moral obligation comes to mind but maybe I'm just being too good of a human being
[QUOTE=Pepin;29209735]I can see the logic there which is where my views get into a bit of conflict. I think it makes sense to tax the rich more, but I don't believe it makes sense to say that they deserve it. Ideally, I wouldn't want income taxed at all, but with the current system there aren't many alternatives.[/QUOTE]
it's not a question of do the rich deserve it or not, it's a question of the fact that we live in a societal sphere. rich people don't get rich by themselves. if the rich don't support a system then their conditions will also deteriorate. eventually the poor-rich divide will become so great that the system will be unmaintainable and then neither the rich nor the poor will be singing happily in the mourning.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29208116]I don't believe compromising can be considered an action taken by one group. I think it most instances, both parties take extreme views and expect to meet somewhere in the middle. They actually wouldn't support their recommendation, but they know that when a compromise is inevitable that you need to move the middle point. Then the group can say they try hard to support the party's values.[/QUOTE]
Except that the Democrats don't take extreme views.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;29204616]Just to be clear here, what exactly falls under 'entitlement programs'?[/QUOTE]
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, food stamps.
(Just incase this wasn't answered yet.)
Edit:
Double checked, It wasn't.
Edit2: Program added
[QUOTE=Glaber;29210855]Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment.
(Just incase this wasn't answered yet.)
Edit:
Double checked, It wasn't.[/QUOTE]
I know you're you, but really, healthcare is an entitlement?
How would you describe it?
[QUOTE=Glaber;29211770]How would you describe it?[/QUOTE]
A right?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29209274]People are far too worried about keeping their little green slips of green cotton based paper.[/QUOTE]
Bills are cotton-based?
Learn something new every day.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29211888]A right?[/QUOTE]
Healthcare isn't a right, it's a public service (it's really a service by the people) and you can argue the merits of it, pros and cons (I'm not debating that here, that's an entirely separate issue), it definitely isn't a natural right though.
Natural rights have nothing to do with the state or any other entity, they're inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State. Healthcare does not follow this standard.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29212600]Healthcare isn't a right, it's a public service (it's really a service by the people) and you can argue the merits of it, pros and cons (I'm not debating that here, that's an entirely separate issue), it definitely isn't a natural right though.
Natural rights have nothing to do with the state or any other entity, they're inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State. Healthcare does not follow this standard.[/QUOTE]
uhhh
the hell is a natural right
im pretty sure nature doesn't care about things like rights, that's sort of how natural selection works
[QUOTE=s0beit;29212600]Natural rights have nothing to do with the state or any other entity, they're inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State.[/QUOTE]
Brb ingesting something, certainly not a right that has been taken by the state.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29212600]Healthcare isn't a right, it's a public service (it's really a service by the people) and you can argue the merits of it, pros and cons (I'm not debating that here, that's an entirely separate issue), it definitely isn't a natural right though.
Natural rights have nothing to do with the state or any other entity, they're inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State. Healthcare does not follow this standard.[/QUOTE]
Wat. Wtf is a natural right if it's something that can't be taken away by the state? Most anything can be taken away by the state.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29209619]The only thing I've come up with is . "John has brittle bones disease so he does not deserve to be punched in the face. Jim does not have brittle bones disease so he does deserve to be punched in the face".[/QUOTE]
Poor John.
I was thinking more like this: "John moves heavy things around for Jim. John injured his back. Jim should help John." Of course, that leaves out salaries...hm...
[quote="s0beit"]
Natural rights, etc.
[/quote]
Shouldn't a government defend its citizens' rights? If its citizens are dying of disentery and the government does nothing, then they aren't protecting the people.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29212600]Healthcare isn't a right, it's a public service (it's really a service by the people) and you can argue the merits of it, pros and cons (I'm not debating that here, that's an entirely separate issue), it definitely isn't a natural right though.
Natural rights have nothing to do with the state or any other entity, they're inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State. Healthcare does not follow this standard.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a natural right buddy.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29212666]uhhh
the hell is a natural right
im pretty sure nature doesn't care about things like rights, that's sort of how natural selection works[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29212744]Wat. Wtf is a natural right if it's something that can't be taken away by the state? Most anything can be taken away by the state.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29212880]There is no such thing as a natural right buddy.[/QUOTE]
We'll have to disagree. If you think rights are granted by the government then your argument automatically falls apart, since healthcare is not granted by the government in the United States it can't be a right, by your own logic, because the government hasn't granted it.
Further, you'd have to assume you have the right to other people's property.
Like i said, the merits of the system aren't at question, but if you think rights are granted by the government you're automatically wrong and if you're arbitrarily labeling things rights then i don't know what the distinction between a social program and a right is from your perspective.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213023]We'll have to disagree. If you think rights are granted by the government then your argument automatically falls apart, since healthcare is not granted by the government in the United States it can't be a right, by your own logic, because the government hasn't granted it.
Further, you'd have to assume you have the right to other people's property.
Like i said, the merits of the system aren't at question, but if you think rights are granted by the government you're automatically wrong and if you're arbitrarily labeling things rights then i don't know what the distinction between a social program and a right is from your perspective.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid not buddy. What we have is a system of priveledges, what you're calling a right and what I'll refer to now as a right is in the more philisophical sense. Of course rights are granted by governments, these rights apply within their borders and not within any others. However, if you're referring to a deeper sense of right, then we have none at all, no ultimate power to guarantee them.
So we don't have rights if we take your perspective. If they're not guaranteed by the government, and they are not in nature, and they aren't inherent. Then where are they.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213023]We'll have to disagree. If you think rights are granted by the government then your argument automatically falls apart, since healthcare is not granted by the government in the United States it can't be a right, by your own logic, because the government hasn't granted it.
Further, you'd have to assume you have the right to other people's property.
Like i said, the merits of the system aren't at question, but if you think rights are granted by the government you're automatically wrong and if you're arbitrarily labeling things rights then i don't know what the distinction between a social program and a right is from your perspective.[/QUOTE]
What? The fuck are you talking about, what is a right if not something protected by the gov't/something. The definition you gave of natural right includes maybe the right to think what you want and not really anything else. By your definition life isn't a right.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29213158]What? The fuck are you talking about, what is a right if not something protected by the gov't/something. The definition you gave of natural right includes maybe the right to think what you want and not really anything else. By your definition life isn't a right.[/QUOTE]
Not even that, it contains nothing. Nature guarantees nothing, it grants no rights.
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;29209771]moral obligation comes to mind but maybe I'm just being too good of a human being[/QUOTE]
Or if we take the Nietzsche view, you're merely a weak individual who over time has banded together with other weak individuals to create a system or morality where the weak, meek, and compassionate are rewarded and heralded as righteous, and the strong and mighty are condemned as brutes and violant.
Is fair tax the one where every income bracket gets the same tax rate?
In Australia we do the opposite, and it works fine. We can even afford a so called "socialist" health system.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29213121]I'm afraid not buddy. What we have is a system of priveledges, what you're calling a right and what I'll refer to now as a right is in the more philisophical sense. Of course rights are granted by governments, these rights apply within their borders and not within any others. However, if you're referring to a deeper sense of right, then we have none at all, no ultimate power to guarantee them.
So we don't have rights if we take your perspective. If they're not guaranteed by the government, and they are not in nature, and they aren't inherent. Then where are they.[/QUOTE]
I think they do exist in nature, if somebody tries to kill you in nature you have the "right" to defend yourself and stop them through any means you can, the "right" to "life", likewise if a government tries to take that right away from you, the same rules apply.
I agree its philosophical in nature but what else is a right but a product of philosophy? If rights aren't inherent and they're based on the whims of any arbitrary person, they're not rights at all. If you don't believe in the concept of natural rights then you don't believe in rights. Period. You believe in edicts of government or social programs or what have you, but "rights" don't actually exist in your world.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213211]I think they do exist in nature, if somebody tries to kill you in nature you have the "right" to defend yourself and stop them through any means you can, the "right" to "life", likewise if a government tries to take that right away from you, the same rules apply.
I agree its philosophical in nature but what else is a right but a product of philosophy? If rights aren't inherent and they're based on the whims of any arbitrary person, they're not rights at all. If you don't believe in the concept of natural rights then you don't believe in rights. Period. You believe in edicts of government or social programs or what have you, but "rights" don't actually exist in your world.[/QUOTE]
No they do exist, it's just that my definition of rights may differ to yours. And thus rights do actually exist in my world.
But in nature if someone tries to kill you, you don't have the "right" to defend yourself. Who gave you that right? If you defend yourself, it's you defending yourself, not enacting some sort of God given right, or right granted by another entity.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213211]I think they do exist in nature, if somebody tries to kill you in nature you have the "right" to defend yourself and stop them through any means you can[/QUOTE]
haha just what the fuck.
rights are freedoms granted to you by someone with the authority to ensure you're allowed to exercise them
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;29213241]No they do exist, it's just that my definition of rights may differ to yours. And thus rights do actually exist in my world.
But in nature if someone tries to kill you, you don't have the "right" to defend yourself. Who gave you that right? If you defend yourself, it's you defending yourself, not enacting some sort of God given right, or right granted by another entity.[/QUOTE]
If rights are subjective then you're automatically wrong, it isn't a right. It's something you think people aught to have, but it isn't a right. The very reason the word exists is to imply some form of natural entitlement.
In your view the word shouldn't exist in the first place, and it certainly doesn't apply to medical care.
For the record, my view has nothing to do with any god.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213277]haha just what the fuck.
rights are freedoms granted to you by someone with the authority to ensure you're allowed to exercise them[/QUOTE]
I disagree, once again. The word "right" (as i stated above) implies some form of natural entitlement, if that's your view then rights don't exist.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213306]If rights are subjective then you're automatically wrong, it isn't a right. It's something you think people aught to have, but it isn't a right. The very reason the word exists is to imply some form of natural entitlement.
In your view the word shouldn't exist in the first place, and it certainly doesn't apply to medical care.
For the record, my view has nothing to do with any god.[/QUOTE]
If it has nothing to do with a god, where do you get the justification for your rights? The source? How do you know you even have them?
e: How can "nature" give you these rights? Nature isn't some solid thing, it's an amorphous concept and it's certainly not a human biased thing.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213306]If rights are subjective then you're automatically wrong, it isn't a right. It's something you think people aught to have, but it isn't a right. The very reason the word exists is to imply some form of natural entitlement.
In your view the word shouldn't exist in the first place, and it certainly doesn't apply to medical care.
For the record, my view has nothing to do with any god.[/QUOTE]
Says who? I'm not "automatically wrong" just because you use a definition of the term that can never be fulfilled. I guarantee you I can find someone who believes that rights are subjective, and a lot of people who believe this.
And once again, where does nature guarantee these rights?
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213306]I disagree, once again. The word "right" (as i stated above) implies some form of natural entitlement, if that's your view then rights don't exist.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any fucking sense at all. What the hell is a natural entitlement? Sounds like religion to me. Who but God could decide what a natural entitlement is?
The word "right" doesn't imply anything except its meaning, which are many and are available online for you to peruse at your leisure. The definition I gave for it is correct. A freedom becomes a right when there is someone to enforce it.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29213306]If rights are subjective then you're automatically wrong, it isn't a right. It's something you think people aught to have, but it isn't a right. The very reason the word exists is to imply some form of natural entitlement.
[/QUOTE]
The rights come with being in a civilized society. If you don't respect those rights, expect to be put away in prison, either to be rehabilitated or to stop you from infringing on other people's rights.
cba quoting everyone so I'll just roll with this guy
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213374]I'm sorry but that doesn't make any fucking sense at all. What the hell is a natural entitlement? Sounds like religion to me. Who but God could decide what a natural entitlement is?
The word "right" doesn't imply anything except its meaning, which are many and are available online for you to peruse at your leisure. The definition I gave for it is correct. A freedom becomes a right when there is someone to enforce it.[/QUOTE]
[b]You[/b] enforce it. They're your entitlements granted to you by it's owner (that's you). If there was no government to protect you, you certainly wouldn't give up and die knowing that your right to be alive only exists when there is someone (else, presumably) to enforce it.
It's a [b]philosophical[/b] position and fine, you all disagree, but then i wonder why you ever use the word "rights" at all, seriously. The usage of the word (from your perspective) implies that you should be granted these things on the arbitrary whims of government or it's citizens, no "rights" are absolute and nothing is sacred.
I just don't understand this definition at all. You might as well say "I want the government to give this to everyone" (in which case saying healthcare is a "right" is just empty handed) and ignore the word "rights" even exists in the first place.
In the beginning, man was free. We could go around, kill animals for food, fuck and generally do as we pleased. Then we developed government, and with government comes the erosion of certain freedoms for mutual benefit as we entrust the person(s) with our well being. When we establish government, there are certain things we decide the government shouldn't be allowed to take away from us because we know there are times this could go sour. We call these our rights.
Rights aren't just some intrinsic philosophical concept of power. When we talk about rights in politics, we're talking about the rights a government affords us or that we believe they should afford us. Or we talk about our Human Rights, a legal document. You're bringing some incredibly strange semantics into this discussion that isn't required.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213806]we decide the government shouldn't be allowed to take away from us because we know there are times this could go sour. We call these our rights.[/quote]
Who is "we", if those rights aren't absolute then rights are just what, a hope and a prayer? You yourself said that rights are afforded to you by the government, saying they "shouldn't be allowed to take away" those rights effectively means [b]nothing[/b]. They aren't absolute therefore you have no entitlement to them, the government grants them. If it decides to take them away well fuck you, you aren't entitled. This is where we disagree.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29213806]Rights aren't just some intrinsic philosophical concept of power. When we talk about rights in politics, we're talking about the rights a government affords us or that we believe they should afford us. Or we talk about our Human Rights, a legal document. You're bringing some incredibly strange semantics into this discussion that isn't required.[/QUOTE]
[del]It isn't semantics it's about the definition of this word[/del] It might be semantics but it's pivotal to this conversation. If rights are something that the government affords you or you [i]think[/i] the government should afford you, this is a subjective stance. Not everyone agrees with you.
Saying "healthcare is a right" is effectively meaningless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
