• 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!

Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

ataraxia said:
So do you honestly think anyone who hits hard times just didn't plan ahead?

So in the last recession, when over the course of a few short months, tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, businesses, homes, etc.... the problem was just that they didn't plan ahead?

Come on, man. You sound like you have never lived in the real world. No one in any other country lives like this. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

He sounds like the typical Ayn Rand loving RW libertarian.
Everyone should have half a million saved up by the time they're eighteen, so that if anything happens to them, they won't cost "jonny5" a dime.

Of course, the jonny5's, 6's and 7's are also the ones who scream and shriek the loudest if and when they get dealt a rotten hand of cards. They're good upstanding people, you see. It's all the other 320 million Americans who "would be moochers if given half the chance."

It's like Bob the Angry Flower.

Atlas%20Shrugged%20Farce.jpg
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...

How about the right to manage your own life without the government forcing other people to give you handouts? STOP STEALING MY MONEY AND GIVING IT TO LOSERS GOVERNMENT!!!

I pay for my own healthcare (dental insurance too baby.
I paid for my own education (college loans paid off baby).
I earned my good job.
I paid for my home based on my income/budget.
I pay social security taxes and contribute to my retirement through work.
I dont personally pollute or litter or any of that so Im not contributing to the environment becoming unclean or whatever the **** hes trying to say.

What is stopping anyone else from doing the same? Im supposedly this "evil white right winger" yet I am taking care of myself. Wasnt that hard but it took some effort. What the **** is stopping you liberals from doing the same thing? Sounds like liberals are just lazy, hard work adverse, and looking for a handout.

Nothing is more pathetic, especially for a man, than asking the government entity (who then steals money from other people) for things you can easily get yourself.
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...

Everybody already has the right to have all those things.

Oh, I see. You mean we all have the right to have those things GIVEN to us for free/no effort.
 
Jesse Booth said:
It's not my fault you don't understand what basic political concepts are. Perhaps you need to read through both of our links a few times?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to read my link just once. Then reread my OP. Then **** off.
 
TheEconomist said:
Yes, but if you're going down that path, you will run into tough problems. It's hard to delineate what are rights once you include positive rights and it cast the problem into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing kind of language that doesn't do justice to the incremental nature of the problem and the reality imposed on us by limited resources.



You don't seem to realize this argument doesn't do what you think it does. It doesn't show why this one should be added, let alone why other views of rights should be superseded by a view which extends them to include such things as health care. At best, it is merely descriptive; at worst, it's moral relativism which excuses everything, including turning the US into the 4th Reich. A good argument would allow you to include single-payer and exclude the undesirable possibilities.
Click to expand...

Isn't this discussion you're having here pretty much what is covered by the Ninth Amendment as crafted by Madison? An exhaustive listing of the rights of man is impossible, in 1787 and today.

Griswold and other cases have shown that new rights of man are discovered as time goes on.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Isn't this discussion you're having here pretty much what is covered by the Ninth Amendment as crafted by Madison? An exhaustive listing of the rights of man is impossible, in 1787 and today. Griswold and other cases have shown that new rights of man are discovered as time goes on.
Click to expand...

It is related, but it is not my point. Let try to put it differently. Please excuse me in advance for the length of my response.

You can define a set extensively by listing all elements it contains or comprehensively by providing rules which can allow you to test if something belongs to it or not. For finite sets, you can always find a way to do both to define exactly the same set. However, one perspective is more important than the other when we have in mind justifying which rights need to be excluded. The justification in question naturally gives rise to a rule which will tell you precisely which things count as a right and which do not. A point related to this and your comment is that another reason for defining rights using principles or rules is that we don't need to be sure we didn't forget rights anywhere: if they fit the rule, they should be included. You might also take a stronger still position and say maybe even that is not enough and maybe we should allow the underlying principles themselves to be up for debate as the problems show up. Regardless, it wasn't the argument I was having.

My view is that it's easy to draw an unambiguous line using negative rights because the generating principle treats people symmetrically. A negative right to life means I agree not to attempt murdering you if you agree not to attempt murdering me. Property is also a negative right: it's also about what others cannot do to me and what I cannot do to them. In all such cases, we all give up the same sorts of actions or goals. In all cases, we provide the government with a monopolistic use of violence so that it has the capacity to make sure everyone plays by those rules. It also means that we won't make a compromise on these rights. We won't debate the value of life, for example, when someone is threatening the life of someone else.

Now, turn to positive rights and suppose we have in mind that health care should be considered a right. The first issue now is that all of the above was about removing a set of actions from our choices and everyone did it. For positive rights, a mandated set of actions has the force of law and the only context in which it even begins to make sense is if it provides a form of redistribution. Me paying for your insurance and you paying for mine is a complicated version of me paying for my insurance and you pay for your insurance, except when contributions and/or benefits aren't comparable. The core of so-called positive rights is that we're going to treat people differently based on some criterion. It institutes an asymmetric relationship, by definition. While there is a natural limit to how many things we can mutually agree not to do (negative rights), there is no shortage of things you might which others do without yourself doing the same. For the second issue, I mentioned that rights are very strong legal imperatives. It is black and white. If your health care is strongly enforced as would be private property, it means we have a moral obligation to go all the way into curing you. If we can extend your life by minutes at the cost of millions, we must do it. The concept of doing something, of trying to realize a goal, puts no natural (i.e., obvious) limit on what constitutes a reasonable compromise and it must be enforced for everyone, irrespective of their own preferences.
 
ataraxia said:
So do you honestly think anyone who hits hard times just didn't plan ahead? So in the last recession, when over the course of a few short months, tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, businesses, homes, etc.... the problem was just that they didn't plan ahead? Come on, man. You sound like you have never lived in the real world. No one in any other country lives like this. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It is almost certainly the case that many people planned poorly according to their own standard of what constitutes good planning. In economics, we call this dynamic inconsistency. If you pick a sequence of things to do (such as a rule for saving part of your income) at all later dates at a time 1, time consistency would imply that at time 2 you do not wish to change the rule. Likewise for all later dates, by the way. However, that is extremely atypical of real people. Most of the time, they change their minds. A simple example is procrastinating, something everyone does all the time. None of this is controversial. It was a critique Samuelson levied back in 1937 at his own theory and many experiments in psychology confirmed his intuition was right. It is a fact of life that it's hard to do what you want because you almost certainly won't listen to yourself. There is also evidence that people misjudge probabilities in systematic ways. It is peculiarly acute when we are talking about joint distributions, asymmetries in distributions and low probability events. We also have trouble handling nonlinear patterns and high dimensional problems. Again, we have ample experiments conducted in psychology and experimental economics regarding all of these things, all of which can be in principle reproduced anywhere, any time.

In my mind, there is no doubt that a high share of those people, per their own accord, could find ways in which modifying their behavior could have helped them fare better, even letting them define what better means. We are rather bad at dealing with the very kind of things that happened, why would you be shocked someone says "people planned poorly for a long recession"? It's almost certainly true for any kind of planning, for most people and most of the time.

A more sensible response is that the above is somewhat a problem whose solution is not so obvious. It is true that if I build a model following what is typical in economics, the core of the model will circle around some form of comparison: everyone in this theoretical environment will evaluate how much they need to save or do, given that they benefit from a program under certain conditions. In that environment, there is something to the idea of governmental dependence. In some conditions, it makes people pickier for jobs. It can also act as a form of insurance and make people take on riskier behavior. Though these theories are built on clear exaggerations of the capacity of people to plan, they do have other virtues and tend to have the pesky habit of fitting data surprisingly well. It at least shows it's not obvious what you will even get out of welfare programs because people cannot be assumed not to react to big changes in their environment like sizable swings in welfare benefits and you have reasons to suspect at least some of the time the programs will introduce pervert incentives that work in the opposite direction of what the program tries to do.

I, unfortunately, have not had enough time yet to read through other ways to theorize these issues, I cannot tell you about what usually happens when you use more realistic assumptions, in no small part because the resulting theory is even more complicated to handle. I only meant this to be suggestive that the objections raise by Johnny5 were not so obviously wrong. It's not something you can dismiss as stupid.
 
Last edited:
Yes Economist, somewhat verbose, but I guess I see your point.

I've read about the concept of negative rights, and found it somewhat specious then, and still do today. It reminds me of looking through an infrared scope, and selecting either "white hot" or "black hot" position. In either position heat is displayed, but in what it is white while in the other it is black.

It seems a verbose way to discuss the practical matter of the rights of man, as opposed to the limited powers of government, as defined in the founding document.

Healthcare is dispensed here in the US by way of 3rd party insurance companies, which is essentially wasteful and irrational. If healthcare might be represented as a relationship between patient and physician, why do we need the third party?

Your example of extending life by minutes at the cost of millions is a good point I guess, but I'm not sure of the natural limit you allude to.
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...

Here here. We had that once; then came Reagan.
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...

No, but it can be a privilege as a CITIZEN
No, but it can be a privilege as a CITIZEN
No, but you can go out and work your ass off, make yourself marketable to find one
No, the free market decides that
Yes, if you have one set up properly.
Yes, We all share this planet, no one has a right to abuse, destroy, alter, diminish resources that effect the lives of others.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've read about the concept of negative rights, and found it somewhat specious then, and still do today. It reminds me of looking through an infrared scope, and selecting either "white hot" or "black hot" position. In either position heat is displayed, but in what it is white while in the other it is black. It seems a verbose way to discuss the practical matter of the rights of man, as opposed to the limited powers of government, as defined in the founding document.
Click to expand...

It is somewhat arbitrary, but "negative" is meant to make you think about the absence of something. It's not uselessly verbose, though. If will always respect negative rights if I do nothing because they are about what I cannot do to others and what others cannot do to me. For positive rights, it is not the case. If you have a right to education, this means someone must give you education. To protect negative rights, force is used to prevent action; to protect positive rights, force is used to compel action. If you are still not convinced of the utility of that distinction, you can also think in terms of the nonaggression principle like Mills.

Thoreau72 said:
Healthcare is dispensed here in the US by way of 3rd party insurance companies, which is essentially wasteful and irrational. If healthcare might be represented as a relationship between patient and physician, why do we need the third party?
Click to expand...

People like to narrow the spread of possible things that happen to them. Insurance is our way of moving resources from better outcomes to worse outcomes. That's not irrational, though the specifics of how this is done matters for the quality of the outcome.

Thoreau72 said:
Your example of extending life by minutes at the cost of millions is a good point I guess, but I'm not sure of the natural limit you allude to.
Click to expand...

The problem with the idea of positive rights such as a right to health care is that it is tantamount to giving you a legitimate claim on the resources, labor, and efforts of other people which begs the question of where do you stop. Once you must do something since you cannot do everything, you have the damn trouble of tracing a line and saying it's legitimate up to that line and no further.

With negative rights, the line is traced at exactly nothing: I have no right to your resources, labor, and efforts. Now, if you think health care is a right, the line cannot be traced at 0 dollars, but it must be traced because we operate with limited resources. You can make the line as complicated as you want and include things like a maximal amount of operations and expenditures while also ruling out entire sets of operations and some types of pills from what is covered. However, you need to trace a line and I guarantee you will not find a simple way to reconcile an imperative to do something with a limit on how much needs to be done. It will always something very arbitrary with at best a tenuous link with the argument you will use to defend the rights in question.
 
TheEconomist said:
It is somewhat arbitrary, but "negative" is meant to make you think about the absence of something. It's not uselessly verbose, though. If will always respect negative rights if I do nothing because they are about what I cannot do to others and what others cannot do to me. For positive rights, it is not the case. If you have a right to education, this means someone must give you education. To protect negative rights, force is used to prevent action; to protect positive rights, force is used to compel action. If you are still not convinced of the utility of that distinction, you can also think in terms of the nonaggression principle like Mills.



People like to narrow the spread of possible things that happen to them. Insurance is our way of moving resources from better outcomes to worse outcomes. That's not irrational, though the specifics of how this is done matters for the quality of the outcome.



The problem with the idea of positive rights such as a right to health care is that it is tantamount to giving you a legitimate claim on the resources, labor, and efforts of other people which begs the question of where do you stop. Once you must do something since you cannot do everything, you have the damn trouble of tracing a line and saying it's legitimate up to that line and no further.

With negative rights, the line is traced at exactly nothing: I have no right to your resources, labor, and efforts. Now, if you think health care is a right, the line cannot be traced at 0 dollars, but it must be traced because we operate with limited resources. You can make the line as complicated as you want and include things like a maximal amount of operations and expenditures while also ruling out entire sets of operations and some types of pills from what is covered. However, you need to trace a line and I guarantee you will not find a simple way to reconcile an imperative to do something with a limit on how much needs to be done. It will always something very arbitrary with at best a tenuous link with the argument you will use to defend the rights in question.
Click to expand...

What you describe as "negative rights" I would describe as "inherent rights." These are rights everyone enjoys upon birth. They require no goods or services from others. They are inherent to each individual and, as you pointed out, can only be suppressed. I agreed with what you said, but I do not acknowledge any other form of right than inherent, or using your terminology - negative, rights. If it mandates the goods or services of another, then it cannot be a right. That would be slavery.
 
TheEconomist said:
It is somewhat arbitrary, but "negative" is meant to make you think about the absence of something. It's not uselessly verbose, though. If will always respect negative rights if I do nothing because they are about what I cannot do to others and what others cannot do to me. For positive rights, it is not the case. If you have a right to education, this means someone must give you education. To protect negative rights, force is used to prevent action; to protect positive rights, force is used to compel action. If you are still not convinced of the utility of that distinction, you can also think in terms of the nonaggression principle like Mills.



People like to narrow the spread of possible things that happen to them. Insurance is our way of moving resources from better outcomes to worse outcomes. That's not irrational, though the specifics of how this is done matters for the quality of the outcome.



The problem with the idea of positive rights such as a right to health care is that it is tantamount to giving you a legitimate claim on the resources, labor, and efforts of other people which begs the question of where do you stop. Once you must do something since you cannot do everything, you have the damn trouble of tracing a line and saying it's legitimate up to that line and no further.

With negative rights, the line is traced at exactly nothing: I have no right to your resources, labor, and efforts. Now, if you think health care is a right, the line cannot be traced at 0 dollars, but it must be traced because we operate with limited resources. You can make the line as complicated as you want and include things like a maximal amount of operations and expenditures while also ruling out entire sets of operations and some types of pills from what is covered. However, you need to trace a line and I guarantee you will not find a simple way to reconcile an imperative to do something with a limit on how much needs to be done. It will always something very arbitrary with at best a tenuous link with the argument you will use to defend the rights in question.
Click to expand...

I understand your distinction about negative and positive rights, but am not convinced it is much more than semantics.

As to insurance, I do not wish to destroy the industry, and I do think that if a person wishes to insure he has every right to do so, whether positive or negative. The point is that it is foolish and very expensive to have the insurance industry drive the relationship between physician and patient. Our present system is foolish and expensive a provides no gain at all except to the third party and any party who wishes to be insured under the terms of any given policy.

As to your last two paragraphs, I do understand your point. Utopia is not an option, and on its best day, politics is a dirty game. Any resolution will ultimately be a political resolution--imperfect.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I understand your distinction about negative and positive rights but am not convinced it is much more than semantics.
Click to expand...

When people talk about a dispute being a matter of semantics, they mean that very similar things are being called by many names and that the dispute essentially concerns how to call things, even if it is branded as a matter of principle. I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but my understanding of your comment is that the distinction I draw is rather pointless. As far as I can tell, if I say that I can legitimately tell you not to do certain things to me, it is an extremely different thing than to say I can legitimately tell you to do certain things for me. It's fundamentally different. In fact, my entire argument is about how the former should be called rights and the latter shouldn't.

Glitch said:
What you describe as "negative rights" I would describe as "inherent rights." These are rights everyone enjoys upon birth. They require no goods or services from others. They are inherent to each individual and, as you pointed out, can only be suppressed. I agreed with what you said, but I do not acknowledge any other form of right than inherent, or using your terminology - negative, rights. If it mandates the goods or services of another, then it cannot be a right. That would be slavery.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly my choice of word. It was introduced by a political philosopher in the 20th century and it is now in common use in academia. But I do share the gist of your sentiment, that it is a curious thing to grant people by birth the right to command services and goods from others without compensation. Even when I support some welfare programs, I never say that it is a right and that failing to, say, provide some support for public education is tantamount to theft or violence. It's not a right, it is a privilege, though I concur it is not impossible to defend the underlying principles.

Thoreau72 said:
The point is that it is foolish and very expensive to have the insurance industry drive the relationship between physician and patient. Our present system is foolish and expensive a provides no gain at all except to the third party and any party who wishes to be insured under the terms of any given policy.
Click to expand...

I do not have sufficient knowledge of the insurance industry in the US to talk about its qualities and problems, but I do see your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom