Cynical Nation

Ok,
That was a better explanation and I can see your position based on your (classic) libertarian views that I respect. But you are most certainly wrong.

Here is what I believe. If health care is available to one person or a group of people in the society, then everyone else has, by definition, the right to health care. The reason societies exist vary, but they are supposed to promote synergy among human beings and better overall living than individual units alone. If one person has health care access it is essentially unethical (by my definition) if others do not.

Barry: "There is no entitlement to the time, services, or property of another."

Oh really? So you don't believe in having a military? A huge chunk of what the government steals from us every paycheck goes into the military. That means your time (at work), your services (from working), and your property (your money) are all going to support the huge military/industrial complex that sucks down a whopping percentage of the national budget.

You're right Barry, let's abolish the military! Let's abolish the Department of Homeland Spying, the CIA, FBI, ATF, and all of the other organizations that live off of us, unconstitutionally.

What's that you say? Ohhhhh, I see. Those are NECESSARY. Halliburton is NECESSARY. Wars to secure oil contracts for multi-national corporations are NECESSARY.

For god's sake, don't go waving the constitution around like a moron. You're just a Corporatist who hopes to get his by kissing the ass of Big Money, opening your mouth and closing your eyes, waiting for that "trickle down" ... >>ziiip

Bailey, please try to stay on topic. The important issue here is Edwards' hair.

Have you actually looked at Edwards' hair? Are you telling me THAT cost $400? If it did, it must have come with a BJ.

"If one person has health care access it is essentially unethical (by my definition) if others do not." (BW)

That is the most painful bit of convoluted illogic I've seen in a long time.

Congratulations on that.

By that same illogical reasoning, "If one person has access to food, and others do not, then that too is unethical and everyone must have an equal right to the available foodstores."

That too, would be wrong.

There is no collective right that supercedes an individual right.

The most basic premise of Jeffersonian democracy is Jefferson's assertion that "the people," cannot bestow upon themselves or their representatives (government) any powers that they do not inidividually possess themselves, ergo, since neither you, Barry, or I possess the right to invade another person's home an take and "redistribute" their assetts, then we cannot give such a power to government either.

America's property owners were all well-off, property owners and the system they devised a "representative, CONSTITUTIONAL Republic," was one devised to protect private property rights (knowing that propperty is always and everywhere unevenly distributed), individualism (self-ownership/responsibility) and minority rights - as "well-off property owners" are a distinct minority in every society.

They espoused LIBERTY - self-ownership and individualism, and eschewed (that's opposed) any collective or group rights.

TYPO:

America's Founders were all well-off, property owners and the system they devised a "representative, CONSTITUTIONAL Republic," was one devised to protect private property rights (knowing that propperty is always and everywhere unevenly distributed), individualism (self-ownership/responsibility) and minority rights - as "well-off property owners" are a distinct minority in every society...."

"I agree with P.J. O'Rourke in that the only fundamental human right is the right to do as you damn well please. This right is not absolute, of course, and is subject to limitations to the extent that your right to self-determination interferes with someone else's." (Barry)


That ("the right to be left alone") certainly IS a most basic right within a society based on LIBERTY, where each of us is solely responsible for the results of our "doing whatever we please."

Within America's "Founder's Design," any man was "free" NOT to work and either live off his savings or inheritance, or starve.

In a society where we provide welfare, food stamps, etc, the government that provides those things certainly has the right/authority to put those who receive those things "to work," and abide by other restrictions in exchange for those "free" benefits.

Likewise, a government that provides free emergency room care for the "destitute," such as ours, has a right to force people to wear seat-belts, bicycle helmets, go into smoking cessation programs, etc.

Rights are indeed merely "freedoms from (usually governmental) encumbrances."

When commodities are supplied to reckless, self-destructive and irresponsible people (ie. welfare, free emergency room care, food stamps, section-8 housing, government mandated health insurance from businesses, etc., etc.) that government CAN certainly set the terms of that "deal," any way it deems necessary.

When doling out commodities, it then becomes increasingly necessary to restrict the behaviors of the recipients.

THAT is why commdities CANNOT be "rights." The donor (in this case government) then has the right to control those to whom it doles and that "free stuff," ultimately undermines that basic "right" to "be left alone."

"The important issue here is Edwards' hair."

As well it should be. In all his discourse about the Founders of this Republic, what JMK and others leave out is how much they cared about their hair. The founder of our nation, George Washington, powdered his hair.

So obviously if you criticize John Edwards, you must hate George Washington, which is to say you wish this nation never had a father, which is saying you wish this country was never born.

How anti-America can you get.

Come now, JMK, why focus on welfare as the only violation of the great founding fathers' wishes?

How about a cartel that gouges the hell out of all Americans at the gas pump and posts record profits quarter after quarter? How about a president who lies to the country to involve us in a foreign war, and then refuses to pull out to protect future oil profits? Do you think the founding fathers envisioned their country being run by multinational corporations?

Did the founding fathers imagine that half of our heavy tax burden would be poured into a huge military/industrial complex that would gobble up our wealth to produce billionaires and a few high-tech bombs to drop on sand people?

Broaden your scope there a little, and stop letting Rush Limbaugh keep you focused on those dirty rotten poor people who are ruining this country by taking welfare.

Whoa there Barely! Stop jumping to unfounded conclusions!

For one thing, I NEVER said that welfare, food stamps, even universal health care "violated the wishes of America's Founders," nor even that they were at all "inconsistent with America's Founding Design."

I SAID (and believe me, I'm right on this) that NONE of those things are "rights."

For starters, I believe in the government controlling people's actions....like, for instance, crime control - we criminalize certain actions (some violent, some non-violent, ie. prostitution & drug use) and then use those criminal statutes to control the actions of various people.

My ONLY problem wih public assistance, welfare, food stamps, section-8 housing, etc., is with the poor "social contract" that's been in effect to date.

For instance, I support welfare, BUT coupled with the mandating of birth control for ALL those on public assistance, mandated job training and "workfare," etc.

And while I don't particularly like mandatory seat-belt laws, etc., I fully understand and thus support government mandating those things, since so much of today's medical care is already government-subsidized and insured.

In light of GM, Ford, the airlines and other businesses lobbying to get OUT of the healthcare supplier role, I SUPPORT some basic (universal) government coverage, that would foist the direct costs back onto the taxpayers (where they belong) and off business and industry.

Government should probably offer a bare bones, basic healthcare coverage to all, along WITH pay-as-you-go add-ons and supplementals that those with both the means and inclination can purchase for broader, better coverage.

One can argue in favor of some basic healthcare coverage and also recognize that it, like a college education, food, clothing, shelter, etc., is NOT a "right."

That's really not a very difficult concept to grasp, now, is it?

Does anybody have any idea how much (taxpayer) money is spent prepping George W. Bush for a televised speech or photo-op?

How many dozens, if not hundreds - of people are engaged in doing Dubya's makeup, styling his hair, selecting his clothing for maximum effect, preparing the elaborate backdrops and stage sets, handling the cameras, lighting, and other TV production values, assembling all the bit players and spear carriers?

Heck, as a candidate, Bush bought his ranch, an almost 1,600 acre estate in Crawford, Texas, purely as a stage prop on Karl Rove's advice that it would project a "manly" and "good ole boy" image.

This all started at least 47 years ago.

Before the 1960 presidential debate, JFK accepted the offered stage makeup and Richard Nixon refused to be made up. Nixon went to his death convinced that this was a mistake that cost him the debate and possibly the election.

Every candidate since then has gone out of his or her way to prepare for the best visual effect at live or televised events.

The big difference here, outside of the scale of Edwards' and Bush's "exercises in political vanity" is that Edwards' haircut was paid for by his campaign contributors. Bush's massive packaging effort is funded from your pocket and mine.

The tendency of today's Right to focus in on a trivial, if not totally irrelevant detail as a crutch for a campaign of mockery and ridicule reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's comment:

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."

"The founder of our nation, George Washington, powdered his hair." (PE)

His wig, PE...his WIG!

Washington, like most of the well-off men of that time, wore a powdered wig, but that's where any and all similarities between a modern "girly-man," like John Edwards and America's Founders ends.

They (America's Founders) could all easily resort to being "uncouth ruffians," at a moment's notice.

They were also "men of action" and men who despite their relative wealth, were neither averse to, nor unfamiliar with real, honest, hard work - real dirt-digging, etc.

I'd take a 500 to 1 wager that even the weakest of America's Founders (I nominate Alexander Hamilton) would kick the tar out of a modern-day "girly-man" like Edwards.

Oh, and they apparently KNEW something that John Edwards, for all his "fancy book-learnin," doesn't - that commidites ARE NOT and CANNOT be "rights."

You know why no one has made an argument such as, "That's wrong, in some instances, some commodities CAN be rights?"

Because a credible, coherant argument in favor of that just can't be made.

So, how do we define and/or differentiate among Rights, Freedoms, Liberties, and Privileges?

Does any American citizen have a guaranteed "Right" to vote for President? Do we even have a Right to a presidential election? Where is this Right defined? In the Constitution? The Bill of Rights?

You can look high and low, but won't find that "Right."

Is private property a guaranteed Right? Many of the Founding Fathers believed so, and there was much discussion in the Federalist Papers, but the Constitution never mentions it, and the Bill of Rights only says about it "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So, the government has the right to override your "Right" to private property as long as it pays you fair market price, and you have no option but to hand over the deed.

The Rights enumerated in the First Amendment are not absolute, and over the years, many limitations have been demanded by the people and imposed by government. Doesn't this fit at least part of BNJ's definition of a Privilege. The First Amendment says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet we have laws against libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, incitement to crime, and a dozen other government-imposed restrictions on this "absolute Right."

This is true all through the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And, ironically, much of the limitation is strongly supported by Conservatives, who seem to believe that the only Right that should not be limited is the one in the Second Amendment - which, also ironically, is the only Right that is expressed as a conditional right of a need to maintain a militia.

Go figure...

Oh, and they apparently KNEW something that John Edwards, for all his "fancy book-learnin," doesn't - that commidites [sic] ARE NOT and CANNOT be "rights."

You know why no one has made an argument such as, "That's wrong, in some instances, some commodities CAN be rights?"

Because a credible, coherant [sic] argument in favor of that just can't be made.

So, you don't consider land - property - to be a commodity?

Is insurance a commodity? Have you ever seen a Conservative or Libertarian turn down government FDIC, FSLIC, or Flood insurance he was entitled to just because of principle? I certainly haven't.

What is the difference between these forms of government insurance and government health insurance?

BTW, the Constitution begins with a "mission statement" called the Preamble. It reads:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many of the social policies that Libertarians denounce and claim are not "Rights" could easily be catagorized as policies designed to "promote the general welfare."

Abraham Lincoln once said:

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all in their separate and individual capacities."

If health care is available to one person or a group of people in the society, then everyone else has, by definition, the right to health care.

I see no problem with that statement, as no one should be denied health care on the basis of their race, gender or religious beliefs.

However, there is no right to "affordable" or free health care, nor should there be.

What is the difference between these forms of government insurance and government health insurance?

Cost and scope.

Land IS a commodiy...and there is no "right o land, ONLY "the pursuit of happiness/property."

There is NO commodity defined as a "right" wihin the U.S. Constitution.

"Is insurance a commodity? Have you ever seen a Conservative or Libertarian turn down government FDIC, FSLIC, or Flood insurance he was entitled to just because of principle? I certainly haven't.

"What is the difference between these forms of government insurance and government health insurance?" (BlueSun)


MANY (if not most) Conservatives (like myself) believe in INSURANCE and federal insurances, welfare, food stamps, etc., we only argue with the "social contract" involved.

I, for instance, believe that ALL on public assistance should be mandated to use birth control, forced into workfare and job training, etc., and have many other restrictions on their personal behaviors (ie. drug testing, etc). As I noted above.

However, neither these insurances, nor those forms of pu blic assistance are "rights."

ALL comodities are produced, distributed, etc., by individuals and absent slavery, those individuals must be compensated for their labors, thus no one else can claim a "right" to what another produces.

As such, collectivist or communitarian values are intrinsically anti-American values.

"If health care is available to one person or a group of people in the society, then everyone else has, by definition, the right to health care." (BW)

"I see no problem with that statement, as no one should be denied health care on the basis of their race, gender or religious beliefs.

"However, there is no right to "affordable" or free health care, nor should there be." (CRB)


CRB, BW's statement does not claim a right to ACCESS to healthcare, as you suggest, that WOULD be agreeable, it suggests that one person having healthcare available, then it becomes a "right" fo everyone else.

NO!

So long as one person pays for healthcare, then EVERYONE should have to pay for access to that same commodity, whether it be in the form of a simple fee for service, or as part of their employment package, in lieu of pay, OR other such cost.

Your last statement is correct as a stand-alone, "...there is no right to "affordable" or free health care, nor should there be."

JMK, once again, you are spreading lies about the founders of our republic.

George Washington "wore his own hair which was light brown in color, tied in a queue and powdered. The queue was sometimes worn in a small black silk bag." He did not wear a wig.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/index.html

WoW! That's some bad looking hair.

He should've went for the wig.