There Is No Right to Healthcare

[Ethereal]

I have been informed by several of our liberal members that rights aren't "real", that they don't "exist". Clearly, then, there is no right to healthcare. It's just something liberals have conjured up out of thin air based on nothing concrete. So why should our society recognize something which liberals claim doesn't exist? Perhaps we should give everyone a right to a unicorn as well?

[resister]

A great point you make, I am getting the popcorn ready in anticipation of the twisted logic it will require to "explain" this one. Though I kinda think those same people that made those claims, will studiously avoid this thread like the plague.

[Mister D]

I have to agree. It's trumpeted as a basic human right. What gives?

[Ethereal]

Their first response will be to cite "society", but our society hasn't recognized such a right, ergo it does not "exist" according to their own logic.

Then they will probably try to make appeals to "fairness" or "equality", but then they will have to explain why those things are good or desirable, which undermines their morally relativistic view of the world.

The fact is, liberals are standing atop moral and intellectual quicksand, flailing wildly about in an attempt to escape a nihilistic, relativistic vortex of their own making.

[Tahuyaman]

Ben Shapiro often puts things in terms anyone can understand.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2f7ZA0tkVsM

[Tahuyaman]

Clearly health care is not a right. One can't walk into any doctor's office and demand that the provider fulfill your need upon demand. You don't have any claim to dominate a doctor's time.

[The Xl]

There is no right to healthcare, but there is no right for government to collude with the insurance industry to make it unaffordable either.

[Trumpster]

In the not too distant past, people only went to doctors when they absolutely needed to and many of them, if not most, paid cash. Being overweight or obese was comparatively rare. Now, being overweight or obese is common; it describes the average person. So of course there are many more illnesses that need medical attention. And there are lots of people who can't afford the higher treatment costs. Hence a greater and greater demand for universal health care. I was explaining this on another website about 15 years ago and no one seemed to think much of it. But here we are today with a larger portion of the population clamoring for single payer healthcare that they think is a right.

So people have a right to eat whatever junk foods they want and not take care of themselves and many of them now think they also have a right to subsidized (or free) healthcare. In the mean time, those of us who are conscientious and take care of ourselves are in danger of eventually being forced to take care those who don't.

Too bad people don't have to show an insurance card (showing that they paid for insurance) in order to buy high calorie processed foods! :grin: Oh, NO! That would be unfair!

[texan]

It isn't a right.

But I think we can do way better. Some 10 year kid with no money needs access to quality of life if they have Crohns for example. There are treatments that change everything for them. We should do everything we can to not damage the quality but create access. We need to be thoughtful.

I know the conservatives here believe this so when you discuss it with a rabib nut make sure we are thoughtful.

[Bob the Slob]

I have been informed by several of our liberal members that rights aren't "real", that they don't "exist". Clearly, then, there is no right to healthcare. It's just something liberals have conjured up out of thin air based on nothing concrete. So why should our society recognize something which liberals claim doesn't exist? Perhaps we should give everyone a right to a unicorn as well?
Where has that been said? Let's see links to these comments.

[kilgram]

I have been informed by several of our liberal members that rights aren't "real", that they don't "exist". Clearly, then, there is no right to healthcare. It's just something liberals have conjured up out of thin air based on nothing concrete. So why should our society recognize something which liberals claim doesn't exist? Perhaps we should give everyone a right to a unicorn as well?
Which ones? Natural rights /= Rights

Troll

[kilgram]

Their first response will be to cite "society", but our society hasn't recognized such a right, ergo it does not "exist" according to their own logic.

Then they will probably try to make appeals to "fairness" or "equality", but then they will have to explain why those things are good or desirable, which undermines their morally relativistic view of the world.

The fact is, liberals are standing atop moral and intellectual quicksand, flailing wildly about in an attempt to escape a nihilistic, relativistic vortex of their own making.
You are not representative of the society. Neither the majority of fascists of these forums.

Yeah, is better a society with inequality where the powerful enslave the rest. Where people don't have nothing to eat, and other people live in abundance with their mansions. Yeah, that is fair.

Where, people cannot pay a basic treatment for a flu, or they go to bankrupcy because they have some chronic illness and the treatments are so expensive that they cannot afford it, and they have only the option to suffer, economically or phisically or psichologilly. Yeah, do you want arguments, without mentioning rights? Then here you have it.

[Ethereal]

Which ones? Natural rights /= Rights

So the "rights" you believe in are real, but the natural rights I believe in are not real? Why? Because you say so?


Troll

Reported.

[Ethereal]

You are not representative of the society. Neither the majority of fascists of these forums.

Healthcare is not a right in American society. That's a fact.


Yeah, is better a society with inequality where the powerful enslave the rest. Where people don't have nothing to eat, and other people live in abundance with their mansions. Yeah, that is fair.

Where, people cannot pay a basic treatment for a flu, or they go to bankrupcy because they have some chronic illness and the treatments are so expensive that they cannot afford it, and they have only the option to suffer, economically or phisically or psichologilly. Yeah, do you want arguments, without mentioning rights? Then here you have it.

Why is it good to have equality? Because you say so? Because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? That proves nothing.

[Ethereal]

Neither the majority of fascists of these forums.

Fascists are state socialists, just like you. The Nazis were big fans of their nationalized healthcare system.

[Tahuyaman]

Which ones? Natural rights /= Rights

Troll

Why did you do that?

[kilgram]

Healthcare is not a right in American society. That's a fact.



Why is it good to have equality? Because you say so? Because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? That proves nothing.Obviously is better the inequality and having people that needs to look for in the trash. Obviously that is a good society.

I am European and healthcare is a right. I don't care if in your shitty society you like to have people suffer and don't care a shit for what happen to your neighbours.

So, what people defend, is like in other countries healthcare is a right. That some of you don't and we should see how many are infected by the liberal mindset.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[kilgram]

Why did you do that?Because he is. He uses something that I have said, changes what I meant to his own purpose, and then he creates a thread based in a pure distortion of what have said to troll an opinion that even he did not understand. So yeah, troll.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[Tahuyaman]

Because he is. He uses something that I have said, changes what I meant to his own purpose, and then he creates a thread based in a pure distortion of what have said to troll an opinion that even he did not understand. So yeah, troll.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

you should be dismissed on this one.

[Captdon]

You are not representative of the society. Neither the majority of fascists of these forums.

Yeah, is better a society with inequality where the powerful enslave the rest. Where people don't have nothing to eat, and other people live in abundance with their mansions. Yeah, that is fair.

Where, people cannot pay a basic treatment for a flu, or they go to bankrupcy because they have some chronic illness and the treatments are so expensive that they cannot afford it, and they have only the option to suffer, economically or phisically or psichologilly. Yeah, do you want arguments, without mentioning rights? Then here you have it.

Where do you get the idea that life is fair. I didn't work so some freeloader could live off my taxes. There is the entire modern liberalism you represent.

[Captdon]

Obviously is better the inequality and having people that needs to look for in the trash. Obviously that is a good society.

I am European and healthcare is a right. I don't care if in your $#@!ty society you like to have people suffer and don't care a $#@! for what happen to your neighbours.

So, what people defend, is like in other countries healthcare is a right. That some of you don't and we should see how many are infected by the liberal mindset.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

You don't live here so don't talk about rights we have. in fact, F*** off.

[Peter1469]

You are not representative of the society. Neither the majority of fascists of these forums.

Yeah, is better a society with inequality where the powerful enslave the rest. Where people don't have nothing to eat, and other people live in abundance with their mansions. Yeah, that is fair.

Where, people cannot pay a basic treatment for a flu, or they go to bankrupcy because they have some chronic illness and the treatments are so expensive that they cannot afford it, and they have only the option to suffer, economically or phisically or psichologilly. Yeah, do you want arguments, without mentioning rights? Then here you have it.
There are fascists on this forum? :shocked:

[Tahuyaman]

If you think health care is a right, walk into a doctor’s office and demand your right to receive care be granted on demand.

[resister]

If you think health care is a right, walk into a doctor’s office and demand your right to receive care be granted on demand.
You can get some "care" in the county lockup!

[Tahuyaman]

You can get some "care" in the county lockup!That is true. There's an operation called Con-Med. High quality care. One can also walk into an emergency room, but you're not going to get the treatment you think it is your right to receive.

[kilgram]

You don't live here so don't talk about rights we have. in fact, F*** off.If you write fuck off, please fucking write it without censorship. There ss no more nonsense that the American stupidity to censor some words.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[Green Arrow]

You don't live here so don't talk about rights we have. in fact, F*** off.

Members of foreign countries have just as much right to post here as you do.

[Ravens Fan]

You don't live here so don't talk about rights we have. in fact, F*** off.
@Captdon This is an international forum and all nationalities are welcome to post here.
@Captdon TB'ed for insults and bad faith posting.

[Dr. Who]

I have been informed by several of our liberal members that rights aren't "real", that they don't "exist". Clearly, then, there is no right to healthcare. It's just something liberals have conjured up out of thin air based on nothing concrete. So why should our society recognize something which liberals claim doesn't exist? Perhaps we should give everyone a right to a unicorn as well?
I believe that the liberal point of view is that human rights are the product of logic and reason and are dependant on individual societies to recognize or ignore. Since by definition, healthcare is arguably a positive right, it derives from societal demand, although one could argue that the preservation of life is also a natural right.

[Chris]

I think health is a right, not sure if it's subsumed under the right to life or pursuit of happiness. Just as we have a right to life no one has a right to deprive us of it, and similarly with health. But just like I would want another to live my life or tell me how to live it, I wouldn't want another to dictate or even provide for my health--it's up to me to decide how much I value that and pursue it accordingly. I also don't mind helping people, but not through coercion and central planners deciding.

[Mister D]

I believe that the liberal point of view is that human rights are the product of logic and reason and are dependant on individual societies to recognize or ignore. Since by definition, healthcare is arguably a positive right, it derives from societal demand, although one could argue that the preservation of life is also a natural right.
If so, you're wrong. Human rights share exactly the same premise as natural rights: they are inherent to the human person. They are not the product of logic and reason. They are discovered by logic and reason. Secondly, you can't ignore that which doesn't exist

[Chris]

I believe that the liberal point of view is that human rights are the product of logic and reason and are dependant on individual societies to recognize or ignore. Since by definition, healthcare is arguably a positive right, it derives from societal demand, although one could argue that the preservation of life is also a natural right.

Positive there, you know, means by law. Positive law is usually counterposed with negative or natural law.

[Dr. Who]

Positive there, you know, means by law. Positive law is usually counterposed with negative or natural law.
I said positive right, not positive law. A positive right require others to provide you with either a good or service.

[Dr. Who]

If so, you're wrong. Human rights share exactly the same premise as natural rights: they are inherent to the human person. They are not the product of logic and reason. They are discovered by logic and reason. Secondly, you can't ignore that which doesn't exist
I have a problem with the idea that these are discovered epiphanies. I don't think that they were ever hiding or hard to find. They only require lack of total self-obsession to recognize.

[Tahuyaman]

It is an individual responsibility to secure your own health care.

[Mister D]

I have a problem with the idea that these are discovered epiphanies. I don't think that they were ever hiding or hard to find. They only require lack of total self-obsession to recognize.

No one said it's rocket science or that anything was hidden but if they are the product of human reason (mine? yours?) they are simply a fiction.

[gamewell45]

Clearly health care is not a right. One can't walk into any doctor's office and demand that the provider fulfill your need upon demand. You don't have any claim to dominate a doctor's time.

True, but you can walk into any emergency room and they have an obligation to see you and stabilize any life-threatening condition you may have.

[Tahuyaman]

True, but you can walk into any emergency room and they have an obligation to see you and stabilize any life-threatening condition you may have. If that’s your health care plan, good luck.

[gamewell45]

If that’s your health care plan, good luck.

For some people, it's all they have.

[Tahuyaman]

For some people, it's all they have. So what? Does that mean they are exempt from living responsibly?

[gamewell45]

So what? Does that mean they are exempt from living responsibly?

It means nothing other then they have a right to some semblance of healthcare.

[Green Arrow]

So what? Does that mean they are exempt from living responsibly?

Living responsibly has nothing to do with it.

[Tahuyaman]

Living responsibly has nothing to do with it. yes it does.

[Tahuyaman]

It means nothing other then they have a right to some semblance of healthcare. What to you cite to claim health care is a right? Your opinion ?

[Dr. Who]

No one said it's rocket science or that anything was hidden but if they are the product of human reason (mine? yours?) they are simply a fiction.
They are not a fiction, just an evolution in thinking. I don't think that it's just coincidental that our traditional philosophers and religious thinkers alike were people who were not working every waking hour to support themselves and their kin nor involved in warrior-like activities both of which don't leave much time for contemplating the condition of man or anything particularly academic, let alone philosophical.

Individual's like John Locke had an abundance of free time to think and write. Locke, a physician by education, only had two patients, both very wealthy whom he, in turn, tended exclusively, leaving him with a great deal of free time to write and publish. He became financially independent, thanks to an inheritance and never really held another job until 1689, where he served as served as secretary to the Board of Trade until 1700, when he retired, passing away in 1704.
-

[Green Arrow]

yes it does.

No, it doesn’t. No matter how responsibly you live, you will eventually get sick or injured.

[gamewell45]

What to you cite to claim health care is a right? Your opinion ?

While I'm not a jurist, State laws say you have a right depending on the circumstances; if it wasn't a right, then ER's would only open their doors to those with medical insurance.

My opinion? I believe that people who are unable to care for themselves for whatever the reason should have unlimited access to whatever medical care is necessary to keep them in good health. Most civilized countries understand this and offer at least some type of rudimentary health care.

Otherwise those who, for whatever the reason, do not have healthcare insurance, should be able to visit the ER if they are ill. There is public health issue that needs to be considered and for the good of the American people would need to be addressed.

[Tahuyaman]

No, it doesn’t. No matter how responsibly you live, you will eventually get sick or injured.. And it's your responsibility to make your own health care a high priority.

[Mister D]

They are not a fiction, just an evolution in thinking. I don't think that it's just coincidental that our traditional philosophers and religious thinkers alike were people who were not working every waking hour to support themselves and their kin nor involved in warrior-like activities both of which don't leave much time for contemplating the condition of man or anything particularly academic, let alone philosophical.

Individual's like John Locke had an abundance of free time to think and write. Locke, a physician by education, only had two patients, both very wealthy whom he, in turn, tended exclusively, leaving him with a great deal of free time to write and publish. He became financially independent, thanks to an inheritance and never really held another job until 1689, where he served as served as secretary to the Board of Trade until 1700, when he retired, passing away in 1704.
-

I don't understand what you're trying to say and the biographical tangent only confused me more. An evolution in thinking? What does that mean? They used to believe X and now we believe Y? But what places Y on more solid ontological ground than X?

One point I wanted to get across in these many exercises is that your own beliefs are susceptible to the same critiques you guys employ against the philosophy of natural rights. The only difference is that the philosophy of natural rights is more logical and coherent in so far as its proponents appeal to an order external to man whereas you try to will something into existence out of your own resources. Moreover, the proponent of natural rights argues that men are dignified and deserving of basic rights by virtue of their humanity but you argue....wait you say the same thing. That's the second point I wanted to get across. Your objections are all so muddled and inconsistent aren't they? Is anchoring human dignity and rights in something external to man really that threatening? If so, you have a very serious logical problem on your hands. The ideology of human rights has no firm grounding and, worse still, is little more than an ideological alibi for violence and domination.

[Mister D]

"Ontological ground" meaning basis in reality.

[Dr. Who]

I don't understand what you're trying to say and the biographical tangent only confused me more. An evolution in thinking? What does that mean? They used to believe X and now we believe Y? But what places Y on more solid ontological ground than X?

One point I wanted to get across in these many exercises is that your own beliefs are susceptible to the same critiques you guys employ against the philosophy of natural rights. The only difference is that the philosophy of natural rights is more logical and coherent in so far as its proponents appeal to an order external to man whereas you try to will something into existence out of your own resources. Moreover, the proponent of natural rights argues that men are dignified and deserving of basic rights by virtue of their humanity but you argue....wait you say the same thing. That's the second point I wanted to get across. Your objections are all so muddled and inconsistent aren't they? Is anchoring human dignity and rights in something external to man really that threatening? If so, you have a very serious logical problem on your hands. The ideology of human rights has no firm grounding and, worse still, is little more than an ideological alibi for violence and domination.
Many good and moral ideas and absolutely horrifically immoral ideas have been attributed to the influence of the divine and the history of mankind on this planet includes thousands of divinities. As a result, I tend to take such beliefs with a grain of salt. I think that it is analogous to the lonely child and his or her imaginary friend to whom the child's will is transferred. Suffice it to say that you could grow up in a communal camp on the moon with no knowledge of any God and still eventually come to most of the same conclusions if you were neither starving nor having to fight others to survive.

[Tahuyaman]

Why is your health care not a top priority in your life? Why should it be up to your neighbors to pay for your needs? Just because you would need to sacrifice some of your wants?

[Kalkin]

Yeah, is better a society with inequality where the powerful enslave the rest. Where people don't have nothing to eat,
Technically, you just said that the people have food to eat.

and other people live in abundance with their mansions. Yeah, that is fair.
That is fair. Glad we can agree.

Where, people cannot pay a basic treatment for a flu, or they go to bankrupcy because they have some chronic illness and the treatments are so expensive that they cannot afford it,
Whose fault is it if you can't afford things? Mine or yours?

economically or phisically or psichologilly. Sweet Jesus, get some education outside of the public trough.

[Kalkin]

Members of foreign countries have just as much right to post here as you do.

IOW, no right whatsoever.

[Dr. Who]

So what? Does that mean they are exempt from living responsibly?
The exigencies of life don't always leave one in the position to afford healthcare. One could be very young and unable to afford healthcare insurance and have no family to provide it or one could be faced with both job loss, loss of the healthcare plan that goes with it and faced with sudden medical needs. No matter how intelligent one is, one is not superhuman and prepared for every possible contingency. Consider all of those people being laid off at that Carrier plant. Their healthcare is terminated with the layoff. Then again so many people work for very small businesses that don't provide group health insurance. Individual health insurance is that much more expensive and many simply can't afford it and support themselves as well. Then you have those people who are just not very bright and cannot hope for better than minimum wage jobs who we should be happy if they can just support themselves. Are all of these people simply irresponsible?

[Kalkin]

People have the natural right to take care of their own health. They also have the right to pay others to provide the healthcare they desire, assuming the services are available and for sale. They have no right to force others to care for them.

[Kalkin]

While I'm not a jurist, State laws say you have a right depending on the circumstances; if it wasn't a right, then ER's would only open their doors to those with medical insurance.
So it wasn't a right until the EMTALA was passed as an unfunded mandate in 1986?

[Green Arrow]

IOW, no right whatsoever.

If you want to be pedantic.

[Kalkin]

If you want to be pedantic.
If the truth is pedantic, so be it. I've been banned from enough sites to know there is no right to post embedded in these things.

[Tahuyaman]

The exigencies of life don't always leave one in the position to afford healthcare. One could be very young and unable to afford healthcare insurance and have no family to provide it or one could be faced with both job loss, loss of the healthcare plan that goes with it and faced with sudden medical needs. No matter how intelligent one is, one is not superhuman and prepared for every possible contingency. Consider all of those people being laid off at that Carrier plant. Their healthcare is terminated with the layoff. Then again so many people work for very small businesses that don't provide group health insurance. Individual health insurance is that much more expensive and many simply can't afford it and support themselves as well. Then you have those people who are just not very bright and cannot hope for better than minimum wage jobs who we should be happy if they can just support themselves. Are all of these people simply irresponsible?Everyone is faced with developing priorities. There were luxuries I could not afford when I was younger. I sacrificed those luxuries for my needs and my family’s needs. That’s life.

[Tahuyaman]

Why is health care so sacred. There are other human needs just as important. Should government be responsible to provide all human needs to those who want it?

[Dr. Who]

People have the natural right to take care of their own health. They also have the right to pay others to provide the healthcare they desire, assuming the services are available and for sale. They have no right to force others to care for them.

Then again it is against good public policy to allow disease to go unchecked and to encourage an underclass of untreated sick and disabled people, since that has a domino effect on their children's ability to succeed. A nation is like any other endeavor - it's the small things that can eventually spiral out of control and destroy the foundation. America is an economic pyramid. If its foundation of poorer people collapses, for whatever reason, it all falls down and whatever you have becomes forfeit. This is no longer a small agrarian society where no matter what, you can simply live off the land.

[Kalkin]

Then again it is against good public policy to allow disease to go unchecked and to encourage an underclass of untreated sick and disabled people, since that has a domino effect on their children's ability to succeed.
I think it's against good public policy to forcefully redistribute wealth from those with means to those with needs. That type of injustice kills anyone's desire to succeed.

[Dr. Who]

A little bit from a lot of people is not going to kill the work ethic. As a universal healthcare advocate and an insurance professional, I have to say that healthcare is a bad fit with insurance, particularly today where people are convinced that there is a medical solution to every ubiquitous germ going around. As a result of healthcare insurance being primarily delivered through employers, people are not aware of the effect of their irresponsible use of healthcare because they don't individually bear the cost. People who scarcely use their healthcare insurance are in fact paying for those who overuse it for nonessential reasons, resulting in exorbitant premiums that are still being distributed, just not by the government.

Of course, that also applies to UHC but under UHC there is more likely to be PSAs informing people not to run to the hospital for every flu and cold and more of a likelihood that they would be redirected to far more economical public clinics and only more dire cases finding their way to the ERs. Furthermore, the insurance modality of healthcare delivery essentially doubles the cost of all healthcare services because of all of the profit taking along the way. It is why healthcare insurers are consolidating because they can only make a profit off of an enormous policyholder base. Eventually, they will abandon healthcare as unprofitable and the government will have to become involved.

[Tahuyaman]

I think it's against good public policy to forcefully redistribute wealth from those with means to those with needs. That type of injustice kills anyone's desire to succeed.

That's redistribution of wealth. That type of injustice kills anyone's desire to succeed. What's the point if the fruits of your labor are confiscated and given to those who didn't earn it?

[Tahuyaman]

A little bit from a lot of people is not going to kill the work ethic. As a universal healthcare advocate and an insurance professional, I have to say that healthcare is a bad fit with insurance, particularly today where people are convinced that there is a medical solution to every ubiquitous germ going around. As a result of healthcare insurance being primarily delivered through employers, people are not aware of the effect of their irresponsible use of healthcare because they don't individually bear the cost. People who scarcely use their healthcare insurance are in fact paying for those who overuse it for nonessential reasons, resulting in exorbitant premiums that are still being distributed, just not by the government.

Of course, that also applies to UHC but under UHC there is more likely to be PSAs informing people not to run to the hospital for every flu and cold and more of a likelihood that they would be redirected to far more economical public clinics and only more dire cases finding their way to the ERs. Furthermore, the insurance modality of healthcare delivery essentially doubles the cost of all healthcare services because of all of the profit taking along the way. It is why healthcare insurers are consolidating because they can only make a profit off of an enormous policyholder base. Eventually, they will abandon healthcare as unprofitable and the government will have to become involved.
The problem is that the left doesn't settle for a little bit. They always want more. They can't take enough. They'd take it all if we let them.


People in the dependent class aren't going to pay attention to a PSA telling them not to go to doctor or hospital for every ache and pain

[Chris]

If so, you're wrong. Human rights share exactly the same premise as natural rights: they are inherent to the human person. They are not the product of logic and reason. They are discovered by logic and reason. Secondly, you can't ignore that which doesn't exist

Right. And this distinction Who makes between negative and positive doesn't change that. The justification for positive law obligations on society to help and provide for the weak, sick, downtrodden, poor, etc are based on negative, natural rights.

[Chris]

I said positive right, not positive law. A positive right require others to provide you with either a good or service.

I know, but positive rights are established by positive law.


A positive right require others to provide you with either a good or service.

Right, and so-called positive "rights" are in fact obligations placed on society by positive law.

[Chris]

I have a problem with the idea that these are discovered epiphanies. I don't think that they were ever hiding or hard to find. They only require lack of total self-obsession to recognize.

They aren't. They are discovered by society not by design but by the actions of men that result in consequences, it is discovered if anything by trial and error, and become the tacit customs, traditions, and institutions of society. What D was referring to is we can take most of those discoveries by society and reason out retrospectively why they came about, how they make sense. One or a group of central planners do not sit down and think these natural laws and right up--that's positive law.

[Chris]

They are not a fiction, just an evolution in thinking. I don't think that it's just coincidental that our traditional philosophers and religious thinkers alike were people who were not working every waking hour to support themselves and their kin nor involved in warrior-like activities both of which don't leave much time for contemplating the condition of man or anything particularly academic, let alone philosophical.

Individual's like John Locke had an abundance of free time to think and write. Locke, a physician by education, only had two patients, both very wealthy whom he, in turn, tended exclusively, leaving him with a great deal of free time to write and publish. He became financially independent, thanks to an inheritance and never really held another job until 1689, where he served as served as secretary to the Board of Trade until 1700, when he retired, passing away in 1704.
-

Natural law and rights are discovered by everyman, so to speak, every ordinary common person, it doesn't require philosophers, it's, as D said, not rocket science.

Philosophers are just the ones with time on their hands to write it down after the fact. And they are usually wrong.

[Mister D]

Many good and moral ideas and absolutely horrifically immoral ideas have been attributed to the influence of the divine and the history of mankind on this planet includes thousands of divinities. As a result, I tend to take such beliefs with a grain of salt. I think that it is analogous to the lonely child and his or her imaginary friend to whom the child's will is transferred. Suffice it to say that you could grow up in a communal camp on the moon with no knowledge of any God and still eventually come to most of the same conclusions if you were neither starving nor having to fight others to survive.
Then take them with a grain of salt. I'm not sure how your hatred for religion is relevant. Anyway, it's not clear exactly what your claim is here. Are you saying men would have come to the same moral conclusions that they historically derived from a sense of the sacred? Can you demonstrate your claim? Historically, you can't so while you intend to have your talk of moon colonies interpreted as derision and ridicule it comes across more as frustration and desperation.

[Mister D]

Right. And this distinction Who makes between negative and positive doesn't change that. The justification for positive law obligations on society to help and provide for the weak, sick, downtrodden, poor, etc are based on negative, natural rights.
Right. Who's apparent intent is to disconnect morality, justice etc. from both a sense of the sacred and from any foundation external to Man. That's all well and good but what I won't accept is her inability (or refusal) to acknowledge what this logically entails. There is nothing left but momentary, ephemeral desires and...force.

[Chris]

Right. Who's apparent intent is to disconnect morality, justice etc. from both a sense of the sacred and from any foundation external to Man. That's all well and good but what I won't accept is her inability (or refusal) to acknowledge what this logically entails. There is nothing left but momentary, ephemeral desires and...force.

True, and we lose all sense of dignity under Who's worldview.

[Mister D]

True, and we lose all sense of dignity under Who's worldview.
Who seems to believe that we can will our own dignity and purpose. It's a Nietzschean project but my only objection is that she refuses to admit that. To her, these are all just common sense conclusions anyone would come to regardless of how they actually perceive the universe and our place in it.

[NapRover]

The most basic right is to live. If that right is denied, I sure as hell wouldn’t sign up to healthcare being a right.

[Chris]

Who seems to believe that we can will our own dignity and purpose. It's a Nietzschean project but my only objection is that she refuses to admit that. To her, these are all just common sense conclusions anyone would come to regardless of how they actually perceive the universe and our place in it.

She is, and other liberals as well, I think, playing on an ambiguity.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense:


Common sense is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people.[1] The first type of common sense, good sense, can be described as "the knack for seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done." The second type is sometimes described as folk wisdom, "signifying unreflective knowledge not reliant on specialized training or deliberative thought." The two types are intertwined, as the person who has common sense is in touch with common-sense ideas, which emerge from the lived experiences of those commonsensical enough to perceive them

Common sense has more to do with folk wisdom than deliberate design however reasonable.

[Mister D]

She is, and other liberals as well, I think, playing on an ambiguity.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense:



Common sense has more to do with folk wisdom than deliberate design however reasonable.
Thanks for pointing that out. I certainly meant the former. I'll be clearer next time.

[pjohns]

I believe that the liberal point of view is that human rights are the product of logic and reason and are dependant on individual societies to recognize or ignore. Since by definition, healthcare is arguably a positive right, it derives from societal demand, although one could argue that the preservation of life is also a natural right.

I would argue that American rights are exclusively what the US Constitution says that they are--nothing more, and nothing less--and without some expansive interpretation of the "general welfare" clause...

[Cletus]

There is no right that forces another to labor on your behalf.

[Ethereal]

A "right" to healthcare that lacks a basis in universal, transcendent, immutable truth is objectively no different than a "right" to go around raping and pillaging. I wonder, will the wishy-washy moral relativists grasp this?