Slogan/motto:
Try to be civil in the face of incivility. This is a test.
Reputation:
July 8th, 2012, 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal
No, healthcare is not a right, it is a purchasable commodity like food and shelter and cell phones.
If people want healthcare they need to purchase it.
If they want health insurance, they need to purchase it.
If they want a cell phone they need to purchase it.
Not steal it
Drawing a bigger circle, those without the means to purchase healthcare must of course do without. If and when they become ill, their untreated illnesses, due to malnutrition and poverty, may just be contagious. What then?
I believe there's right and there's privilege and right is inherent while privilege is conferred. Now the foundation of the inherent can be divine or purely natural, though I think the purely natural doesn't carry the same weight, since it requires our agreement to carry authority.
It's interesting the way the founders worded their thoughts on this. They wrote:
"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."
I find the phrase "endowed by their creator" interesting, as it is a fundamental distinction the founder's applied to their conception of human rights. They seem to be saying that human beings are created with some pre-existing "rights" that we must respect, and that among these are the right to live, the right to move about freely via self-determination, and the right to seek that which serves one's own well-being. And the founders considered these rights inherent to all human beings because they were not conferred by mankind, but were conferred to mankind by the act of their creation.
The founders also clearly understood that human beings and their various formed governments could choose to countermand these inherent human rights. That they have the capacity to deny people their inherent right to live, to deny the right to live freely, and to force human beings to live in mystery. And in fact they wrote their declaration of independence from the rule of England based on these exact transgressions of human rights, and further proclaimed to the world that they believed it to be the responsibility of all human beings to do the same. They began their declaration with this:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
And they were even more clear about this a little further on in their declaration:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It seems pretty clear to me from reading this declaration that the founders of this country believed that although human beings and governments have the capacity to deny each other these inherent human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of one's own well-being, that it's the obligation of the people to do whatever is necessary to reject their attempts to do so.
And it seems equally clear to me that that the founders believed that it's an obligation of government to establish, respect, and protect these inherent fundamental human rights. This is in fact the 'prime directive' of government, according to the founders.
It's interesting the way the founders worded their thoughts on this. They wrote: ...
A good bit of writing and a fine summary, to my mind. My only caveat would be to emphasize "among these" instead of the merely or singularly these that too often appears to be the mentality of many considering our obligations.
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
July 8th, 2012, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Yeah. I actually thought I was answering kmo a couple of times and now I can't say what I said to him and what to zip without going back. Darn kids.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
July 8th, 2012, 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
I don't think a right to food is even meaningful in that way. I set out the distinctions in my answer to zoo, as well as noting what seems to me an artificial distinction, but I understand it and can see how he approaches the subject.
Quote:
A right isn't always a guarantee, except as regards the opportunity.
I am more at home with the functional distinction as well. Healthcare/food doesn't fit that guarantee/opportunity distinction. That's what I personally find fundamentally flawed with trying to put them on the same level or claim that they are rights in the same sense.
Quote:
I actually, as noted prior, didn't call them rights.
Well you certainly have, as kmo pointed out with healthcare. Heck look at the thread title and the way you've disagreed with zoo on it. I'm not really following you here. What are you trying to say in this thread?
Quote:
Quote:
You could also say that "rights" to healthcare or food are provisional, liable to be changed or repealed in times of crisis or depression. You can't say someone has a right to be fed without providing a sure-fire way to feed them.
I haven't, but I don't think that's any more true than suggesting we can't have a right to life without a sure fire means to protect it, which we've yet to produce.
Not really the same. One is a positive obligation ("do feed") and one is a negative obligation ("don't kill"). In one case we are saying that each person has something which ought not be taken away from them, in another case we are saying they ought to have something which they don't necessarily have. So my statement stands in that light: feeding is something different from not murdering, and therefore becomes provisional at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Now the foundation of the inherent can be divine or purely natural, though I think the purely natural doesn't carry the same weight, since it requires our agreement to carry authority.
They both require agreement to carry authority. You and I often talk about that, though you are the one usually saying that, equality for example, is not grounded in God but in natural reason.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
Slogan/motto:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Reputation:
July 8th, 2012, 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmoney
Now we just need Leonardo and Donatello.
Had to be done.
"By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.”
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
July 8th, 2012, 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selaphiel
Had to be done.
But who will our leader be? TSF seems fairly happy with her current choice and no one else really fits the bill.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
Most of the points of contention I've answered prior, but a couple of points of interest:
Now the foundation of the inherent can be divine or purely natural, though I think the purely natural doesn't carry the same weight, since it requires our agreement to carry authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
...They both require agreement to carry authority.
I'd say they require agreement to enforce. We can deny the legitimacy of natural law or right, but the authority of divine right isn't negotiable, only deferable.
Quote:
You and I often talk about that, though you are the one usually saying that, equality for example, is not grounded in God but in natural reason.
No, I don't believe you'll ever quote my having said that. What I have noted is that as regards the law, equality before it isn't a religious expression. Our compact is secular. That's another discussion.
TH, it seems you are arguing that society is obligated, if able, to supply the funding required for someone in the society to have life, liberty, and property.
Would this be the case? Or would society only be able to vote it in as policy?
Good things come to those who shoot straight.
Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
July 8th, 2012, 08:22 AM
Darn kids.
Linear Mode
