Note that the founders did not add a right to health care, or to food, or shelter, or even water in this bill. Why? Each of those items existed in those days, obviously, and were just as critical to life and happiness as they are today. However, to grant a right to food, as an example, would directly contradict the idea that the farmer who grows the food has a right to ownership of the fruits of his labors – literally speaking, in this instance. It sets in motion a confiscatory requirement to satisfy that right. Someone has to seize that food and distribute it to others in order to bring that “right” to fruition.

Rights cannot be confiscatory in a society that respects the individual right to property. That’s why none of the enumerated rights in the Constitution involve confiscation. Americans have the right to free speech, but they do not have the right to demand publication in a newspaper, nor do they have the right to demand that other people listen when they speak. The right to free expression of religion does not involve occupying someone else’s church and using it to your own ends. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you do not have the right to demand free or publicly financed weaponry. All of those examples involve confiscating someone else’s property or services, whether done through the government or by force individually.

That brings us to the notion of the “right” to health care. As human beings, we want to see people succeed to the point where they can feed, clothe, and care for themselves independently, as that establishes true personal freedom. However, none of us have the right to confiscate the services of a doctor or nurse without their consent, and without their ability to set a price for their time and expertise. We don’t have the right to walk into a grocery story to demand apples when we’re hungry, either, although we should have access to the market without bias when we can properly compensate its owner for the goods.

Since I don't believe in natural rights, you pretty much have a right to health care if 51% of the legislature says that you do.

No, healthcare is not a right. Yes, you can make it a "legal right" by voting it that way, but that doesn't make that position actually practical or tenable without causing some other serious problem down the road.

The only reason people have started thinking its a right is because they think "equal opportunity" starts after the playing field of life is somehow levelled, not equal opportunity to level it yourself which is what it really means, combined with the fact that healthcare has advanced to the point where it's effective enough to be worthwhile.

Back in the Revolutionary War era, healthcare was at best, hit-or-miss and having access to it didn't provide such a huge change in length and quality of life expectancy when you had a problem. Same thing with food; back then modern farming didn't exist and there simply was not the immense surplus of food to go around nor the transportation to rapidly move it. Making either one a right flew int he face of what was physically possible.

That's the basic problem: people think they're rights just because it's physically possible to simulate them being rights. If we had a nuclear war and the stuff suddenly became a rare commodity calling it a right wouldn't magically make it available. In order to make something a right, it has to be something that's availability isn't dictated by the economy in the first place.

You could reword it to say the legislature can give you the right to (1/population) of the health care produced by the country. That works regardless of what the economy looks like.

Since I don't believe in natural rights, you pretty much have a right to health care if 51% of the legislature says that you do.

Then 51% can take away your right to life or liberty Xeq? Your own ideal condemns your life to be dictated by others.

Man be not drones.

Of course they can. What's going to stop them? The whole concept of natural rights is ludicrous and meaningless, it's basically arguing about whether or not I can have "I Was Right" etched into my tombstone after I walk through a crosswalk without looking.

We as intelligent beings can determine right and wrong and can understand that we should do that which is right. In your world the whims of the majority dictate only what they wish regardless of morality. Should 51% decide to use force to get you to comply you would deal with this injustice by dictating it moral to go along? Be a slave, comply with those who wish to abuse you because - its easier?

No. Absolutely no sir. Not only does such compliance make their unjust actions easier but also more likely because of such ease. And to answer you about what will stop them - me and every other man and woman with a beating heart and a sense of right and wrong. You and your men who will do nothing can bow down and serve evil if you like - because it is easier. I and many others wont and shame on you for living on your knees.

...if you decide to resist them and you lose, that means they were right and you were wrong.

So morality equates with the use of the most force?

Thus the most moral course of action would be to settle all conflicts with the most force one has available as soon as a dispute arises. This is the logical conclusion of your premise. And you think I am odd for saying someone should be able to shoot another for trespassing? Well at least we know terrorists are very in tune with how to best take moral action.

Xeq's advice for conflict resolution - kill em all and let God sort them out.


I'll also point out that saying "we cannot know" is the easy way out because it demands inaction. Its the same as saying "its not black and white but everything is shades of gray". You weasel out of ever taking a stand.

So morality equates with the use of the most force?

I'll also point out that saying "we cannot know" is the easy way out because it demands inaction. Its the same as saying "its not black and white but everything is shades of gray". You weasel out of ever taking a stand.

Since I don't believe in natural rights, you pretty much have a right to health care if 51% of the legislature says that you do.

You could reword it to say the legislature can give you the right to (1/population) of the health care produced by the country. That works regardless of what the economy looks like.

Technically, yes, but remember, there is no real world value in being "right." Again, meaningless. You can ensure that you are "right" by killing everyone else, but that would be a waste. You've wasted tons of energy to gain something that is worth nothing. Save the force for things that actually have value, like land or resources, not "right" and "wrong."

I'll also point out that saying "we cannot know" is the easy way out because it demands inaction. Its the same as saying "its not black and white but everything is shades of gray". You weasel out of ever taking a stand.

We'd be a lot better off if everyone chose inaction when the only motivation for actually taking action is "right" and "wrong."

If I value being moral than killing all that disagree would not be a waste. In fact it would be the only way to ensure that what I did was moral. Its interesting that you construct a moral system in which the most moral thing to do is to destroy the entire species.

You are correct only in the moral framework that the highest level of moral certainty is to kill everyone else.

If I value being moral than killing all that disagree would not be a waste. In fact it would be the only way to ensure that what I did was moral. Its interesting that you construct a moral system in which the most moral thing to do is to destroy the entire species.

So you're okay with making people who are making a living in the health care system slaves of the society? That's what it comes down to to some of us. If you legislate it into a Right, you're shackling the skills of those individuals to The People.

you guys have too much entitlement because of a piece of paper.