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...
Accepted. You are forgiven.
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.
Um, no. A positive right is one that requires the labor of someone else; a negative right does not. A negative right, such as the right to life, speech, religion, and property can be respected by simply leaving others alone.
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.
You are no rarebird in reality, Rarebird. Birds spread their wings and fly unhindered, but your wings have been clipped and you are grounded. You are wrapped in your very narrow worldview of darkness and fear in which your views are merely parroting someone else's party line. It is much easier to accept propaganda than to think critically.
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:
Your reasoning is wholly fallacious and contradictory. Just for your own education, Kant's categorical imperatives entails that one acts by the maxim that one can will into a general universal law. One would think that you would realize how the notion of a positive right to health care would be completely incompatible with the categorical imperative, but you have been so indoctrinated with propaganda that you cannot see the truth even when it is in front of your very eyes. If any positive right become a universal law, we could all stop doing what we're doing right now and point fingers at each other for violating each other's right. Just the very fact that you are sitting in front of your computer right now means that you are violating the right to health care of anyone who does not have it. Where is your morality? Where is your social obligation? Don't you feel any remorse for violating the rights of those less fortunate?
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 so shall you once again hurt the plight of the very people you believe you are helping. Health care is the most socialist industry in the US. Endless red tape, regulations, monopoly power, and privileged legal status has made health care unaffordable to many. Yet, you want to push the poor further into the dark abyss. Do you feel no shame? How many more lives need to be lost before you realize your part in this? How can you be so uncaring? |
