What is a Right?

Your body is yours to do with as you please. The resources of nature that have not been claimed are free to take from to meet your needs provided that you do not take more than you can use without waste. What you make with those resources with your own body is yours. Others violate rights if they harm or take what is yours and you violate rights if you take or harm what is theirs.
Somewhat naive. Try to commit suicide in most jurisdictions and you are violating the law.
There are no resources that are not been claimed by the government. If you try to harvest fish or game without permission (a license), and take more than the meager bag limits (enough to survive the Winter), you will be prosecuted.
If you grow marijuana, and/or hemp(prohibited), or oriental poppies and process it ("...What you make with those resources with your own body is yours...), you will discover that you do not have that right. In short, more of a romantic notion than reality.
 
Werbung:
Somewhat naive. Try to commit suicide in most jurisdictions and you are violating the law.
There are no resources that are not been claimed by the government. If you try to harvest fish or game without permission (a license), and take more than the meager bag limits (enough to survive the Winter), you will be prosecuted.
If you grow marijuana, and/or hemp(prohibited), or oriental poppies and process it ("...What you make with those resources with your own body is yours...), you will discover that you do not have that right. In short, more of a romantic notion than reality.

Thanks for the opportunity to expand on that.

The fact that the gov will stop you from committing suicide does not mean that you do not have the right to control your own body it means that they are violating your right.

Yes, all the resources within the jurisdiction of a gov have been claimed by that gov. That is consistent with what I said: "The resources of nature that have not been claimed are free to take from to meet your needs provided that you do not take more than you can use without waste. " The reason it is important to know that unclaimed resources are yours once you claim them is that it establishes that it is the labor of your body that makes them yours. I cant explain that principle in one or two sentences but you are welcome to read John Locke. That principle still stands even now that many resources have been claimed. Your time is a resource that has not been claimed (and can never legitimately be), when you trade your time for gold (or rutabagas or whatever) the gold is your property.

If I were to grow poppies and process them with my own labor the product would indeed be mine. The fact that they will stop my from doing it does not mean that I do not have the right. It means that my right has been restricted.
 
on my way to my daughters kindergarten valentines party this morning I happened to turn on the radio and heard about 2 minutes of the Glen Beck show. It is not the first time I had heard it, probably won't be the last, and I don't hear much of it or hear it often. What I do know is that while I think he fails to draw solid conclusions from much of what he says, that he does offer some surprising details and facts to support what he says, and occasionally - like today - he says something that is really genius.

Today he was talking about freedom (which he does a lot) in England (which as far as I know he does not do a lot) and he made the case that the English people have never known freedom.

At first I instantly disagreed with him since to me England appears to be very free and has been for a long time. (I looked into it today and it appears that England does not have a single constitution but has a series of laws and precedents which establish rights. The greatest of these is the Magna Carta, most of which has been repealed and is a copy of an earlier document in which the King made promises to respect the people of his own accord. To what extent these rights are subject to change at the hands of politicians is up to debate but it did get me thinking)

But then listening more I had an epiphany (yes from Glen Beck). If a people has a freedom but it is only a freedom on the condition that the government is permitting you to have it as long as they decide then it is not really a freedom.

Any freedom that can be doled out on the whim of a government is not really a freedom it is just a privilege that can be taken away at whim. For something to be a freedom you must have an inalienable right to it.
 
Some of my fellow consevatives believe that it is our right to an open market..some even believe it's a God given right..

"Open market" is an abstraction that is ill-defined, ambiguous, and that creates considerable cognitive dissonance due to the fact that it means different things to different people.

In addition, it was not really a founding principle. The more noteworthy proponents of free-market capitalism came along after our country was founded.

The founding fathers believed in private ownership of property and in limited government, but I don't see where it was written that there can not be a public interest that is served by the government intervening in certain transactions. Granted, they would turn over in their graves to know what a fascist, totalitarian state we have become, but that doesn't mean they would have been opposed to any and all government regulation of certain markets.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to think in terms of "rights" to an "open market," the way some free-market capitalists do. Does anyone seriously think that God is a free-market capitalist? I sure don't. I think it's crazy even to think that God believes in private ownership of property. That kind of thinking is motivated by the most mindless and shallow of political thinking (which, I suppose, is redundant), and by the total confusion of the ontic with the ontological, for which all organized religions are notorious. Hey, I believe in God, and I believe in capitalism, but I don't believe that God believes in capitalism - that's just too silly for words. There is no spiritual path that is predicated on private ownership of property.

So, that being the case, there is no God-given "right" to a free market. That is just something that we (i.e. humankind) made up. It's all made up. So, there's no "morality" to it. There is nothing immoral about communism - in theory. In practice, communist governments have been brutal, oppressive and racist/prejudiced in one way or another, but that's not a result of the public ownership of property. The big problem with communism was not that it was immoral; the problem was that, on a large scale, it just didn't work, because it ran contrary to human behavior.

But, on a small scale, it can work. Isn't that essentially the kind of economy that the Amish in PA have? On a small scale, where there is a sense of community, it is possible for people to feel a sense of responsibility to one another, and to act in ways that further the common good, even at the price of foregone profits to the individual.

For the most part, I think that the kind of lust-driven hyper-capitalism that we have today is a by-product of the anonymity created by a very large economy. It's a lot harder to rape and plunder in your own community, because someone is liable to kill you. But, if you do it to people thousands of miles away, you can get away with it.

What I believe in is the right of people in local communities to organize their lives in ways that work for them. But, even that is not really a "god-given" right; that is also something that is "made up." But, I believe in it, because I believe that the local community is the most important economic and political unit in the human experience and in human history. I think it creates the most emotional and spiritual stability that the whole (i.e., society) can provide the one.

Doug
 
I am an agnostic as well as a conservative, and I don't appeal to any deity to convince people of the rationality of a free market.

Free markets are IMPLIED by the right to one's property.

Because free markets are hard to define, only someone ignorant of history would deny their utility, even relying on a marginally fuzzy definition. Any person who will but read up on the subject can find endless instances of the ill effects of regulation, ranging from the counter-productive to the truly catastrophic (eg the Great Depression.)
 
I agree that a free market is implied in property rights. Your stuff is yours keep, to sell or give to whomever you want at will. If you dont have those rights then it isn't really your property.

The principles of a "free market" were clearly discussed in our founding documents, the federalist papers, and prior to those in the works of John Locke and others from whom our founding fathers took much of their ideas verbatim.

The commerce clause as written in the constitution clearly only gives congress the right to regulate commerce between states and then the intent was to stop states from abusing one another. What is has become is a clear perversion of what it was intended to be.
 
You did not answer my question:

Who is obligated to provide me with those things?

Steveox, you are a member of our community here and your input is a part of who we are and makes us as great as we are.

If you do not answer the question you diminish the whole site. We can't make you answer it but if you do not we will have little choice but to assume that you are not answering it because you think your answer would undermine everything else you say here.

Please answer the question.
 
That companies don't cover people who can't pay has nothing to do with a discussion of rights.
I was responding to your comment about rationing. UHC advocates are arguing that private health care rations based on ones ability to pay.

There's no evidence of that at all, but you have to decide what you're talking about - "fairness", or rights? They are two separate topics.
UHC advocates do not understand why you choose one system of rationing health care over another.

You missed the point - that example had nothing to do with healthcare, but was a response to your question as to who decides what's "beneficial".
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.

My point was that 99% of people will agree to a value system which at least delineates a core set of conditions which are "beneficial".
And what of the other 1%? If 99% get to tell the 1% minority what is "beneficial", then the rights of the minority are not being protected but violated.

It's not even rational, in that it is based on a false claim. If 60 year olds are denied heart surgery by the NHS, with doctors ready, able, and willing to save their lives, than how can anyone claim that they are "getting health care?"
So now steve is a 60 year old with a heart condition? Once again I was using a specific example and you have wandered off on a tangential example. 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.

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.
 
Steveox, you are a member of our community here and your input is a part of who we are and makes us as great as we are.

If you do not answer the question you diminish the whole site. We can't make you answer it but if you do not we will have little choice but to assume that you are not answering it because you think your answer would undermine everything else you say here.

Please answer the question.

No Comment. Ill Take the 5th.
 
From Obama of course.

Any fool knows that.:D

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.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top