The NHS really is something to be proud of.

[sten_super]

Stat Jnr, is a little better today.

Excellent news

 

[DTES]

Society can uphold your rights, it can also deny your rights. Whether it does either of those, or neither of those, does not change whether or not you have that right.

I do not disagree with these sentences at all

You have that right as a product of your humanity, it is self evident.

This I do not agree with. You named, specifically, the "right to life". I just don't understand:

a) How you, from your viewpoint, can so categorically distinguish between "the right to life" and "the right to healthcare". Doesn't one imply the other?

b) What you mean by "self-evident" in terms of the rights to the fruits of your own labour. It might seem obvious you to, it might seem morally correct for someone to have this right - but that's exactly how others see the right to healthcare. If you disagree with the opinion, fine - but at least think about it and voice it as an opinion, not as a "self-evident" fact.

...this is all making me really sad so Im gonna call it a day in this thread. Thanks for the chat.

 

[dingodan]

Part of the 'fruits of our labour' we are happy to see go to the NHS in the form of Tax and N.I. payments. Ergo Health Care, free at the point of delivery, is something we see as our 'Right' in the UK. Other countries may not feel the same way. And all those points you make can be removed by legislation, which goes to show that 'Rights' are whatever a society deems them to be. A communist/communard or any other collective form society for example may say that the individual does NOT have the right to the fruits of their labour.

And he's not rude. You continually put your own views over as 'facts' and say that anybody who disagrees with you is 'wrong'. All we're asking is that you think through the issues.

As I said above:

Society can uphold your rights, it can also deny your rights. Whether it does either of those, or neither of those, does not change whether or not you have that right.

Just because someone upholds your right to speak does not mean they gave that right to you. [& If someone denied you your right to speak, it would not mean you dont have a right to speak]

 

[dingodan]

I do not disagree with these sentences at all



This I do not agree with. You named, specifically, the "right to life". I just don't understand:

a) How you, from your viewpoint, can so categorically distinguish between "the right to life" and "the right to healthcare". Doesn't one imply the other?

b) What you mean by "self-evident" in terms of the rights to the fruits of your own labour. It might seem obvious you to, it might seem morally correct for someone to have this right - but that's exactly how others see the right to healthcare. If you disagree with the opinion, fine - but at least think about it and voice it as an opinion, not as a "self-evident" fact.

Ok. You have a right to life. Nobody can come along and take your life. You own your life. If you need healthcare, you dont own healthcare. You dont have healthcare as a part of your humanity, as a product of being human. Healthcare is going to be provided to you by someone else. A doctor for example. You do not have a right to his or her [the doctors] life. You do not have the right to force someone else to do anything.

When I say it is self evident that you have a right to the fruits of your labour I mean exactly that. If you did not have a right to the fruits of your labour, if you worked and somebody came along every now and again to take what you had earned, that is what it is to be a slave. Nobody owns you, so nobody owns the things you create or earn etc. That is what it is to be free.

 

[DTES]

Ok. You have a right to life. Nobody can come along and take your life. You own your life. If you need healthcare, you dont own healthcare. You dont have healthcare as a part of your humanity, as a product of being human. Healthcare is going to be provided to you by someone else. A doctor for example. You do not have a right to his or her [the doctors] life. You do not have the right to force someone else to do anything.

Do you not see that there is a contradiction there? If you have a life-threatening disease/injury that another human being has the ability to cure/heal, and you do not have the right to that treatment, then your right to life is suddenly not there. Either you do, or you do not, have the right to continue your life.

When I say it is self evident that you have a right to the fruits of your labour I mean exactly that. If you did not have a right to the fruits of your labour, if you worked and somebody came along every now and again to take what you had earned, that is what it is to be a slave. Nobody owns you, so nobody owns the things you create or earn etc. That is what it is to be free.

I'm not going to argue with that being what it is to be free. The point I'm making is: this (the rights to the fruits of your labour, or the right to be free) are self-evident to you, or in your opinion. The right to healthcare (or, in other words as above, the right to prolong your life) is self-evident to others, in their opinion. Can you really not see that what you are saying is opinion and not fact?

Even if it was fact, can you not see that TLO would have a point - in that you haven't thought and voiced your own opinion on anything - just regurgitated received information?

 

[Brovion]

As I said above:

Society can uphold your rights, it can also deny your rights. Whether it does either of those, or neither of those, does not change whether or not you have that right.

Just because someone upholds your right to speak does not mean they gave that right to you. [& If someone denied you your right to speak, it would not mean you dont have a right to speak]

Once again that is simply your opinion and you're presenting it as Holy Writ. None of those 'rights' existed when homo sapiens first evolved, there were no original rules set in tablets of stone to lay out the way humans should interact with each other.

 

[dingodan]

Do you not see that there is a contradiction there? If you have a life-threatening disease/injury that another human being has the ability to cure/heal, and you do not have the right to that treatment, then your right to life is suddenly not there. Either you do, or you do not, have the right to continue your life.



I'm not going to argue with that being what it is to be free. The point I'm making is: this (the rights to the fruits of your labour, or the right to be free) are self-evident to you, or in your opinion. The right to healthcare (or, in other words as above, the right to prolong your life) is self-evident to others, in their opinion. Can you really not see that what you are saying is opinion and not fact?

Even if it was fact, can you not see that TLO would have a point - in that you haven't thought and voiced your own opinion on anything - just regurgitated received information?

It is when you claim the right to compel someone else to do something for you or provide something for you, you dont have that right. What it would mean is that to satisfy your "right to healthcare" someone else (a doctor) would have to lose their right to their life and property as you would be making them your slave.

I dont see it as opinion, if you do fair enough.

To say I havent voiced my own opinion, or to say that I have not thought about the subject and am just repeating something I have been told by someone else, again its rude, kind of insulting. I dont know why you think this or want to suggest it.

 

[sten_super]

I'm sorry but hearing how Sten would force people to do things because its best for the society (the society over the individual i.e. collectivism), and hearing how you think that you have no rights except what the government gives you, this is all making me really sad

I don't quite follow this. You find the fact that I disagree with you slightly sad? We have wildly different views on this (you believe in the unfettered rights of the individual, and I do believe in some weak form of collectivism), but I'm not sure why that makes you sad.

I'm certainly not likely to go around proposing some kind of communist state, but I do believe (and seemingly I'm not alone in this belief) that we should forego some level of our own income to help those less fortunate. Ironically, your model (of those unable to afford healthcare relying on family, charity and the community) is built upon a need for people who believe in collectivism if you really want it to be an 'even' system of healthcare distribution (given to those who need it).

 

[DTES]

It is when you claim the right to compel someone else to do something for you or provide something for you, you dont have that right. What it would mean is that to satisfy your "right to healthcare" someone else (a doctor) would have to lose their right to their life and property as you would be making them your slave.

Well, that was half of my point - once you accept what you have written above, you suddenly don't have your right to life. It's possible to save it, but not a right. Hence... no right to life. No?

I dont see it as opinion, if you do fair enough. To say I havent voiced my own opinion, or to say that I have not thought about the subject and am just repeating something I have been told by someone else, again its rude, kind of insulting. I dont know why you think this or want to suggest it.

To explain - you yourself are stating that your arguments are "self-evident", and "not opinion". As such, you haven't expressed any opinions.

Either your posts are opinion, or they are not. Which is it?

 

[beorhthelm]

Society can uphold your rights, it can also deny your rights. Whether it does either of those, or neither of those, does not change whether or not you have that right.

yes. it. does. you seem to have ignored 3000 years of philosophy and history. the rights you have are products of relativly recent changes to the social contract we live by. go back 150 years and many people did live in slavery (there was a war about it wasn't there...). sadly, some still do today, even here in isolated cases. their rights are not protected or they live in a country/society that doesnt respect the same rights as we have in the west.

the sad thing is, you have these rights and freedoms and dont even know how or why.

 

[dingodan]

I don't quite follow this. You find the fact that I disagree with you slightly sad? We have wildly different views on this (you believe in the unfettered rights of the individual, and I do believe in some weak form of collectivism), but I'm not sure why that makes you sad.

I'm certainly not likely to go around proposing some kind of communist state, but I do believe (and seemingly I'm not alone in this belief) that we should forego some level of our own income to help those less fortunate. Ironically, your model (of those unable to afford healthcare relying on family, charity and the community) is built upon a need for people who believe in collectivism if you really want it to be an 'even' system of healthcare distribution (given to those who need it).

The difference is all in the method. Voluntary or mandatory.

 

[dingodan]

Well, that was half of my point - once you accept what you have written above, you suddenly don't have your right to life. It's possible to save it, but not a right. Hence... no right to life. No?



To explain - you yourself are stating that your arguments are "self-evident", and "not opinion". As such, you haven't expressed any opinions.

Either your posts are opinion, or they are not. Which is it?

Ok fine, what I am expressing is my opinion. But what you have been suggesting is that nothing is true and everything is opinion. That is a view I take issue with (but lets not digress).

You have a right to your life. You are saying if you are sick and someone doesnt provide you with treatment then they are denying your right to life. Your rights protect your from the actions of others, but they cannot compel actions from others. Another person cannot hurt you, that does not mean that another person is obligated to treat you. As soon as they are obliged to treat you, they lose their rights.

 

[Falkor]

wow ding argues about everything

 

[El Presidente]

My family have cost the NHS hundreds of thousands

Don't let bushy and co know that Trig..........

 

[dingodan]

yes. it. does. you seem to have ignored 3000 years of philosophy and history. the rights you have are products of relativly recent changes to the social contract we live by. go back 150 years and many people did live in slavery (there was a war about it wasn't there...). sadly, some still do today, even here in isolated cases. their rights are not protected or they live in a country/society that doesnt respect the same rights as we have in the west.

the sad thing is, you have these rights and freedoms and dont even know how or why.

Stop insulting me.

You concede that these people who do not have their rights protected do have these rights though, right? Otherwise there would be nothing to protect. So you are agreeing with me that it is not merely that the rights that are upheld are the rights that you have. Your post is confused.

 

[sten_super]

The difference is all in the method. Voluntary or mandatory.

If I believed for a second that voluntary contributions would produce a sufficient central pot to pay for health care for all those that required it and were unable to pay then I'd be tempted to go for it (as I do fundamentally believe in a 'small' government). However I don't, so I can't.

 

[DTES]

Ok fine, what I am expressing is my opinion. But what you have been suggesting is that nothing is true and everything is opinion. That is a view I take issue with (but lets not digress).

I absolutely don't think that everything is opinion. What I (and others) have said is that when it comes to rights, you have been claiming your opinion as fact / "self-evident" when it is not.

You have a right to your life. You are saying if you are sick and someone doesnt provide you with treatment then they are denying your right to life. Your rights protect your from the actions of others, but they cannot compel actions from others. Another person cannot hurt you, that does not mean that another person is obligated to treat you. As soon as they are obliged to treat you, they lose their rights.

Either you do have the right to your life, or not. If another (any/all other person/s) is perfectly within their rights to leave you to die when they could save your life then that life in question (yours) is obviously not a self-evident right, is it?

 

[dingodan]

If I believed for a second that voluntary contributions would produce a sufficient central pot to pay for health care for all those that required it and were unable to pay then I'd be tempted to go for it (as I do fundamentally believe in a 'small' government). However I don't, so I can't.

Well there are lots of alternatives, having your own pot for you and your family, and beyond that your own charitable giving for those in need etc. Or a mutual or cooperative fund with pooled risk similar to the NHS but voluntary.

In my view the government cannot spend your money better than you can, it cannot produce productivity or value for money. The problems which the NHS (and all forms of government planning) experience demonstrate this imo.

But I respect your view.

 

[dingodan]

I absolutely don't think that everything is opinion. What I (and others) have said is that when it comes to rights, you have been claiming your opinion as fact / "self-evident" when it is not.





Either you do have the right to your life, or not. If another (any/all other person/s) is perfectly within their rights to leave you to die when they could save your life then that life in question (yours) is obviously not a self-evident right, is it?

I also have a right to my property. I have a right to my car. You cannot steal my car, you cannot damage my car. But if it breaks down I cannot come to you and claim that you must fix it or you will be denying my right to my property.

You are responsible for your body and your health and you are the protector of your right to life. Healthcare is not your life. Healthcare is a service, provided by someone else.

 

[beorhthelm]

You concede that these people who do not have their rights protected do have these rights though, right? Otherwise there would be nothing to protect. So you are agreeing with me that it is not merely that the rights that are upheld are the rights that you have. Your post is confused.

no, you are confused. in this country, we fortunatly have certain rights. some times, an individual will be brought into the country for the purpose of service and kept against their will, without pay or the freedoms we enjoy. their rights are clearly not being protected, because we dont know about the situation (only after they have managed to escape their "employers").

go elsewhere in the world and these rights sadly do not exist. especially women, in certain countries and societies they have fewer rights than men, they can not earn money or possess property, they cannot choose who they marry. other countries do not recognise the right to free speech, or free a press. some, even in the western world, would not recognise the same rights to property that we in the UK would expect. basic human rights have only been recognised widely for 60 years, even then not applied universially.

i will stop insulting you when you stop being so blindly ignorant.