< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

The Ted Interview

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
02 November 2018 16:42
 

That’s the question: is there? 

In our political discourse, we only want to acknowledge negative rights (yes, the Bill of Rights represents negative rights, in that they are naturally possessed by each citizen and therefore should not be infringed upon by the state).  What we de facto treat as “positive rights” we in actuality call “entitlements,” as though those are something that could be taken away without injustice; that they are something not innately deserved like those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Those latter rights, while innately possessed, are nevertheless left to the individual to develop, without the state providing the direct means of their enjoyment.  This distinction goes to the heart of our conception of government, especially as it plays out among conservatives: the government is an imposition—and usually an unnecessary and even counter-productive one—onto the natural harmonies of social ordering.  Those harmonies are fostered negatively, so to speak, by not interfering with or infringing on the enjoyment of rights like those enumerated in the Bill or Rights.

That’s the theory, but de facto, the government insures positive rights all the time.  In fact, it even indirectly provides for the enjoyment of the negative rights, meaning that without the government, that enjoyment wouldn’t even be possible.  For instance, the police protect social order, the schools educate, the military provides for the common defense, the courts provide the venue for those trials to which one has a right, and so forth.  All these obligations from the government are only obligations in terms of corresponding rights citizens should enjoy, just they are more difficult rights to articulate, and in any case, articulating them goes against the grain of peculiar intellectual bad-faith that pervades our politics.  For contrary to our popular belief, there is no such thing—and never has been such a thing in all of recorded history—as a “natural harmony” and “providence to society” without good governance.  That there even can be such a thing is a particular fantasy born of American politics, one based on ignoring the institutional conditions that made the American experiment possible, i.e. those pre-existing habits of governance that separated the American Revolution (a product of the Enlightenment) from the French Revolution (a product of the same Enlightenment, even the same theorists).  In other words, we don’t look at positive rights because we indulge ourselves that there is some kind of natural harmony possible among 320 million people just by preserving negative one, a harmony onto which government is some kind of counter-productive imposition.  In this we are, I think, alone in the civilized world, which makes our politics to them so mysterious, given our obvious economic, technological and cultural advancements.  The short of this: we only want negative rights, even as we want to insulate ourselves from the implications that those negative rights are only enjoyed circa the positive benefits governance. 

So to bring this detour back and answer your question: yes and no.  One can define an “entitlement” as a positive right, one that is no more capable of abridgment than a negative right, one for which the state has a direct obligation to fulfill.  Or one can define an entitlement like we do, as something that is offered on top of that to which one should enjoy by right. Pragmatically speaking if one calls health care an entitlement, or something to which one has an inviolable (for all intents and purposes) right, one the state should provide for, then there is no real difference.  But if one calls it something less than a right, as something violable (again, for all intents and purposes) unlike those rights in the Bill of Rights (as happens in American political discourse), then yes, there is a difference.  I guess it just depends on how one wants to acknowledge what government is and does, something we are quite behind the curve in doing, if you ask me.

[ Edited: 02 November 2018 16:45 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 November 2018 18:33
 

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 November 2018 18:45
 
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 November 2018 18:57
 
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 06:45 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

Government is also a man made invention and is men you granted the power to grant rights to other men. It doesn’t matter how complicate you make it or how you feel about it, the only rights you have are the ones other men have granted you i.e. let you have.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 November 2018 19:13
 
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 06:45 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

Government is also a man made invention and is men you granted the power to grant rights to other men. It doesn’t matter how complicate you make it or how you feel about it, the only rights you have are the ones other men have granted you i.e. let you have.

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 November 2018 19:19
 
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 07:13 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 06:45 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

Government is also a man made invention and is men you granted the power to grant rights to other men. It doesn’t matter how complicate you make it or how you feel about it, the only rights you have are the ones other men have granted you i.e. let you have.

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

Ah, but that is the issue, what is ‘rightfully’ yours. For instance living a crappy lifestyle and then demanding your right to $10 million of healthcare, is that right and a right?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 November 2018 20:42
 
GAD - 02 November 2018 07:19 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 07:13 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 06:45 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

Government is also a man made invention and is men you granted the power to grant rights to other men. It doesn’t matter how complicate you make it or how you feel about it, the only rights you have are the ones other men have granted you i.e. let you have.

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

Ah, but that is the issue, what is ‘rightfully’ yours. For instance living a crappy lifestyle and then demanding your right to $10 million of healthcare, is that right and a right?

For instance, what is rightfully mine and that of my fellow citizens:

—Taxation used as a means to provide the necessities of life and health, including preventative care such as prenatal care, vaccinations, etc.
—A system in which dollars spent on health care are used for health care, not to enrich insurance companies whose mandate is to ensure a profit margin.
—Decisions about necessary procedures to be made by one’s physician, not an insurance company.
—No necessity to discuss with physicians the cost of tests or treatments to determine if they can be afforded.
—Not going bankrupt or losing a lifetime of savings due to a debilitating illness.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 November 2018 20:48
 
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 08:42 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 07:19 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 07:13 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:57 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 06:45 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 06:33 PM

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say that there no natural/cosmic rights, they are a man made invention where one man grants what rights another man may have.

Except that it’s not what one man grants to another – it’s what everyone should expect from those who are supposed to be working for them, i.e. their government.

Government is also a man made invention and is men you granted the power to grant rights to other men. It doesn’t matter how complicate you make it or how you feel about it, the only rights you have are the ones other men have granted you i.e. let you have.

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

Ah, but that is the issue, what is ‘rightfully’ yours. For instance living a crappy lifestyle and then demanding your right to $10 million of healthcare, is that right and a right?

For instance, what is rightfully mine and that of my fellow citizens:

—Taxation used as a means to provide the necessities of life and health, including preventative care such as prenatal care, vaccinations, etc.
—A system in which dollars spent on health care are used for health care, not to enrich insurance companies whose mandate is to ensure a profit margin.
—Decisions about necessary procedures to be made by one’s physician, not an insurance company.
—No necessity to discuss with physicians the cost of tests or treatments to determine if they can be afforded.
—Not going bankrupt or losing a lifetime of savings due to a debilitating illness.

And who gave you those “rights”, god, the universe or men?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 November 2018 20:53
 
GAD - 02 November 2018 08:48 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 08:42 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 07:19 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 07:13 PM

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

Ah, but that is the issue, what is ‘rightfully’ yours. For instance living a crappy lifestyle and then demanding your right to $10 million of healthcare, is that right and a right?

For instance, what is rightfully mine and that of my fellow citizens:

—Taxation used as a means to provide the necessities of life and health, including preventative care such as prenatal care, vaccinations, etc.
—A system in which dollars spent on health care are used for health care, not to enrich insurance companies whose mandate is to ensure a profit margin.
—Decisions about necessary procedures to be made by one’s physician, not an insurance company.
—No necessity to discuss with physicians the cost of tests or treatments to determine if they can be afforded.
—Not going bankrupt or losing a lifetime of savings due to a debilitating illness.

And who gave you those “rights”, god, the universe or men?

Well, you could say god in the form of Tommy Douglas, or you could say we gave ourselves those rights by who we elected.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 November 2018 22:24
 
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 08:53 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 08:48 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 08:42 PM
GAD - 02 November 2018 07:19 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 November 2018 07:13 PM

Sometimes you must demand and take what is ‘rightfully’ yours.

Ah, but that is the issue, what is ‘rightfully’ yours. For instance living a crappy lifestyle and then demanding your right to $10 million of healthcare, is that right and a right?

For instance, what is rightfully mine and that of my fellow citizens:

—Taxation used as a means to provide the necessities of life and health, including preventative care such as prenatal care, vaccinations, etc.
—A system in which dollars spent on health care are used for health care, not to enrich insurance companies whose mandate is to ensure a profit margin.
—Decisions about necessary procedures to be made by one’s physician, not an insurance company.
—No necessity to discuss with physicians the cost of tests or treatments to determine if they can be afforded.
—Not going bankrupt or losing a lifetime of savings due to a debilitating illness.

And who gave you those “rights”, god, the universe or men?

Well, you could say god in the form of Tommy Douglas, or you could say we gave ourselves those rights by who we elected.

So you have rights because you gave someone the right to give you rights, how circular.

[ Edited: 03 November 2018 08:06 by GAD]
 
 
Russco79
 
Avatar
 
 
Russco79
Total Posts:  34
Joined  02-09-2018
 
 
 
03 November 2018 05:24
 

Ultimately positive rights are meaningless since you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘healthcare’.  Is it a 5 minute doctor appointment or a $10m treatment?  Say the the US made it a right, can you imagine the consequences?  Shameless politicians of Sanders ilk would be immediately agitating that the 1% enjoy a better right to life than the poor— ‘but it’s a right!”.  Healthcare is a right in South Africa, funnily enough they’re not that healthy.

Also anyone who lives under ‘universal healthcare’ knows it is not universal or healthcare.  It’s basically an emergency room or life threatening illness care.  I went to the GP about a back injury I’d suffered, they told me it was a 4 month wait to see a physio.  So naturally you go private.  The whole thing is a complete sham.  I don’t know a single person who uses the NHS for anything. 

Not only that it will soon bankrupt the country as how can it not?  The problem I outlined earlier is insurmountable— keeping people alive for longer exponentially increases the cost of care, the better you get at it the bigger the bill becomes!

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
03 November 2018 07:43
 

Strangely enough, we already have universal healthcare in place—or the bare-bones architecture for it—through much of the U.S. That is, we now have, in many states, what amounts to universal healthcare for the poorest and most disabled people. The level of care for those people, in California for example, is very high. We also have in the U.S. today many successfully employed as well as comfortably retired people whose healthcare needs are met at least to the levels of care provided to the poor and disabled. The rest of the U.S. population seem to get along, though underinsured. So who pays for the medical care of all of these Americans? The same exact people who would be paying for it if a single-payer system were in place, that’s who. That’s a fairly stable variable, it seems to me. Why not just operate honestly and justly?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
03 November 2018 08:34
 
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 05:24 AM

Ultimately positive rights are meaningless since you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘healthcare’.  Is it a 5 minute doctor appointment or a $10m treatment?  Say the the US made it a right, can you imagine the consequences?  Shameless politicians of Sanders ilk would be immediately agitating that the 1% enjoy a better right to life than the poor— ‘but it’s a right!”.  Healthcare is a right in South Africa, funnily enough they’re not that healthy.

Also anyone who lives under ‘universal healthcare’ knows it is not universal or healthcare.  It’s basically an emergency room or life threatening illness care.  I went to the GP about a back injury I’d suffered, they told me it was a 4 month wait to see a physio.  So naturally you go private.  The whole thing is a complete sham.  I don’t know a single person who uses the NHS for anything. 

Not only that it will soon bankrupt the country as how can it not?  The problem I outlined earlier is insurmountable— keeping people alive for longer exponentially increases the cost of care, the better you get at it the bigger the bill becomes!

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Good health is essential to human welfare and to sustained economic and social development”.  It seems peculiar that many in the U.S. do not consider health and even life itself to be a right, and do not recognize the injustice in denying available health care treatments based on income.

Universal health care does NOT provide only emergency care, but all aspects of health care including preventative medicine such as prenatal care which relates to a country’s infant mortality rate.  Infant mortality is higher in the U.S than in comparable countries and life expectancy in the U.S. is lower than in Canada, for example.

There is no such thing as a perfect health care system, but the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the civilized world, where many countries have successfully benefited from a universal health system for many decades.  For example, in its 2000 assessment, the WHO found that France provided the “close to best overall health care” in the world.  Japan, Sweden, and the Netherlands have health care systems with comparable performance to that of France’s, yet spend no more than 8% of their GDP (against France’s 10% of its GDP).  The U.S. spends 16% of its GDP on health care.

The U.S. could thoroughly research the various health care systems to assess which would work best, perhaps involving some kind of expansion of the current medicare system that provides for a portion of its citizens.

I suggest you better inform yourself about the benefits and costs, both financial and human, of universal health care systems.


Health systems financing: the path to universal coverage
http://www.who.int/whr/2010/en/

Universal health care
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Health care in France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 November 2018 09:07
 
Jan_CAN - 03 November 2018 08:34 AM
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 05:24 AM

Ultimately positive rights are meaningless since you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘healthcare’.  Is it a 5 minute doctor appointment or a $10m treatment?  Say the the US made it a right, can you imagine the consequences?  Shameless politicians of Sanders ilk would be immediately agitating that the 1% enjoy a better right to life than the poor— ‘but it’s a right!”.  Healthcare is a right in South Africa, funnily enough they’re not that healthy.

Also anyone who lives under ‘universal healthcare’ knows it is not universal or healthcare.  It’s basically an emergency room or life threatening illness care.  I went to the GP about a back injury I’d suffered, they told me it was a 4 month wait to see a physio.  So naturally you go private.  The whole thing is a complete sham.  I don’t know a single person who uses the NHS for anything. 

Not only that it will soon bankrupt the country as how can it not?  The problem I outlined earlier is insurmountable— keeping people alive for longer exponentially increases the cost of care, the better you get at it the bigger the bill becomes!

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Good health is essential to human welfare and to sustained economic and social development”.  It seems peculiar that many in the U.S. do not consider health and even life itself to be a right, and do not recognize the injustice in denying available health care treatments based on income.

Universal health care does NOT provide only emergency care, but all aspects of health care including preventative medicine such as prenatal care which relates to a country’s infant mortality rate.  Infant mortality is higher in the U.S than in comparable countries and life expectancy in the U.S. is lower than in Canada, for example.

There is no such thing as a perfect health care system, but the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the civilized world, where many countries have successfully benefited from a universal health system for many decades.  For example, in its 2000 assessment, the WHO found that France provided the “close to best overall health care” in the world.  Japan, Sweden, and the Netherlands have health care systems with comparable performance to that of France’s, yet spend no more than 8% of their GDP (against France’s 10% of its GDP).  The U.S. spends 16% of its GDP on health care.

The U.S. could thoroughly research the various health care systems to assess which would work best, perhaps involving some kind of expansion of the current medicare system that provides for a portion of its citizens.

I suggest you better inform yourself about the benefits and costs, both financial and human, of universal health care systems.


Health systems financing: the path to universal coverage
http://www.who.int/whr/2010/en/

Universal health care
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Health care in France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

 

In the US people consume 3000+ calories a day of french fries, caramel macchiatos etc while sitting on their IPhones 12+ hours a day keeping up with the Kardashians. Yet with our lifestyle we are only slightly behind other counties in life span, that is a testament to just how great our healthcare is! Yes, it costs a lot, but it is an industry here. That people think you we can double the amount of people getting care while cutting the costs in half without changing the way we live just shows the sheer stupidity of those people. 

 

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  767
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
03 November 2018 09:26
 
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 05:24 AM

Ultimately positive rights are meaningless since you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘healthcare’.  Is it a 5 minute doctor appointment or a $10m treatment?  Say the the US made it a right, can you imagine the consequences?  Shameless politicians of Sanders ilk would be immediately agitating that the 1% enjoy a better right to life than the poor— ‘but it’s a right!”.  Healthcare is a right in South Africa, funnily enough they’re not that healthy.

Also anyone who lives under ‘universal healthcare’ knows it is not universal or healthcare.  It’s basically an emergency room or life threatening illness care.  I went to the GP about a back injury I’d suffered, they told me it was a 4 month wait to see a physio.  So naturally you go private.  The whole thing is a complete sham.  I don’t know a single person who uses the NHS for anything. 

Not only that it will soon bankrupt the country as how can it not?  The problem I outlined earlier is insurmountable— keeping people alive for longer exponentially increases the cost of care, the better you get at it the bigger the bill becomes!

I see the problem of needing to define the bounds of how rights are manifest, respected or promoted in society applies to all rights.  Therefore I don’t find the argument in your fist paragraph compelling.

 
 < 1 2 3 >