XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po   
   itics.libertarian   
   XPost: talk.politics.libertarian   
   From: bongofury@hotrats.org   
      
   Fred wrote:   
   > On Monday 09 June 2008 13:04, JCrowe wrote:   
   >   
   >> Ron Peterson wrote:   
   >>> On Jun 9, 12:21 am, Aardvark  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>  health care is not a right because it violates the rights of those   
   >>>> who do not want to have money extorted from the to pay for say, an   
   >>>> emergency room visit for someone with medicaid and a headcold or   
   >>>> strep throat.   
   >>> So,  if someone finds you unconscious on the side of the road, you   
   >>> should be left to die?   
   >>     Do you know the meaning of non sequitur? Free individuals can   
   >> help people in distress and for the record, most do. It's a matter   
   >> of free choice...imagine that.   
   >>   
   >         Not very good.  Most "free individuals" haven't the foggiest clue   
   what   
   > to do in a medical emergency.  Everyday people can't take the time to   
   > get the medical training and stay current with their skills.  You just   
   > don't have the time and it's rare that we run into the problem.  It   
   > doesn't justify the effort.   
   >         So what do we do?  We train a few people and have them run medical   
   > services for everybody and we pay them, because sooner or later we'll   
   > all need them.  Since we'll all need them eventually, it only makes   
   > sense to share the cost and by spreading it around evenly and if we   
   > want to make sure that everybody gets included, we call it a right.   
      
       You got a mouse in your pocket?? You may call it a right, but you   
   can only speak for yourself, Fred. The people who set up the   
   U.S. constitution, generally, came from the background of English   
   common law and believed in natural rights. Among those was life,   
   liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's pretty hard to segue from   
   that approach to the approach which says "I have a right to the   
   fruits of my neighbor's labor at the point of a gun". And, make no   
   mistake about it, that's exactly what you are advocating. It is all   
   the more puzzling because you wish to turn the medical system over   
   to the government at some level, when government has proven itself   
   so ineffective at managing anything more than the efficient destruction   
   of property and individuals, while charitable institutions have proven   
   much more effective at this type of social services.   
      
   > Health care is a right, because it makes sense to caring people and the   
   > vast majority of us are caring people and in a democracy, the majority   
   > rules.   
      
       Interesting definition of rights. So in your definition of rights as   
   being whatever some majority of voters say it is, could you see the case   
   where this type of right would allow genocide because the majority   
   supported it? Your definition of caring apparently dismisses people who   
   would rather voluntarily give time and resources rather than to use   
   force to coerce the unwilling. If I'm incorrect in summing up your   
   position, please enlighten me. I don't know if you are a resident of   
   the U.S., but this republic was founded not as a democracy but as a   
   representative republic. (as an aside, even that was a bit presumptuous)   
      
   >   
      
      
   --   
       They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for   
   one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in   
   your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.   
   -- Ernest Hemingway   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)