Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425
Results 241 to 246 of 246

Thread: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

  1. #241
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:15 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,741

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by KLATTU View Post
    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?
    Here here. We had that once; then came Reagan.

  2. #242
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,101

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by KLATTU View Post
    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?
    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.
    "Oh no no no, you got me talkin' politics. I didn't wanna. Like I said y'all, I'm just happy to be alive. -- Sheriff Chris Mannix

  3. #243
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    07-16-19 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #244
    Educator Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5N, -149W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,072

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #245
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    24,916

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #246
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Seen
    07-16-19 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    I understand your distinction about negative and positive rights but am not convinced it is much more than semantics.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •