|
bounty44 -> RE: Lies your president told you about Obamacare (3/30/2016 8:54:29 AM)
|
and more:
"Healthcare Is Not a Human Right"
quote:
When we claim to have a right to something we mean that we have dominion over that something and that others are obligated to respect this dominion. The various versions of the texts leading up to the final draft of the Declaration of Independence reflect this natural rights tradition in America: we are all created free and independent, we have certain inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State, among those rights we have life, liberty, and the means of possessing private property to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.
When person A claims that he owns this watch, person B’s obligation is to recognize this watch as A’s property. B is therefore precluded from taking it from A unless (1) A sell’s it to B, (2) A gifts it to B, (3) A lends it to B temporarily. If B steals it from A, B may enjoy it, but B does not have a right over it because in stealing B violated A’s dominion to the watch, therefore A has the right to demand its return, if necessary use violence against B to claim it back, and in addition, exact a punishment against B.
When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B’s obligation is to recognize A’s body and refrain from harming it. A’s right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A’s right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A’s right to life does force B to not drown A.
Strictly speaking, then, rights place an obligation on others to not act in a way that invades that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch places an obligation on B to not take away the watch unless conditions 1, 2 or 3 above are met. A’s right to life places an obligation on B to not take A’s life. Rights do not demand action from others to sustain that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch or to his life does not demand that B support A’s ability to enjoy the watch or his life, for example by requiring that B repair the watch if it were broken or requiring that B financially support A’s lifestyle. Rights demand recognition, respect and restraint on the part of others. Rights do not demand action…
Supporters of positive rights confuse justice with charity and in their confusion they improperly establish a system of “compulsory charity.” Saint Thomas Aquinas defines justice as “the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right” and states that “a man is said to be just because he respects the rights of others” (Summa Theologica, II-II q. 58 a.1). The claim that those in need of food, shelter and health place on others are not claims of justice for the object of justice is rights and rights are restraints on action rather than obligations to act; therefore, justice requires that people be left alone free to enjoy their rights…
“Compulsory charity,” that is, the threat or the use of violence to expropriate the wealth and income of some for the purposes of aiding those in need cannot be morally justified.1 First, expropriation, regardless of its beneficial end, violates the principle of negative human rights or side-constraints. Aquinas states (Summa Theologica II-II q.32 a.7) that when a thing is ill-gotten (for example, through theft), it may not be given away in alms because it must first be restored to the proper owner. Second, we cannot properly speak of charity in a compulsory arrangement of expropriation because coercion violates the voluntary characteristic of charity.
Healthcare services can only be provided and can only be properly justified under arrangements that are voluntary and that do not violate negative human rights. Only two types of arrangements fit this description. One, under a free market in which producers and consumers of health freely buy and sell services. Two, under a charitable arrangement in which organizations financed by voluntary contributions from donors or by their own profitable ventures provide health services to those in need free of charge or at a discount.
We conclude, therefore, that the apparatus of compulsion set up by the state to finance and provide healthcare to those in need cannot be morally justified.2 It may be the “law of the land” and the state’s subjects in all likelihood may have to submit to it under the threat or use of state sponsored violence, but let us be clear, this “law” cannot be derived from any reference to human rights. It is strictly based on violence and coercion and therefore cannot possibly be morally justified.
http://libertarianstandard.com/articles/gabriel-e-vidal/healthcare-is-not-a-human-right/
but hey vile critter parts, maybe you can make that all go away with some nutsuckering and asswiping? (and maybe try looking up what a "Bolshevik" is too? youre embarrassing yourself more than usual)
|
|
|
|
