<Your right to healthcare entails a positive obligation on my behalf to provide you with healthcare. In other words, no longer is it sufficient to simply leave you alone to respect your rights. Rather, I have to actively labor to provide you with healthcare. If I do not, I am violating your rights. If I sleep all day, I am violating your rights because I am obligated to provide you with healthcare. If I spend money on a new computer, I am violating your rights because I am obligated to spend it instead of your healthcare.>
Wildstar, you are a major big time Libertarian Abstraction. Or, maybe you are just a typical lazy Libertarian thinker. Or, perhaps you are just a Misanthrope. Anyway, please accept my apologies for not responding to your post right away, but I do have duties that require attention other than sitting in front of a PC the majority of the day responding to abstract right wing posts on SI.
Firstly, I am well aware of your abstract inhumane Libertarian position: I know that at its core (from your putrid Libertarian point of view) a right is a claim of entitlement to something that others have an obligation to protect or provide. Invoking a right pressupposes from this Libertarian viewpoint that others have a duty to protect it. A right can only exist when an obligation is imposed to protect it. To have a right to something from this Libertarian plastic world, is to be the directly intended beneficiary of someone else's performance of a good providing duty.
You are no wildstar in reality, Wildstar. Stars shine and move unhindered, but you are dark and immovable. You are wrapped up in your very narrow closed dogmatic libertarian point of view. I advise you to go beyond your so-called Holy Libertarian Point of View into the Nothingness of the Night and Suspend your opinions and judge your views for a change. It is much easier to judge others than oneself.
Despite the radical liberal notion (which I wholeheartedly agree with) that humans are entitled to health care (as a fundamental human right)the question remains: What is the source of this right? There really are only 3 options: a moral source, a legal source or a political source. If a right to healthcare exists it must either be grounded in some objective moral standard universal to all human beings, or protected by some legal statute, or a benefit provided under some notion of social contract governance.
Generally, a moral right is one that is stated in or derived from some moral theory. Now I did try to ground this moral right in Kant's categorical imperative and give you a concrete example here:
Message 20391149
But you didn't understand the argument so you took refuge in that lazy right wing unfeeling libertarian theory of yours, which basically says that I don't give a hoot about what ails Humanity. I was hoping that you would use some logical reasoning instead and apply my reasoning as to why adultery is immoral to why a society without universal healthcare is immoral. Yes, wildstar, I know you cannot reason because you are locked up into your dogmatic libertarian point of view. And I will not think for you. You must think for yourself.
Yes, wildstar, I know that not everyone acknowledges the existence of universal moral laws, or even a common law. Thus, relationships between members of society are frequently strained when actions deemed immoral by one group of people remain legal. In a bizarre society such as the USA, it is complicated and contoversial to pass laws against actions one group regards as immoral while another does not. Issues, such as abortion, pornography and homosexuality remain controversial for this reason.
I know that as yet, there is no legal right to health care. No one, under current law, has the right to demand medical treatment. Medical resources are not unlike other tangible resources such as food, housing, etc. I cannot demand that a physician amputate a limb just because I want to and have the money to pay him. He is under no legal obligation to satisfy my demand. Likewise, he is under no legal obligation to provide medical treatment to me unless I have the ability to pay for his services.
What Libertarians like you don't realize, Wildstar, is that the basis for community is shared values and a society such as the USA may arrive at a consensus concerning certain basic values that might lead to the provision of medical care for all. Since everyone will experience sickness, disease, injury and death, a society like the USA could establish a legal requirement that everyone receive medical care regardless of ability to pay, social status, etc. So far this has not happened in the USA.
Try Wildstar not to be so insensitive to the health plight of many Americans. I know you are hopeless or long gone. You sold your soul to Libertarianism a long long time ago. But, in contrast to you and most right wing extremist sickos, the USA still operates on the basis of compassion and mercy, which provides access to health care, but has not resolved how to pay for it. Personally, I like the Kerry plan which forces those who earn over 200K a year to fund the expense. Whether it will pass or nor depends on how many free spirited liberals are elected come November.
And in case you are wondering Mr. Libertarian who hates Humanity, Hospitals do care for Bank Robbers, drug addicts, and murderers, as well as law abiding citizens, whether or not they can pay.
This is not because there is a legal or Constitutional right to health care, but because US society has determined it is compassionate and merciful to help people in times of need, even when the need results from its own illegal actions. This practice is grounded in the value of showing respect for humans (Bless Immanuel Kant!) some who may not even care for themselves, which is based on unconditional love for Humanity, a feeling I would not expect an Inhumane Libertarian like you to understand, feel or relate to! |
