• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?


  • Total voters
    38
Calling Out the Militia
None of this changes anything -- the Selective Service act has nothing to do with the militia. You argument still fails.

Now, tell me how you agree that you cannot force anyone to exercise thir rights, but support mandating that people exercise their right to health care.
 
Last edited:
Not every right is absolute; some rights may be constrained, some rights are both a right and a responsibility. Not every right is a responsibility.
Almost. Every right IS absolute, but with limits, if your rights harm innocents they are still rights, however, the actions have consequences, legal consequences for the aggressor, and practical for the victim, thus the protections of those rights dissappear because of those abuses of the rights, rights do carry responsibilities......however these responsibilities aren't mandates, they are simply consequences due to misuse.


There is a question about whether a mandate for health insurance is constitutional
It isn't.

For the record, I believe a mandate is probably constitutional.
No, first, healthcare is a service, as is healthcare coverage. There is no right to healthcare because of this fact, it would take a very large logical leap to suggest otherwise, however, even IF healthcare could be proven a right, the extension of said right ends at ability to provide on the individual, which is the responsibility of the individual. Finally, if one cannot be forced to assemble, own a gun, join a religion, own a house, etc., then they cannot be forced to participate in healthcare policy if it is a right, only if it is a government mandated(which would be unconstitutional on the federal level as it is beyond it's scope of power) program could the argument be made for a healthcare requirement.
 
Oh, I thought this was about mandatory health insurance.

I'm sure it was intended for that.

I took it to a more basic level.

After all, people choosing to not carry insurance are excercising a facet of their right to die.
 
In fact, the ER can't deny care at all. So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.

The cure for that problem is to chain the patient to the bed until the bill is paid.

Theft of services is a crime.
 
On the contrary - its perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights.

I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.

So you argue that you do not have a right to health care...?

No I'm arguing that individual mandates is not based upon a right to healthcare, but a responsibility to it.

Isn't Car Insurance required more to protect other people's property from you? (and yes I know it's for unlikely events happening solely to you, like a tree falling on your car)

Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.

How so? Rights are not dependent upon your ability to exercise them, nor can they be exercised at the expense of your neighbor. Rights are there, they are not to be infringed, yet you are responsible for them, thus, single payer is the opposite of a singular reasonable solution.

You probably only believe in negative rights. There is at least one positive right that society as a whole recognizes, i.e. the right to a basic education. This is a positive right because children cannot generally be expected to provide for their own education, and it is not their fault their parents are morons. Yet education is seen as a real need in our society, as it is hard to attain a living wage without one. Healthcare is analogous because patients really are like children when it comes to healthcare, particularly in medical emergencies or when the big insurance company rescinds their policy and fights in court until the patient dies.

Let's be honest, it's taxpayer subsidized, and government enforced, there is no "single payer" in this, only a single financing method In other words, everyone will have to live down and accept less, even though it is a right, someone would be able to deny it due to cost, but single payer "is the only reasonable solution" right?:roll:

No I said it would logically follow from seeing healthcare as a positive right, which you clearly do not believe. It is true that rationing occurs in single payer systems, though we simply have a different form of rationing here, based upon wealth. That is why I think it would be reasonable to expect the government to fund the basics, and then have a market for supplemental.

Non-sequitur.
Car insurance is a responsibilty you must accept in order to exercise a privilege granted to you by the state, to ensure that others are protected from your actions.

For liability to others, not to yourself. You don't have to insure your car (or yourself) at all unless you're required to by your loan agreement.

You're not even required to carry liability insurance if you can self-insure.

As created by law, but you don't HAVE, to own a car. As created by a Federal Government mandate, so the the federal government can "protect" people from their own bad decisions, like a good big brother. This is true, but you want the culprit to get the loot in this case.

Not sure I understand the last sentence, but before that is precisely why I oppose individual mandates. I don't think the comparison between car insurance and health insurance is valid, but I do know that is the reasoning behind individual mandates. But I do support a more France-like system.

Uncompensated care makes up a tiny fraction of health care spending, hardly a blip.

I didn't say there aren't more important reforms to pursue (e.g. malpractice), but I would be curious to see where you get that data.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.
Doiesn't matter -- it is -always- reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights; that some may not be able to do is a seperate issue that in no way nullifies said reasonable expectation.

Your position is that the ONLY reasonable solution is single payer.
This is demonstrably false.

No I'm arguing that individual mandates is not based upon a right to healthcare, but a responsibility to it.
That being the case, your input here isnt relevant to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Doiesn't matter -- it is -always- reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights; that some may not be able to do is a seperate issue that in no way nullifies said reasonable expectation.

Your position is that the ONLY reasonable solution is single payer.
This is demonstrably false.

No I said it would logically follow IF AND ONLY IF you believe all healthcare is a positive right. If you do not know what I mean by positive rights when I speak of the right to a basic education then I'm not sure how I can get it across. It's fine if you don't believe in positive rights, but if you recognized healthcare as a positive right it would follow that you believe in single payer. This is actually not quite my own position, as I believe only basic healthcare is a positive right and it is unrealistic to expect government to cover everything.

That being the case, your input here isnt relevant to the topic.

It was stated that the poll was inspired by the idea that requiring people to buy insurance is like forcing them to exercise a right. My point was that is false. Requiring people to buy insurance is not based upon healthcare being a right at all, but a responsibility:

It is.

If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.
 
Last edited:
No I said it would logically follow IF AND ONLY IF you believe all healthcare is a positive right.
And thus, my argument.
You have the same right to health care as you do to a gun, a car, a TV and a house.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it depends on if you're talking about it as a positive or a negative right. Seeing it as a negative right has little meaning for many though, as healthcare is different from other services being an absolute need that they cannot reliably fulfill.

Here's a hint for you:

Rights don't carry a price tag.

People have right to own guns. they gotta buy the weapons themselves.

People have a right to free speech. They gotta use their own money to buy the radio station.

If people have a "right" to health care (which is a service provided by others who have the right to be paid), they have to foot the bill themselves. Especially since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.


Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.

And it shouldn't be, since auto insurance exists to protect others, not the insured.

You probably only believe in negative rights. There is at least one positive right that society as a whole recognizes, i.e. the right to a basic education.

That's not a right, that's a parental obligation and not something the general public should finance.

This is a positive right because children cannot generally be expected to provide for their own education,

Exactly, its their parents' duty, a burden the parents accepted when they chose to do the nasty.

and it is not their fault their parents are morons.

It's not the fault of parents who are struggling to provide for their own kids, either.

Yet education is seen as a real need in our society, as it is hard to attain a living wage without one.

Only because the politicians are permitting the nation to be overrun by the Invading Horde that's sucked up all the jobs for unskilled illiterate labor. Otherwise there would be plenty of dishwashing and strawberry picking jobs for these people.

Healthcare is analogous because patients really are like children when it comes to healthcare, particularly in medical emergencies or when the big insurance company rescinds their policy and fights in court until the patient dies.

No, it's not similar. Citizens aren't children, and no sane person elects politicians to be their daddy. People that elect politicians to be their daddy, and I know liberals do this (reference Bush-Clinton Presidential debate 1992, the "Pony Tailed Guy".) Clearly liberals shouldn't be allowed to participate in elections until they grow up.

No I said it would logically follow from seeing healthcare as a positive right, which you clearly do not believe. It is true that rationing occurs in single payer systems, though we simply have a different form of rationing here, based upon wealth. That is why I think it would be reasonable to expect the government to fund the basics, and then have a market for supplemental.

I think it would be reasonable for the government to get the hell out of the way, since its the government that's preventing out-of-state insurers from competing locally, and the lack of competition is one of the biggest cost drivers in health care.

Not sure I understand the last sentence, but before that is precisely why I oppose individual mandates. I don't think the comparison between car insurance and health insurance is valid, but I do know that is the reasoning behind individual mandates. But I do support a more France-like system.

Then move to France.
 
Here's a hint for you:

Rights don't carry a price tag.

People have right to own guns. they gotta buy the weapons themselves.

People have a right to free speech. They gotta use their own money to buy the radio station.

If people have a "right" to health care (which is a service provided by others who have the right to be paid), they have to foot the bill themselves. Especially since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Oh snap! Logic'd
 
It was stated that the poll was inspired by the idea that requiring people to buy insurance is like forcing them to exercise a right. My point was that is false. Requiring people to buy insurance is not based upon healthcare being a right at all, but a responsibility:

But its up to the individual to decide not only what his responsiblities are, but how to address them. That's their right.
 
Yes exactly. That's why they see it as a responsibility. I'm saying individual mandates are an attempt to treat health insurance exactly as auto insurance.

So...you need Health Insurance to cover someone else that you get sick or injure?
 
Oh snap! Logic'd

Um no. Clearly he simply does not believe in positive rights. I already acknowledged that you do not believe in positive rights as you're libertarians. Here's a primer for you guys:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_right]Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But its up to the individual to decide not only what his responsiblities are, but how to address them. That's their right.

Well I wish this were so with car insurance. I would rather not buy liability insurance. :2razz:

So...you need Health Insurance to cover someone else that you get sick or injure?

This is not actually my position, I just wanted you to be aware of the reasoning behind individual mandates (not a rights-based argument): You need health insurance so you don't declare bankruptcy for unexpected/unmanageable health costs and cost the rest of us money. It's the leading contributer to personal bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:
He makes perfect sense. Just because you have the RIGHT to something doesn't mean it is OWED to you. Your rights and Freedoms, that you are GIVEN by those who fight for your freedom, and who have fought for it, is not even owed to you. You have the right to healthcare, and no one is turned down if they are sick. The country would be a lot better off if we were all a little more responsible AND we realized that "Life isn't Fair" and "**** happens" When you try to force equality or fairness, you run into far more problems than if you just try to give everyone a fair chance. That's why Modern Liberalism is a bunch of whiners. They can't quite move past that part in their life where Mommy and Daddy took care of everything for them and they think they are owed all kinds of crap simply for existing.
 
He makes perfect sense. Just because you have the RIGHT to something doesn't mean it is OWED to you. Your rights and Freedoms, that you are GIVEN by those who fight for your freedom, and who have fought for it, is not even owed to you. You have the right to healthcare, and no one is turned down if they are sick. The country would be a lot better off if we were all a little more responsible AND we realized that "Life isn't Fair" and "**** happens" When you try to force equality or fairness, you run into far more problems than if you just try to give everyone a fair chance. That's why Modern Liberalism is a bunch of whiners. They can't quite move past that part in their life where Mommy and Daddy took care of everything for them and they think they are owed all kinds of crap simply for existing.

Oh I didn't say he was not being consistent, but that's quite different from invalidating alternative philosophies. Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing? Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity? One place where libertarians seem a little naive is where they assume equality of opportunity is maximized in a laissez-faire context. It quite clearly isn't. And I think the two main moral problems with the philosophy of libertarianism is that, sure, the parents do have a responsibility to their children to provide for their education and healthcare, but the kid is the one who will have to deal with the consequences, and it is not the kid's fault. So by not ensuring a kid's schooling and healthcare, they are not being treated as justly as they could be. This leads directly into a utilitarian critique, in which case it is unpragmatic to allow a Darwinian economy to persist due to the connection between crime and poverty, and the lower amount of harm induced by progressive taxation. The existence of positive rights would not mean we could not align incentives to encourage more productive behavior - quite the contrary.
 
Oh I didn't say he was not being consistent, but that's quite different from invalidating alternative philosophies. Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing? Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity?
Non-sequitur.
Respect and opportunity are different than health care in that there is no real cost to provide them. Health care has a real cost, and must be paid for with the fruit of someone's labor.

Whatever 'need' you might have, there is no sound argument that you have a right to have that 'need' fulfulled by someone else -- you simply arent so important that your need for (x) takes precedence over someone else's right to property.

And, as for the "need" for health care:
Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing?

You're not serious are you?

Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity?

There's plenty of opportunity out there, and respect is a two way street, you have to give first to get it in return. but neither respect nor opportunity are 'rights' they are things you earn, work hard for, or are lucky enough to stumble upon.

One place where libertarians

My profile says libertarian because it's the closest thing on the list, just thought I'd clarify I'm not really a libertarian. I'd say I'm more of a Minarchist or something along those lines with lots of tangent philosphies thrown in. Ok, now where were we...

seem a little naive is where they assume equality of opportunity is maximized in a laissez-faire context. It quite clearly isn't.

true, but trying to force fairness doesn't do it either. And at the same time it puts a strain on the government, which by the way translates to the rest of us pay for it. We need a happy medium.

And I think the two main moral problems with the philosophy of libertarianism is that, sure, the parents do have a responsibility to their children to provide for their education and healthcare, but the kid is the one who will have to deal with the consequences, and it is not the kid's fault. So by not ensuring a kid's schooling and healthcare, they are not being treated as justly as they could be. This leads directly into a utilitarian critique, in which case it is unpragmatic to allow a Darwinian economy to persist due to the connection between crime and poverty, and the lower amount of harm induced by progressive taxation. The existence of positive rights would not mean we could not align incentives to encourage more productive behavior - quite the contrary.

wat?
 
true, but trying to force fairness doesn't do it either.
And this is the crux of the biscuit:
Its not the government's job to (try to) establish some degree of 'fairness' in economic stature.

You have the right to pursue happiness; you have no right to have others provide to you the means to catch it.
 
I agree with everything else, however, there are some very limited instances where I think that enforcing someone else's right is all of our business, to explain, if someone is being threatened by physical threats or intimidation in my presence, it is my business to enforce their right to life and liberty if I can reasonably stop the threat and it is imminent, as is all of our responsibility, however, this is such a limited scope that it rarely applies and many of us will hopefully never be in such a position. IOW, if someone is being denied an actual right, we protect not only them, but ourselves by backing those rights up.

Presumably, that's not a person rejecting their right. What you're talking about is someone who does not want to be intimidated, they just have no way to stop it. If someone wanted, for example, to be threated by physical threats or intimidation, they ought to be able to do so. You have no right to stop them from exercising their right or rejecting their right.
 
You can't remove rights.

Sure you can. Commit a crime, you lose your right to freedom. Commit a serious enough crime and you lose your right to vote and own firearms. Rights are revocable by the society which granted them in the first place.
 
And thus, my argument.
You have the same right to health care as you do to a gun, a car, a TV and a house.

ie. none whatsoever.
 
Non-sequitur.
Respect and opportunity are different than health care in that there is no real cost to provide them. Health care has a real cost, and must be paid for with the fruit of someone's labor.

Healthcare is meant to reduce morbidity/mortality, and some lack of morbidity is needed in order to enjoy any rights at all. So it falls under the equality of opportunity umbrella, and is not non sequitur at all. Education also costs something, but is required for equality of opportunity. Even right to counsel and police protection require the fruits of somebody's labor, but is required to protect rights.

Whatever 'need' you might have, there is no sound argument that you have a right to have that 'need' fulfulled by someone else -- you simply arent so important that your need for (x) takes precedence over someone else's right to property.

And in what way is that self-evident? One could just as easily say that needs always take precedence over property on utilitarian grounds. I guess you're stating a position moreso than an argument.

And, as for the "need" for health care:
Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.

lol, a luxury. If something needed to preserve life isn't a need, I'm not sure what isn't a luxury. Pretty much everything is a luxury by your standard.
 
Um no. Clearly he simply does not believe in positive rights. I already acknowledged that you do not believe in positive rights as you're libertarians. Here's a primer for you guys:

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't need it.

Rights that have to be paid for by someone else are not rights at all, but politically motivated entitlements, and as such should be opposed by all freedom loving people everywhere.

Calling it a "positive right" to hide it's true nature is merely deceitful and typical of the leftist mind.

Well I wish this were so with car insurance. I would rather not buy liability insurance. :2razz:

You're under no obligation to purchase car insurance.

You're required to purchase insurance only if you exercise your privelege of owning a car that you intend to drive upon the public roads.

That's the responsibility you choose to accept when you choose to buy the car.

If you do not wish to buy insurance, do not buy a car.

It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
And in what way is that self-evident?

Perfectly.

You didn't work for the property, you have no claim against it.

One could just as easily say that needs always take precedence over property on utilitarian grounds. I guess you're stating a position moreso than an argument.

One could say lots of things. Since the premise utilitarianism is that stealing is okay if you can concoct a really cool sounding argument for it using octo-syllabic words, then it's patently false, because stealing isn't acceptable.

lol, a luxury. If something needed to preserve life isn't a need, I'm not sure what isn't a luxury. Pretty much everything is a luxury by your standard.

You must be talking about something I need to preserve my life. Those aren't luxuries, and I provide them. If you're talking about something someone else needs to preserve their life, well, hell, I never signed up to be their father, so they can go begging elsewhere for their luxuries.
 
Back
Top Bottom