What is a Right?

[Rick]

I was responding to your comment about rationing. UHC advocates are arguing that private health care rations based on ones ability to pay.

That's nonsense. The word "rationing" means, in this context, the distribution of goods by someone who has assumed that responsibility for a given group. Health care companies never agreed to give it to someone who hasn't signed up and paid premiums. Leftwingers started this misuse of language so that they confuse people on the subject based on an obvious equivocation.

UHC advocates do not understand why you choose one system of rationing health care over another

.

Of course I reject the premise.

Then you missed my point. The word "beneficial" is entirely subjective and can only be determined by the individual. If someone other than the individual in question gets to decide what is "beneficial" for that individual, then his rights are probably being violated.

That technically you are correct doesn't mean there is wide open disagreement as to a core of what is "beneficial". Eg, 99.999% will agree that in general its not "beneficial" that people starve to death. Who CARES about the 0.001% who don't agree?

So now steve is a 60 year old with a heart condition?

Whaaaaaaaaaattttttttttt???

Once again I was using a specific example and you have wandered off on a tangential example.

No, once again you missed the point.

Steve believes it's beneficial for him to get "free" health care, UHC advocates agree that it's to his benefit, and the benefit of all society, that his health care not be contingent on his ability to pay.

That is all logically short-circuited by the fact that THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

But lets use your example, that 60 year old cannot afford heart surgery, therefore that individual is being denied because of an inability to pay rather than decree by the NHS. Either way, that 60 year old is not getting heart surgery despite "doctors ready, able, and willing to save" that persons life.

You are in a hopeless muddle. What started out as a discussion of rights has apparently devolved in a half-baked fake comparison of the two systems - a subject for another thread.

 

[GenSeneca]

You are in a hopeless muddle.

Your explanation of why Healthcare is not a Right is what I found to be muddled.

We agree about health care not being a Right. I played devils advocate to see how you would apply your formula for determining what is and is not a Right to show that health care is not a Right.

Your formula was complicated by subjective language and therefore open to interpretation as to what is considered "beneficial" to both the individual and society. If there is any room for interpretation, Progressives will twist the meaning and interpret the language as supporting their agenda, without regard for original intent - Just like they've done with our Constitution.

My formula is simple and straight forward; If you cannot exercise the proposed Right while alone on a deserted island, then it probably isn't a Right. If you cannot exercise the proposed Right without imposing an obligation on others, then it is definately not a Right. Therefore, the proposed "Right" to health care is not a Right: You have no Right to be provided with health care.

 

[GenSeneca]

UN declaration of human rights is commonly regarded as the benchmark

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Comrade Stalin

That is not an answer to the question I asked... From the OP,

So these are the questions I put before you, how do you determine what is, and what is not, a Right and how do you differentiate between a Right and a Privilege?

Can you answer those questions or not?

 

[GenSeneca]

So these are the questions I put before you, how do you determine what is, and what is not, a Right and how do you differentiate between a Right and a Privilege?

Is there anyone who would like to discuss the matter of Rights?

 

[steveox]

Oh yeah! I forgot about Obama's stash!

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing) ​

Actual audio transcript from an street interview in Detroit Oct, 2009.

I need Obama Money too

 

[steveox]

Oh yeah! I forgot about Obama's stash!

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing) ​

Actual audio transcript from an street interview in Detroit Oct, 2009.

Heres Glenn Beck from that take

 

[GenSeneca]

In another thread I've been asking some of our resident Leftists how they determine what is, and what is not, a right... So far they have been unable, or unwilling, to provide an answer. I'm hoping at least one of them is willing to discuss this topic in this thread.

 

[Little-Acorn]

UN declaration of human rights is commonly regarded as the benchmark

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Comrade Stalin

It starts off well, though it uses a number of terms it does not define, and so leaves many "holes".

But about 2/3 of the way through, it starts naming things that must be provided by others, as "rights". Does this mean that those others must be forced to give them to you? Isn't that a clear violation of THEIR rights?

BTW, it says that education must be "free". Does that mean I no longer have to pay the taxes that go for that education?

Back to drawing board, eh?

P.S. It is ironically fitting that the socialist paradise mandated by this "Declaration of Human (so-called) Rights" should be pushed by someone who calls himself Stalin.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Is there anyone who would like to discuss the matter of Rights?

I did. See Post #4.

 

[dogtowner]

UN huh ? Not sure a parasitic organization has any business telling anyone what to do but lets take a look

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

first sentence is OK second is false asa not all people are endowed with reason and conscience but it would be nice if everyone was nice.
^ Top
Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

says nothing not covered by #1
^ Top
Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

a right to be free of risk of crime ? good luck with that one, see #1 regarding reason and conscience.
^ Top
Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

no issues here
^ Top
Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

see issue in #1
^ Top
Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

hopelessly vague
^ Top
Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

well that lets out most of the world
^ Top
Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

see prev
^ Top
Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

uh oh, we just gave that one to BO
^ Top
Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

see #7
^ Top
Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

there goes hate crimes
^ Top
Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

I'm good with this but see #7
^ Top
Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

1 fine 2 no
^ Top
Article 14.

• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

1 ok 2 impossibly vague
^ Top
Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

no
^ Top

 

[dogtowner]

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

fair enough
^ Top
Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

okey doke but see #7
^ Top
Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

dawson isnt going to be OK with this
^ Top
Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

see #7
^ Top
Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

see #7
^ Top
Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

mish mash largely ok
^ Top
Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

n o
^ Top
Article 23.

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

nope in full ok in part
^ Top
Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

nope
^ Top
Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

last sentence is ok the rest, nope
^ Top
Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

mainly no
^ Top
Article 27.

• (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

1 silly 2 ok I think poorly worded
^ Top
Article 28.

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

nope
^ Top
Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

nope
^ Top
Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

see #7

 

[GenSeneca]

Dogtowner, I read through your posts and would like to point out something you may have missed... Supposedly, according to the "rights" enumerated, no one may be subjected to discrimination, or be forced into slavery, yet some of those "rights" would necessarily impose obligations on someone to cover the cost of fulfilling those "rights" for everyone else. Therefore, those with means are discriminated against, i.e. Progressive income taxes, they are forced to provide for the needs of others without being compensated for their labor, i.e., they are slaves. But that's not really what I wanted to discuss....

Dogtowner, how do you, as an individual, determine what is, and what is not, a "right"?

 

[dogtowner]

Dogtowner, I read through your posts and would like to point out something you may have missed... Supposedly, according to the "rights" enumerated, no one may be subjected to discrimination, or be forced into slavery, yet some of those "rights" would necessarily impose obligations on someone to cover the cost of fulfilling those "rights" for everyone else. Therefore, those with means are discriminated against, i.e. Progressive income taxes, they are forced to provide for the needs of others without being compensated for their labor, i.e., they are slaves. But that's not really what I wanted to discuss....

Dogtowner, how do you, as an individual, determine what is, and what is not, a "right"?

well we have criminal justice systems already in most countries, I don't see any need for more than whats normal here. the larger issue might be some overarching sense of compliance which would suggest a new tier but thats perhaps what you are getting at. it is kind of moot as there are far too many points that can not pass in a large number of countries.

I personally am good with the Bill of Rights. Seems to strike a nice balance of covering the bases concisely and sensibly.

 

[GenSeneca]

I personally am good with the Bill of Rights.

That statement represents your conclusion, it does not explain how you arrived at your conclusion. I explained in the OP how I arrive at my conclusions regarding the subject, LA offered his own as well, I welcome anyone else to do the same.

 

[dogtowner]

That statement represents your conclusion, it does not explain how you arrived at your conclusion. I explained in the OP how I arrive at my conclusions regarding the subject, LA offered his own as well, I welcome anyone else to do the same.

okey doke not entirely unlike your own,

your rights are life, liberty and property and are limited only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of the same three for anyone else.

I find that you can apply that rule rather effectively on any scenario.