I gots rights to good medical care & decent housing!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by JAGUARBONE, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right.

    The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

    Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them.

    You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings.

    In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

    If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

    **(gee I love this guy! also he's A real Unkie Tom Black - by the way)**

    Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

    I have found when it is good enough to "put this in your pipe and smoke it", a dry red whine (no cheese please) compliments the experience.

  2. "The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another."

    the Constitution says what the supreme court says it says. congress and the supreme court have imposed obligations on others many times. one example is the american with disabilities act. you as a businessman must provide access to disabled people. that is an obligation imposed on you by others. the same rule will apply if the courts rule that medical care is a right.
  3. Personally I disagree with the American's with disabilities act too. The cost to provide "Free Access" not only in dollars but in the allotment of valuable square footage in a building should be an owner's decision.

    People requiring such accommodations have the right to boycott such buildings / business owners whom choose not to accommodate. That would be freedom working both ways IMO.

    ( yeah easy for me to maintain this "position" as I have the convenience of full mobility)

    Now for the Gov-ment to impose a ramp access, turning radiuses, delayed action or automatic door closers and wheel chair height tables and all that like on their own structures is most fine by me. A "patron" ( citizen) if you will, has no option where to get a drivers license or pay the fine for example. If I want a praticular pizza tho, well that is a different issue.

  4. Ricter


    Yep. And people with dark skin have a right to boycott "Whites Only" businesses too.
  5. One of the many consequences of not providing medical treatment and housing to those that can not afford it include the rampant spread of disease. Since I have a "right" to be protected against such a threat, then the responsibility falls upon the government to provide such protection.

    I hear a lot of complaining about having to pay for someone else's healthcare and housing, but I haven't heard the same complainers offer any alternative suggestions that make any sense. Since the consequence I mentioned is a proven reality, then simply denying access to healthcare and housing to those that can not pay is not an intelligent alternative. With that in mind, do you actually have any good ideas or are you just complaining?
  6. According to this logic there is no constitutional right to be protected by the police either unless people can pay for it. Why don't you start a movement demanding that everyone calling 911 has his credit card ready.
  7. How about instead of giving away free healthcare and subsidized housing, provide job training so they could afford it themselves....

    I'd be good with that. It ends the cycle of dependence on the govt and makes people responsible for thir own lives. Those that are unable to work due to physical problems, etc, would be an acceptable 'out'.

    Of course the Dims wouldn't like it, because as soon as those folks start paying income tax......

    Oops, there goes their voters....
  8. Boy are you wrong....

    Providing police protection for all is good for everyone, and - this is key- imposes no restrictions on others. Reread the original post for the reasoning behind this.....
  9. We whom own property DO pay for it. Just not per diem! I'm sure the property taxes ( police protection costs) are built into your total monthly rent - all the same.

    Same as our FREE library system. Costs this property owner about $85.00 year of the $2600.00 local property taxes. Oh yeah, and bulk of that $26K cash goes to the public school system of which I have never enrolled a child into.

  10. and your point is???

    #10     Feb 12, 2006