• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...

  • Total voters
    84
Ethereal

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of the following, which do you feel is a "right", i.e., a moral claim on something?

Health care.
Food.
Water.
Other people's wealth.
A job.
A minimum or "living" wage.
None of the above.
Other.
 
I say healthcare, food, water, and "other." As a society everyone has the right to healthcare, to food, to water, and to some other things (like freedoms and privacy). However, people don't have the right to a job (that is something earned), other people's wealth (this would be stealing), and a minimum wage (they have the right for fair treatment, but minimum wage isn't a right.)
 
digsbe said:
I say healthcare, food, water, and "other." As a society everyone has the right to healthcare, to food, to water, and to some other things (like freedoms and privacy). However, people don't have the right to a job (that is something earned), other people's wealth (this would be stealing), and a minimum wage (they have the right for fair treatment, but minimum wage isn't a right.)
Click to expand...

And, pray tell, who is going to pay for this health care, food, and water? Why do you have a "right" to something you cannot pay for?
 
Ethereal said:
And, pray tell, who is going to pay for this health care, food, and water? Why do you have a "right" to something you cannot pay for?
Click to expand...

I suppose the government will pay for it and some charities, and both are funded by taxes and donations. Do people not have rights because they are apart of society or because they are human? Should a sick child be denied healthcare because he can't pay for it? Or should starving people be denied food because they can't pay for it? As humans and as citizens of the US it is their right to receive necessities. It wouldn't be compassionate or civil to deny fellow Americans basic rights needed to live.
 
Absolutely none of the above. If you can afford those things, you can have them. If you can convince a private individual or charity to help you get those things, you can have them, but you have absolutely no right to any of them, just because you woke up in the morning.
 
digsbe said:
I suppose the government will pay for it and some charities, and both are funded by taxes and donations. Do people not have rights because they are apart of society or because they are human? Should a sick child be denied healthcare because he can't pay for it? Or should starving people be denied food because they can't pay for it? As humans and as citizens of the US it is their right to receive necessities. It wouldn't be compassionate or civil to deny fellow Americans basic rights needed to live.
Click to expand...

So, a person can force a doctor to care for them? A person can force another individual to give them food and water?

Why do they have a right to initiate coercion against other people?
 
Ethereal said:
So, a person can force a doctor to care for them? A person can force another individual to give them food and water?

Why do they have a right to initiate coercion against other people?
Click to expand...

Not on the individual level, but on the societal level yes. A doctor should care for someone regardless of their income and ability to pay, if the person can't pay, then the government should pay the doctor. If a person has no food, their food should be paid for by the government and charities. Should a doctor be allowed to deny care to someone in need based on income? Should a starving person be denied food because they are too poor to afford it? Isn't there sanctity to life? Is someone's right to life and necessities dependent on their income?
 
Define "right".
 
I voted other.

I have a right to try and obtain all of those things.
 
digsbe said:
Not on the individual level, but on the societal level yes.
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference. Ultimately, someone is being coerced into something; whether it's an individual or societal proxy doing the coercing is irrelevant.

Should a doctor be allowed to deny care to someone in need based on income?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The doctor is a free individual, which means said doctor has an actual right to discriminate in the dispensation of their goods and services.

Should a starving person be denied food because they are too poor to afford it?
Click to expand...

Refusing to give someone my food does not mean I'm denying them food. Denying would imply that I'm actively interfering with their ability to obtain nourishment. That is not the case. For instance, am I denying a bum access to money when I refuse to give him my pocket change? Absolutely not. Money is still available to him, he simply needs to find a mutually beneficial means of acquiring it.

Isn't there sanctity to life? Is someone's right to life and necessities dependent on their income?
Click to expand...

A person's right to life is not dependent upon anything; it is inalienable. That does not mean they have a right to nourishment or medical care, though. Those are totally different.
 
Ethereal said:
So, a person can force a doctor to care for them? A person can force another individual to give them food and water?

Why do they have a right to initiate coercion against other people?
Click to expand...

Can we force the military to protect us?

Can we coerce the police to fight crime?

the answer to three of four questions (mine and Ethereal's) is yes (question #2 is because its necessary for society to function in a basic level. If everything is voluntary, we become Somolia.)

This only applies if whatever person is employed by government and not by a private entity.

When it comes to the fundamentals of health, having food and getting at least basic care is as important as not being shot or mugged.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Define "right".
Click to expand...

A right is a moral or righteous claim on or to something.

For instance, your life is something you have a moral or righteous claim to.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Can we force the military to protect us?
Click to expand...

It's an all volunteer force.

Can we coerce the police to fight crime?
Click to expand...

Actually, we can't. The Supreme Court has said government agents do not have a positive obligation to "serve and protect".

the answer to three of four questions (mine and Ethereal's) is yes (question #2 is way too generalized to really answer effectively.)

This only applies if whatever person is employed by government and not by a private entity.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking if we can, I'm asking if we should. It's a question of morality.
 
Ethereal said:
It's an all volunteer force.
Click to expand...

And if we had socialized medicine, the VA, Medicaid, etc, those doctors are voluntarily employed.

Ethereal said:
Actually, we can't. The Supreme Court has said government agents do not have a positive obligation to "serve and protect".
Click to expand...

That is truely frightening.

Ethereal said:
I'm not asking if we can, I'm asking if we should. It's a question of morality.
Click to expand...

There are some moral absolutes that seem hard wired into our brain, but most of morality is in many ways an artificial construct, like society or money. It exists because we believe in it. So, if we generally agree that something is moral, than it is.

If we want to go hard core socialism, hard core capitalism, something in between, or something else, if the majority think its right, than its right, at least for that society.

Disclaimer: I am referring to economics systems here.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
A right is a moral or righteous claim on or to something.

For instance, your life is something you have a moral or righteous claim to.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. survival.

Can someone own all the water and then refuse to sell you any?
 
Ethereal said:
I suppose they could try. That's no guarantee that they'll be successful.
Click to expand...

What if they are and 90% of a population dies from thirst?

I wish I could find an article on it, but during the robber-baron days, the only rail line to some city, Manhattan, I think, was cut off because of a trade dispute and a lot of people ended up getting injured because enough food and other supplies could not be imported before the dispute was over.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I don't see the difference. Ultimately, someone is being coerced into something; whether it's an individual or societal proxy doing the coercing is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So should we not pay taxes? The government is coercing us to give up money. If the government and charities are paying for things then no one is being coerced. There is a difference between an individual taking food from another, and an individual receiving assistance from a group/government agency that exists to give that service to them.


Absolutely. The doctor is a free individual, which means said doctor has an actual right to discriminate in the dispensation of their goods and services.
Click to expand...

Doctors would be paid by the government. It wouldn't be right to force them to provide a service and not be compensated for it. However, a doctor doesn't have the right to discriminate against the poor. What if someone can't work because they have a medical condition? Should we just let them die because their condition prevents them from working and their lack of income denies them healthcare?

Refusing to give someone my food does not mean I'm denying them food. Denying would imply that I'm actively interfering with their ability to obtain nourishment. That is not the case. For instance, am I denying a bum access to money when I refuse to give him my pocket change? Absolutely not. Money is still available to him, he simply needs to find a mutually beneficial means of acquiring it.
Click to expand...

You would be denying them your food. That food belongs to you, not them. They don't have a right to your food, but they do have a right to food. They have a right to get food from a grocery store that should be paid for by the government or charities. Should we just let the poor starve?


A person's right to life is not dependent upon anything; it is inalienable. That does not mean they have a right to nourishment or medical care, though. Those are totally different.
Click to expand...

How are they different? They are essential to life. To deny someone food and medical care would be actively ensuring their deaths, thus making those denying them necessities murderers. I am not saying individuals should give up what they have, but what I am saying is that the poor and needy have a right as US citizens and people living in a civil society to necessities paid for by their government and charities.
 
Ethereal said:
And, pray tell, who is going to pay for this health care, food, and water? Why do you have a "right" to something you cannot pay for?
Click to expand...

Who says anyone will pay for it

If I need food and or water, I am going to take food and or water.

I wont particularly care either was given freely or taken by force, as long as I survive
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Who says anyone will pay for it

If I need food and or water, I am going to take food and or water.

I wont particularly care either was given freely or taken by force, as long as I survive
Click to expand...

Exactly! A person's life is more important than some obscure philosophy. Not that violence is good or anything, but in order of priorities, life is pretty much at the top.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
What if they are and 90% of a population dies from thirst?
Click to expand...

1. How could someone actually control the entire water supply? I don't think that's even possible, since rain falls out of the sky.

2. If 90% of the population was without water I'm sure they'd rectify the situation with violence.

I wish I could find an article on it, but during the robber-baron days, the only rail line to some city, Manhattan, I think, was cut off because of a trade dispute and a lot of people ended up getting injured because enough food and other supplies could not be imported before the dispute was over.
Click to expand...

The robber barons were the creation of government favoritism and corruption, and property thus acquired is not legitimate.
 
Ethereal said:
A right is a moral or righteous claim on or to something.

For instance, your life is something you have a moral or righteous claim to.
Click to expand...

That only works if it's accepted on a societal level. An individual can claim any "right" they want, whether or not they can achieve it often depends on whether or not those around him accept it as well.

If a "right" is nothing more than something you want, then the word really loses all meaning.
 
megaprogman said:
And if we had socialized medicine, the VA, Medicaid, etc, those doctors are voluntarily employed.
Click to expand...

The military is a Constitutionally permissible government agency. If you consent to be governed by the Constitution, you can hardly claim that paying taxes for the military is coercive or immoral.

That is truely frightening.
Click to expand...

Not really. Individuals should be responsible for their own well-being.

There are some moral absolutes that seem hard wired into our brain, but most of morality is in many ways an artificial construct, like society or money. It exists because we believe in it. So, if we generally agree that something is moral, than it is.

If we want to go hard core socialism, hard core capitalism, something in between, or something else, if the majority think its right, than its right, at least for that society.

Disclaimer: I am referring to economics systems here.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I'm not saying you have to agree with my moral sentiments. If you don't like individual liberty you're welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be...:2razz:
 
Ethereal said:
A right is a moral or righteous claim on or to something.

For instance, your life is something you have a moral or righteous claim to.
Click to expand...

Based on this definition, IMO, there is nothing that someone has a right to, though I agree with rivrrat. One has the right to try to obtain any of the things you mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom