to use my turn signal? Or that other people have a "right" to see me use a turn signal?

I'm sorry, no. The constitution is what determines what your rights are. That's the purpose of the document.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 04:30 PM
The Constitution is just a federal outline, not a list of the rights you have as a citizen.

Seriously? Where on Earth did you get this idea?

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:34 PM
Ummm...what?

States also have statues that say before making a left turn I must signal 200 yards before making said turn. Does that mean I have a "right" to use my turn signal? Or that other people have a "right" to see me use a turn signal?

I'm sorry, no. The constitution is what determines what your rights are. That's the purpose of the document.

You're making the mistake of thinking that because I said that a state law gives you a right, it means I meant all state laws are rights. But that doesn't follow.

The Constitution of the United States can determine what some of your rights are. But that's not where all our rights come from. And that's not the purpose of the Constitution.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 04:35 PM
Seriously? Where on Earth did you get this idea?

I thought it was common knowledge.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 05:35 PM
You're making the mistake of thinking that because I said that a state law gives you a right, it means I meant all state laws are rights. But that doesn't follow.By all means elaborate on which state laws you feel "grant rights" and which ones don't.

The Constitution of the United States can determine what some of your rights are. But that's not where all our rights come from. And that's not the purpose of the Constitution.That's not the only purpose of the constitution, but it is certainly one of them.

And unless you are referring to God (IE, a "God given right") you rights most certainly do all come from the Constitution.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 05:38 PM
I thought it was common knowledge.

So you are saying that the Bill of Rights, a part of the constitution that is a list of specific rights each citizen of this country has which cannot be infringed upon by the Government, is not a list of rights each person has?

Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion.

BucEyedPea
03-04-2011, 06:03 PM
By all means elaborate on which state laws you feel "grant rights" and which ones don't.

That's not the only purpose of the constitution, but it is certainly one of them.

And unless you are referring to God (IE, a "God given right") you rights most certainly do all come from the Constitution.

No they don't come from the Constitution. It's a negative rights document. It protects God given rights or rights that stem from nature and our humanity. The Bill of Rights after ratification. They were added out of fear the new central govt would overstep it's bounds on pre-existing natural rights ( which they did immediately under Hamilton's advice). It was considered impossible to list all our natural rights and such a list would be too long. So the rest of your rights that pre-existed govt are implied in the Ninth Amendment.

patteeu
03-04-2011, 06:25 PM
But isn't it the case that in our country, the state can take a child away if the parents do not provide him with some schooling, either at a public or private school, or some homeschooling equivalent?

I might be completely wrong, but I think it is the case.

That may well be true, but it doesn't mean the kid has a right to an education, it just means that we've decided to make that the standard of care we expect from parents. We could abandon that standard and abolish public schools at any time and the kid would be SOL unless his parents could provide for his/her education on their own.

Jaric
03-04-2011, 06:55 PM
No they don't come from the Constitution. It's a negative rights document. It protects God given rights or rights that stem from nature and our humanity. The Bill of Rights after ratification. They were added out of fear the new central govt would overstep it's bounds on pre-existing natural rights ( which they did immediately under Hamilton's advice). It was considered impossible to list all our natural rights and such a list would be too long. So the rest of your rights that pre-existed govt are implied in the Ninth Amendment.

The protections of those rights come from the Constitution. "Rights" are only meaningful if they are protected. Otherwise they mean nothing. That's sort of the whole point of a right, is that it's protected.

I understand completely what you're saying. I ultimately agree with you. However, for our purposes, we are concerned with the protection of those rights. Since that protection comes from the constitution, for our purposes, the constitution gives us our rights. Even if that wasn't necessarily the original intent.

You might not agree with me on this, but I feel like you and I are arguing semantics. Now Jenson on the other hand...

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 09:41 PM
By all means elaborate on which state laws you feel "grant rights" and which ones don't.

Well, in my state, I have the right to marry a man, if I wanted to, which I don't.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 09:44 PM
So you are saying that the Bill of Rights, a part of the constitution that is a list of specific rights each citizen of this country has which cannot be infringed upon by the Government, is not a list of rights each person has?

Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion.

There's just a ton of different acts from both the federal and state legislatures, executives, and judiciaries that have granted rights to citizens.

The Bill of Rights were mostly things the Federal Government could not do to American citizens. It wasn't until the 1900s when many of those rights were officially incorporated to the states. Some of them still haven't been incorporated.

ClevelandBronco
03-04-2011, 09:45 PM
Well, in my state, I have the right to marry a man, if I wanted to, which I don't.

That's merely a legal option. Rights run a bit deeper.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 09:47 PM
That may well be true, but it doesn't mean the kid has a right to an education, it just means that we've decided to make that the standard of care we expect from parents. We could abandon that standard and abolish public schools at any time and the kid would be SOL unless his parents could provide for his/her education on their own.

If public schools are abolished, then it just means the right of education is taken away. Then we decide if we are happier or sadder because of that. But for now, it's there, and it's a right.

Jenson71
03-04-2011, 09:50 PM
That's merely a legal option. Rights run a bit deeper.

I am a proponent of natural law. But at this point in my life, it's hard for me to articulate and completely understand where that ends and where positive law begins.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2011, 12:17 AM
The protections of those rights come from the Constitution. "Rights" are only meaningful if they are protected. Otherwise they mean nothing. That's sort of the whole point of a right, is that it's protected.
Yes, govt is formed to protect them but that's different than what was said which is why I responded. The European Constitutions have it in reverse though. That's very key.



You might not agree with me on this, but I feel like you and I are arguing semantics. Now Jenson on the other hand...

It may sound like semantics but it's actually a very important and key distinction from our system and just about all other ones.

patteeu
03-05-2011, 09:56 AM
If public schools are abolished, then it just means the right of education is taken away. Then we decide if we are happier or sadder because of that. But for now, it's there, and it's a right.

Your obstinance on this point is misguided. Do you think that Ron Paul doesn't understand that we have laws that allow all kids to attend public schools (with very few exceptions) or that require hospitals to treat emergency medical cases? If "right" means any benefit or privilege that any law gives you in this context, he wouldn't have said what he said.

Your alternative definition of the word "right" isn't incorrect in all contexts, it's just not applicable here. If I ask Ron Paul what he sees while staring at a wall that reflects light with wavelength of about 590 nm and he responds "orange", are you going to go on and on arguing that he's wrong because there are no citrus fruit in sight?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/247391442_5114c5dd34.jpg

http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/oranges-vitamin-c-lg.jpg

In other words, you're arguing orange and oranges. :p

stevieray
03-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you clarify your position? You stated: "You don't even have a right to your health." Would did you really mean?

It's self explanatory.

it's why people start prayer threads, it's why doctors say they're sorry.

...if health were guaranteed, life wouldn't be precious and would lack meaning.

and as for education, this nation's education system started with the Bible. One book. One Word. One way.

Jaric
03-05-2011, 11:12 AM
Well, in my state, I have the right to marry a man, if I wanted to, which I don't.

No, you have the option to marry a man.

Options do not equal rights.

Jaric
03-05-2011, 11:15 AM
It may sound like semantics but it's actually a very important and key distinction from our system and just about all other ones.

I suppose I'm speaking from a practical position.

We both agree that free speech is a right correct? Well, if the government decides that it doesn't give a shit about that and throw you in jail for saying something and just decide not to tell anyone, do you still have the right to free speech?

Technically, yes you do. But what good is it? That's sort of where I'm going. I completely understand that our founders believe that our rights came from God and that it was the Govt job not to mess with that.

SNR
03-05-2011, 11:18 AM
Your obstinance on this point is misguided. Do you think that Ron Paul doesn't understand that we have laws that allow all kids to attend public schools (with very few exceptions) or that require hospitals to treat emergency medical cases? If "right" means any benefit or privilege that any law gives you in this context, he wouldn't have said what he said.

Your alternative definition of the word "right" isn't incorrect in all contexts, it's just not applicable here. If I ask Ron Paul what he sees while staring at a wall that reflects light with wavelength of about 590 nm and he responds "orange", are you going to go on and on arguing that he's wrong because there are no citrus fruit in sight?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/247391442_5114c5dd34.jpg

http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/oranges-vitamin-c-lg.jpg

In other words, you're arguing orange and oranges. :p

Actually, I think Jenson would say he sees orange:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar255_3.gif

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 12:31 PM
Your obstinance on this point is misguided. Do you think that Ron Paul doesn't understand that we have laws that allow all kids to attend public schools (with very few exceptions) or that require hospitals to treat emergency medical cases? If "right" means any benefit or privilege that any law gives you in this context, he wouldn't have said what he said.

I would hope that all United States congressmen would want to preserve the laws we currently have that provide children an education.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 12:38 PM
It's self explanatory.

it's why people start prayer threads, it's why doctors say they're sorry.

...if health were guaranteed, life wouldn't be precious and would lack meaning.

and as for education, this nation's education system started with the Bible. One book. One Word. One way.

I think there's a difference between having a right, and having a guarantee. You have a right to life, but there's no guarantee someone is not going to walk up and shoot you.

As for education, the nation's education system was really with the McGuffey Readers. Why do you think it was the Bible? Certainly there were a number of Biblical passages in the Reader, though.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 12:40 PM
No, you have the option to marry a man.

Options do not equal rights.

If a cop arrested me in Iowa for marrying a man, I could take my case to an Iowa court. The Iowa court would state that under the Supreme Court's reading of the Iowa Constitution, I have the right to marry a man, and that cannot be infringed upon through arresting me.

patteeu
03-05-2011, 12:55 PM
I would hope that all United States congressmen would want to preserve the laws we currently have that provide children an education.

Which is also irrellevant to this thread.

SNR
03-05-2011, 12:58 PM
If a cop arrested me in Iowa for marrying a man, I could take my case to an Iowa court. The Iowa court would state that under the Supreme Court's reading of the Iowa Constitution, I have the right to marry a man, and that cannot be infringed upon through arresting me.They wouldn't arrest you. The state just wouldn't acknowledge the marriage.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 01:01 PM
Which is also irrellevant to this thread.

No, because I'm concerned with Paul's views about the topic.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 01:02 PM
They wouldn't arrest you. The state just wouldn't acknowledge the marriage.

Well in my hypothetical, the cop did arrest me.

SNR
03-05-2011, 01:06 PM
Well in my hypothetical, the cop did arrest me.Sure, but in a state where they passed a law defining marriage, you could also take your case to a court and say you haven't done anything wrong. Which you haven't. I'm not aware of any states where they would arrest you for marrying a man

stevieray
03-05-2011, 01:21 PM
I think there's a difference between having a right, and having a guarantee. You have a right to life, but there's no guarantee someone is not going to walk up and shoot you.

As for education, the nation's education system was really with the McGuffey Readers. Why do you think it was the Bible? Certainly there were a number of Biblical passages in the Reader, though.

semantics...do deaf people have a right to hear? people born with lukemia? you have right to life, but not health...


Zimmers handbook. ..IIRC, there only hanndful in exsitence.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 03:38 PM
Sure, but in a state where they passed a law defining marriage, you could also take your case to a court and say you haven't done anything wrong. Which you haven't. I'm not aware of any states where they would arrest you for marrying a man

Right, I don't know why a cop would arrest me, but the state wouldn't recognize my marriage if they hadn't recognized a right to gay marriage.

Jenson71
03-05-2011, 03:41 PM
semantics...do deaf people have a right to hear? people born with lukemia? you have right to life, but not health...


Zimmers handbook. ..IIRC, there only hanndful in exsitence.

Deaf people don't have a right to hear, but many states say that disabled people have a right to get proper aids in public schools, like a sign language specialist. Or alternative schools.

Deaf people don't have a right to hear because it's impossible. I don't think this is just semantics.

I'm not aware of the Zimmer book. Was that an early American handbook? I'm somewhat familiar with the McGuffey handbook, though. It was enormously popular.

donkhater
03-05-2011, 06:06 PM
Gay marriage is about money, plain and simple. I don't know of any law against standing in front of your friends and family professing your love to another.

Now you may say that there are certain benefits that heterosexuals have with marriage concerning property transfers, visitation rights in hospitals, etc, and you be right. But I don't think the government should regulate any of that anyway, so your argument falls on these deaf ears.

stevieray
03-06-2011, 10:37 AM
Deaf people don't have a right to hear, but many states say that disabled people have a right to get proper aids in public schools, like a sign language specialist. Or alternative schools.

Deaf people don't have a right to hear because it's impossible. I don't think this is just semantics.



it damn sure is.. you focused on the word guarantee, when I could change it to right, and my point would still be valid.

I'm not intrerested in running down irrelevant rabbit holes..

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 10:44 AM
it damn sure is.. you focused on the word guarantee, when I could change it to right, and my point would still be valid.

I'm not intrerested in running down irrelevant rabbit holes..

You are arguing that "guarantee" and "right" are synonyms. That's not correct. If they were synonyms, then we would be arguing semantics. But they are not. They mean different things.

stevieray
03-06-2011, 10:52 AM
You are arguing that "guarantee" and "right" are synonyms. That's not correct. If they were synonyms, then we would be arguing semantics. But they are not. They mean different things.

that's fantastic, you still haven't disproven the point.

health is not a right..if that were true, there wouldn't be people finding out they have cancer this week.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:05 AM
that's fantastic, you still haven't disproven the point.

health is not a right..if that were true, there wouldn't be people finding out they have cancer this week.

If someone purposefully gives you cancer, you can sue them because they violated you. You have a huge tort claim and you're going to win millions. The court will enforce it because you have a right to your health.

But you don't have a guarantee that you will not get cancer. You're arguing that there's no guarantee. I agree with you.

But you're further arguing that not having a guarantee to health means that you're not going to win that case I just mentioned. That's completely wrong. You will win the case. You will get millions of dollars. Because you have a right to not have your health intentionally violated upon.

I hope that clears things up.

stevieray
03-06-2011, 11:14 AM
If you purposefully give someone cancer, you can sue them because they violated you.

you might to reword that. Even then you're creating scenarios where one person does something to another.

it still doesn't disprove the point.

you have no right to health. it's one of many reasons why life is precious and has meaning.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:17 AM
you might to reword that. Even then you're creating scenarios where one person does something to another.

it still doesn't disprove the point.

you have no right to health. it's one of many reasons why life is precious and has meaning.

You're right. I did reword it soon after I posted. You might want to add a "want" in your first sentence, although it's not necessary because I can still figure out what you mean. If I were petty enough, though, I'd ask that you do so.

It does disprove the point that "guarantee" is synonymous with "right."

Do you argue that you have no right to anything?

stevieray
03-06-2011, 11:19 AM
You're right. I did reword it soon after I posted.

It does disprove the point that "guarantee" is synonymous with "right."

Do you argue that you have no right to anything?

:rolleyes:

still waiting.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:21 AM
:rolleyes:

still waiting.

Still waiting for what?

Honestly, you have no guarantee to anything. You have no guarantee to life. Does that mean you have no right to life? That's what you seem to be arguing.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:23 AM
health is not a right..if that were true, there wouldn't be people finding out they have cancer this week.

I can just as easily say, "Life is not a right . . . if that were true, there wouldn't be people dying this week."

But isn't life a right? It seems like if anything is a right, it must be life. Isn't this where your argument cracks apart?

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:31 AM
I take it that what I've just done is 'disprove the point.'

donkhater
03-06-2011, 02:05 PM
If someone purposefully gives you cancer, you can sue them because they violated you. You have a huge tort claim and you're going to win millions. The court will enforce it because you have a right to your health.

But you don't have a guarantee that you will not get cancer. You're arguing that there's no guarantee. I agree with you.

But you're further arguing that not having a guarantee to health means that you're not going to win that case I just mentioned. That's completely wrong. You will win the case. You will get millions of dollars. Because you have a right to not have your health intentionally violated upon.

I hope that clears things up.

Wrong. You have a right to your life, not your health. If the latter were true then any lawsuit against a fast food chain, video game maker or the kid that sneezes on you would be valid.

Intentionally giving someone a disease that can kill them is entirely different. The lawsuits have merit because of the potential loss of life, not health.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 02:10 PM
Wrong. You have a right to your life, not your health. If the latter were true then any lawsuit against a fast food chain, video game maker or the kid that sneezes on you would be valid.

Intentionally giving someone a disease that can kill them is entirely different. The lawsuits have merit because of the potential loss of life, not health.

Wrong. The reason that a lawsuit against fast food, video game, and sneezing kids is not valid is that because the but for and proximate causation element is so lacking, not because you don't have a right to your health.

Your argument suggests that you can only sue for fatal injuries, and not something like paralysis, among many others. That's completely false.

donkhater
03-06-2011, 02:19 PM
Wrong. The reason that a lawsuit against fast food, video game, and sneezing kids is not valid is that because the but for and proximate causation element is so lacking, not because you don't have a right to your health.

Your argument suggests that you can only sue for fatal injuries, and not something like paralysis, among many others. That's completely false.

Well if the causation element is lacking then how is it your right to recieve treatment for them?

You're arguing a double edged sword. If we have the right to do to our bodies what we wish, we forgo any right for someone else to pay for the consequences of those actions.

Making health care a 'right' starts us down the road in which anything that makes us unhealthy is illegal.

donkhater
03-06-2011, 02:37 PM
Wrong. The reason that a lawsuit against fast food, video game, and sneezing kids is not valid is that because the but for and proximate causation element is so lacking, not because you don't have a right to your health.

Your argument suggests that you can only sue for fatal injuries, and not something like paralysis, among many others. That's completely false.

Well, paralysis, loss of limb, etc lawsuits point to the loss of livelyhood, the ability to earn a living. That is a tangible material loss.

If I eat unhealthy food or lead a seditary lifestyle then any entitlement that I have over someone paying for may choices is incredibly immoral.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 03:09 PM
Well if the causation element is lacking then how is it your right to recieve treatment for them?

Treatment for someone sneezing on you? For fast food? What are you talking about?

You're arguing a double edged sword. If we have the right to do to our bodies what we wish, we forgo any right for someone else to pay for the consequences of those actions.

Making health care a 'right' starts us down the road in which anything that makes us unhealthy is illegal.

Stevieray and I were talking about the right to your health. He erroneously said you didn't have a right to it. Then you jumped in and agreed.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 03:10 PM
Well, paralysis, loss of limb, etc lawsuits point to the loss of livelyhood, the ability to earn a living. That is a tangible material loss.

So now that you've moved the goalposts, are you conceding the point, that you do have a right to your health?

ClevelandBronco
03-06-2011, 04:08 PM
So now that you've moved the goalposts, are you conceding the point, that you do have a right to your health?

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

You have no "right" to good health, and no "right" to health care treatment.

What you have instead is an ownership "right" to the normal course of your health that you're given by God, or by nature, or by day-to-day happenstance, depending on your point of view.

Now, sometimes the normal course of your health is this: Shit happens. You become ill, or you get injured, and you live a compromised life and/or you die. You own your illnesses, your injuries, your compromised life, and your death. By all means, if you can figure out a way to buy your way out of the normal course of your health, do it. Just pay for it yourself, or make a prior bargain with an insurance company to pay for it.

Laws should protect your ownership of the normal course of your health, and if someone's willful negligence or a malicious act changes the normal course of your health, the person who is responsible for that negligence or that malicious act should be responsible for mitigating the damage they have done.

Again, IMO, you have no right to good health, nor do you have a right to health care that changes the normal course of your health, as comfortable or as shitty as that normal course may be.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2011, 05:43 PM
Of course you have a right to your health or to pursue health under the banner of liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you don't have a right to is for others to pay for your medical treatments when you're sick or ill or lack health, because that infringes on their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nor do you have a right to make any healthcare professional treat you for your ills. That's the difference.

stevieray
03-06-2011, 08:38 PM
I can just as easily say, "Life is not a right . . . if that were true, there wouldn't be people dying this week."


no, you can't easily say that because...

1) it would be a lie
2) you'd be a hypocrit

babies will be born tomorrow with existing health conditions. by your logic, of health being a right, that wouldn't happen.

agian, this is why we start prayer threads, and why doctors say they are sorry.

this is where your "argument" falls to the wayside.

patteeu
03-06-2011, 08:39 PM
Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

You have no "right" to good health, and no "right" to health care treatment.

What you have instead is an ownership "right" to the normal course of your health that you're given by God, or by nature, or by day-to-day happenstance, depending on your point of view.

Now, sometimes the normal course of your health is this: Shit happens. You become ill, or you get injured, and you live a compromised life and/or you die. You own your illnesses, your injuries, your compromised life, and your death. By all means, if you can figure out a way to buy your way out of the normal course of your health, do it. Just pay for it yourself, or make a prior bargain with an insurance company to pay for it.

Laws should protect your ownership of the normal course of your health, and if someone's willful negligence or a malicious act changes the normal course of your health, the person who is responsible for that negligence or that malicious act should be responsible for mitigating the damage they have done.

Again, IMO, you have no right to good health, nor do you have a right to health care that changes the normal course of your health, as comfortable or as shitty as that normal course may be.

I endorse this position. :)

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 08:46 PM
no, you can't easily say that because...

1) it would be a lie
2) you'd be a hypocrit

babies will be born tomorrow with existing health conditions. by your logic, of health being a right, that wouldn't happen.

agian, this is why we start prayer threads, and why doctors say they are sorry.

this is where your "argument" falls to the wayside.

Why is that a lie, and why would that make me a hypocrite? I'm using your own standards here.

Sure, babies will be born tomorrow with existing health conditions (again, there's no guarantee to good health, I say). But babies will also be born tomorrow and die an hour later. By your logic, that means life is not a right.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 08:48 PM
Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

You have no "right" to good health, and no "right" to health care treatment.

What you have instead is an ownership "right" to the normal course of your health that you're given by God, or by nature, or by day-to-day happenstance, depending on your point of view.

Now, sometimes the normal course of your health is this: Shit happens. You become ill, or you get injured, and you live a compromised life and/or you die. You own your illnesses, your injuries, your compromised life, and your death. By all means, if you can figure out a way to buy your way out of the normal course of your health, do it. Just pay for it yourself, or make a prior bargain with an insurance company to pay for it.

Laws should protect your ownership of the normal course of your health, and if someone's willful negligence or a malicious act changes the normal course of your health, the person who is responsible for that negligence or that malicious act should be responsible for mitigating the damage they have done.

Again, IMO, you have no right to good health, nor do you have a right to health care that changes the normal course of your health, as comfortable or as shitty as that normal course may be.

This is all far too reasonable and well-thought out for anyone to spend time disagreeing with.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-06-2011, 08:55 PM
Yes you have a right, no the government should not be involved i mean look at their track record.

Jaric
03-07-2011, 09:47 AM
If a cop arrested me in Iowa for marrying a man, I could take my case to an Iowa court. The Iowa court would state that under the Supreme Court's reading of the Iowa Constitution, I have the right to marry a man, and that cannot be infringed upon through arresting me.

:facepalm:

If you get arrested for doing something that isn't against the law, that's called wrongful arrest. That does make what you were doing that wasn't illegal a "right."

Despite your verbal gymnastics, you still haven't proven that education is a "right."

Jenson71
03-07-2011, 09:50 AM
:facepalm:

If you get arrested for doing something that isn't against the law, that's called wrongful arrest. That does make what you were doing that wasn't illegal a "right."

Despite your verbal gymnastics, you still haven't proven that education is a "right."

Because if the child is not educated, he is taken away. That's good enough for me to say that child has a right to be educated.

Jenson71
03-07-2011, 09:54 AM
:facepalm:

If you get arrested for doing something that isn't against the law, that's called wrongful arrest. That does make what you were doing that wasn't illegal a "right."

Despite your verbal gymnastics, you still haven't proven that education is a "right."

And instead of the wrongful arrest situation, just change it to a municipal court denying my marriage to another man.

Jaric
03-07-2011, 10:00 AM
Because if the child is not educated, he is taken away. That's good enough for me to say that child has a right to be educated.
:facepalm:

Laws do no define rights. You can keep repeating this same argument over and over again, but that still won't make it correct.

Jenson71
03-07-2011, 10:04 AM
:facepalm:

Laws do no define rights. You can keep repeating this same argument over and over again, but that still won't make it correct.

Yeah, they can. You can keep denying it, but it still won't make it wrong.

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 10:04 AM
And instead of the wrongful arrest situation, just change it to a municipal court denying my marriage to another man.

Sister Christian know the time has come...

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 10:09 AM
A child doesn't have a natural or legal right to an education, but a parent or guardian has a legal obligation to provide access to an education to a minor under the age of 16.

The state is compelled by the people to go to practically any length to ensure that rights are protected. Think about the lengths to which the state must go to ensure the right to due process before a single execution. The state will not, cannot, and should not go to the same lengths to ensure a single education.

patteeu
03-07-2011, 10:58 AM
Yeah, they can. You can keep denying it, but it still won't make it wrong.

Not in this thread. Here, we're supposed to be talking about the concept mentioned by Ron Paul.

stevieray
03-08-2011, 05:59 PM
But babies will also be born tomorrow and die an hour later. By your logic, that means life is not a right.

No, babies that are born tomorrow and die an hour later pass because their health is not a right. why? because their health failed.

stevieray
03-08-2011, 06:00 PM
Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

You have no "right" to good health, and no "right" to health care treatment.

What you have instead is an ownership "right" to the normal course of your health that you're given by God, or by nature, or by day-to-day happenstance, depending on your point of view.

Now, sometimes the normal course of your health is this: Shit happens. You become ill, or you get injured, and you live a compromised life and/or you die. You own your illnesses, your injuries, your compromised life, and your death. By all means, if you can figure out a way to buy your way out of the normal course of your health, do it. Just pay for it yourself, or make a prior bargain with an insurance company to pay for it.

Laws should protect your ownership of the normal course of your health, and if someone's willful negligence or a malicious act changes the normal course of your health, the person who is responsible for that negligence or that malicious act should be responsible for mitigating the damage they have done.

Again, IMO, you have no right to good health, nor do you have a right to health care that changes the normal course of your health, as comfortable or as shitty as that normal course may be.


great post, just simple common sense applied.

Jenson71
03-08-2011, 07:06 PM
No, babies that are born tomorrow and die an hour later pass because their health is not a right. why? because their health failed.

What if they're killed?

Jenson71
03-08-2011, 07:07 PM
great post, just simple common sense applied.

LMAO WHAT!? If you think that's a good post, then you think you have a right to your health (or as he called it, your normal course of health). Yet you've been arguing that you don't have a right to your health.

So, for a simplified test so we can all get it straight.

Do you have a right to your health?
1) Yes, you have a right to your health because if someone screws it up, you can sue
2) No, because otherwise you would never get sick

We're talking legal rights. What is your pick?

Bump
03-08-2011, 07:07 PM
next up is Water. You wanna drink? Well, that will cost you.

FACT: America only cares about less than 1% of it's population!

stevieray
03-08-2011, 08:23 PM
What if they're killed?

gee.... I don't know "jenson"...

wouldn't that be murder?

:rolleyes:

Jenson71
03-08-2011, 10:01 PM
gee.... I don't know "jenson"...

wouldn't that be murder?

:rolleyes:

Yes, it would be!

I eagerly await your test answer.