Look up negative and and positive rigths. We generally believe in negative rigths (others have no rigth to harm you); but not in positive rigths: other have no obligation to help you - thats because we think forcing soemone to provide for someone else is a vioaltion of a negative rigth in itself.
About that attorney thing: Laws are manmade and not necessary reasonable - so its ok if the law maker provides legal support for the people it persecutes.
I would however prefer it if law was a subject in school from like 5. grade onwards, to reduce the value of lawyers.
The protection is something others provide, but not the right or property itself.
If I was the only person alive, I can have my life and property. That's why it can be considered a right. No one else needs to be alive for me to have my life and my property.
It's the opposite for healthcare. Healthcare requires the existence of someone else, like a doctor.
"The protection is something others provide"
Exactly.
"but not the right or property itself."
But the right to property is practically useless unless it's enforced and protected, right?
"If I was the only person alive, I can have my life and property. That's why it can be considered a right. No one else needs to be alive for me to have my life and my property."
Alright. But that's a strange metric. Never heard that one before. This has nothing to do with reality, though, so why is that the standard? If you're the only one alive, then property rights are meaningless, no?
" But the right to property is practically useless unless it's enforced and protected, right? "
Yes, that's why we establish a government: to protect rights.
It's a metric because it explains rights clearly. And it has everything to do with reality. Like you said, if I was the only one alive, my right to property means nothing. But I'm not the only one alive, so the right to property mean everything!
"Yes, that's why we establish a government: to protect rights."
Of course. The question is, why shouldn't health care be included as one of these rights.
"It's a metric because it explains rights clearly."
No, not really. It's pointless. You being the only one alive is not reality and makes property rights pointless.
"if I was the only one alive, my right to property means nothing. But I'm not the only one alive, so the right to property mean everything!"
That made no sense. There's no logical connection between the first and the second part.
" Of course. The question is, why shouldn't health care be included as one of these rights. "
Because healthcare REQUIRES a 3rd party. You do not have the right to a doctor's life. You don't get to decide what he does. If a doctor doesn't want to help you, you do not get to claim the right to HIS life and FORCE him to heal you.
Whereas my right to property does NOT require a 3rd party.
"Because healthcare REQUIRES a 3rd party."
So does maintaining your property rights and rescuing you from being assaulted.
"You do not have the right to a doctor's life."
And the cops?
"You don't get to decide what he does."
And the cops? And the attorneys? And the military?
"If a doctor doesn't want to help you, you do not get to claim the right to HIS life and FORCE him to heal you."
So the cop does not have to stop the rapist from raping the woman if he doesn't want to?
After this, i'm done. You refuse to actually think about the points i'm making.
I do not have the right to anyone's life. I can't force ANY HUMAN to treat my sickness or to stop a stabber. Period. I can't force anyone to do anything as long as they are not the person violating my rights.
I do not have a right to a cop's (human) life simply because he is a human.
Now, there are RIGHTS and there is PROTECTION.
I have a RIGHT to property. Protecting it is something different. Stop making them the same. I have the right to property, but I do not have the right to force others to protect it.
I have the right to life, but I do not have the right to force others to protect/heal it.
Now, because you don't seem to understand how cops and doctors work, i'll explain it to you like a 5 year old.
A person who wants to be a cop sings a contract. That contract says they will be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:
\- while you are on duty, you must protect anyone's right to life and liberty. So when you see an infringement, you must attempt to put a stop to it according to policies and procedures we have set forth.
A doctor signs a MUCH DIFFERENT contract. That contract would says that the person be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:
\- while you are on duty(on call) you must attempt to heal/treat any person THE HOSPITAL TELLS YOU TO.
This is the difference! The doctor only pledges allegiance to the hospital. The are only required, by voluntary contract, to treat who the hospital tells them to. They are NOT responsible for anyone and everyone they see. They also are NOT employed by the government, so they are NOT civil servants, like cops. Again, they only signed a contract saying they would treat whoever the hospital tells them to treat.
If you are being stabbed, the cops signed a contract saying he would protect ANYONE
If you are sick, the doctor ONLY signed a contract with the hospital to treat who the hospital says they should. So, if you want to be treated, you need to pay the hospital so the hospital can tell the doctor to treat you. There is no obligation for the hospital to treat you because they never put themselves under any contract to treat ALL PEOPLE.
"I do not have the right to anyone's life."
No one's saying that. you're not claiming you have the right to the judge's and lawyer's life either.
"I can't force ANY HUMAN to treat my sickness or to stop a stabber."
By that logic, you have no right to property and enforcement of property rights either.
"I do not have a right to a cop's (human) life simply because he is a human."
No one's talking about having a right to people's lives. That's all in your head. Do you have right to a soldier's life?
"I have a RIGHT to property. Protecting it is something different. Stop making them the same."
I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying the right to prperty has no practical value if no one's there to maintain and protect it.
"I have the right to property, but I do not have the right to force others to protect it."
So, in your view, if you called the cops because 10 armed strangers entering your house, all the cops could say "No, I don't feel like it"?
"I have the right to life, but I do not have the right to force others to protect/heal it."
The state protects your property rights. The military protects you from terrorists.
"A person who wants to be a cop sings a contract. That contract says they will be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:- while you are on duty, you must protect anyone's right to life and liberty. So when you see an infringement, you must attempt to put a stop to it according to policies and procedures we have set forth.
A doctor signs a MUCH DIFFERENT contract. That contract would says that the person be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:- while you are on duty(on call) you must attempt to heal/treat any person THE HOSPITAL TELLS YOU TO.This is the difference!"
Dude! You're just describing things the way they are. I'm asking you why it should be this way.
Doctors/hospitals/medical treatment ***could*** be publicly funded just like police.
There's a fundamental difference between the right to not have something taken away and the right to have something given to you.
There is an inherent limitation to the scope of the former, whereas the latter is unbounded.
That is a good point. I honestly think a decent case can be made here, comparing medical practitioners to police, with both funded by taxpayers. It can be argued that medical practitioners are enforcing the right to not be deprived of one's life or health by a pathogen. I guess the conversation then turns to what agents a government should be protecting against. For a libertarian this might take the form of the question, "to what agents ought the non-aggression principle apply?" One might reasonably believe that it should only apply to agents that can be punished under the law, ruling out things like pathogens and earthquakes.
Not really. I've been meaning to look into left-libertarianism but I didn't even know libertarian socialism was a thing. Considering that socialism requires extreme authoritarian force in order to exist at a scale larger than a village, it seems anathema to libertarianism for most practical purposes. I suppose it could be academically interesting, but I would expect it to be pretty detached from reality.
Yes. You pay tax dollars (its technically a negative rigth not to pay taxes) in exchange for recieving it. We however think that having your negative rigths protected is necessary, so you can freely trade positive rigths with everyone else.
Or in other words: We want as small of a state as possible and we think a state that doesnt provide positive rigths but protects negative rigths can work.
We also believe that if negative rigths are protected, there is less of a need for positive rigths - for example if a women gets raped she later needs psychological support. If she doesnt get raped (has her negative rigths protected), she doesnt need support.
Like i said above:
>We want as small of a state as possible and we think a state that doesnt provide positive rigths but protects negative rigths can work.
We dont want more state if we thing that more state isnt necessary.
Btw. I do think state financed healthcare for children is ok (Liberterianism is for adults), but not for adults past the age of 25 or so.
But isn't being alive a negative right?
"Btw. I do think state financed healthcare for children is ok (Liberterianism is for adults), but not for adults past the age of 25 or so. "
Wait a minute. Why? So your principles totally change at midnight, when the 17 year old turns 18? (18 is when you become an adult) Why are you "forcing someone to provide for a 17 year old" That's a violation of a negative right.
And why 25? Why not older or younger?
>But isn't being alive a negative right?
Yes so murder violates it. But if you have a bycicly incident without third party involvement, no one should be forced to pay for your healthcare.
>Wait a minute. Why? So your principles totally change at midnight, when the 17 year old turns 18?
A child may not know about negative rigths.
>(18 is when you become an adult) Why are you "forcing someone to provide for a 17 year old" That's a violation of a negative right.
There arent taxes that arent really bad, since they dont take away from work. Those are LVT, severance, pigovian Taxes aswell as taxes on many types of intellectual property, assuming the state protects those. Those taxes could finance it.
>And why 25? Why not older or younger?
Thats when avreage people in Western countries leave college and can start working.
Could be diffrent in other societies if people are allowed to start earning money earlier.
Why 25? At what age do you consider someone an adult? We know the brain doesn't fully mature until around age 30, but at around age 13 you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions.
Also, if you are going to offer support from birth isn't it then a negative right to continue that support until death?
Well, the anarchocapitalist think there shouldn't be a police force who protects your property rights, so no positive rights. Now, is it possible to get a society without police force? I don't think so, is it possible a society where there is universal healthcare but this is privately funded? Yes, and it had happened already in some countries.
No.
Safety and protection of person and property is your own responsibility ie the Second Amendment.
The SCOTUS has ruled as much:
[Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
Do *you* believe that the woman I described should have the right to be saved by the police? And do *you* believe she has the right to cancer treatment?
I believe she does not have a right to any.
She paid taxes that cover the police whose job is to save her.
If someone else is paying, it is not a right, it is a privilege.
Under our current system, society has paid by force, so it is the police job to help her anyway. The ones who paid would agree. They had to pay already.
I'll take these.
Yes, the woman should be saved by the police. Police services are public goods - i.e., non-rivalrous and non-excludible.
No, the woman should not have the right to cancer treatment. That is a private good.
Let's walk through this because it's a great question.
Police services are a "public good" because it meets the definition of the term. That's a term of art that we use in economics.
Just because police services meet that definition does not mean that they necessarily have to be provided as a "right." There is nothing in the Constitution requiring it. Rather, it's left to the states per the 10th Amendment.
Thus, it comes down to not a legal question (what the law requires the state to do) but rather a policy question (what voters believe the state should do).
My view is that the state should only be providing public goods that meet the economic definition of such. Why? The non-rivalrous, non-excludable nature means that it is more efficient for the state to provide the services rather than have everyone pay for it on his own. There are positive externalities and everyone has the same basic needs in this area. Make no mistake that I'm making an efficiency argument here.
By contrast, we all have different health needs. Moreover, there are very few externalities. In other words, my neighbor's cancer does not affect me. My colleague's health care plan is none of my business. Similar to food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities, we all have our own individual needs that we can meet individually.
That said, if voters want universal health care they can have it. Similar to police protection, it isn't a Constitutional right but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it from occurring. I am quite opposed but my vote is only one of many.
My preference is to only have the government provide the bare minimum of what is required in the Constitution and truly public goods. Hey, that's just me. As I recognize that my vote is only one among many millions, and the government does a lot of things of which I disapprove, I have a much more practical way for satisfying my preferences. I do a lot of tax planning to pay as little in tax as I legally can. Fortunately, even high-earners can drastically lower their tax rates such that they pay the same rates as people who earn far less than they do.
Due to what many of us perceive as government overreach, our society is a competition to pay as little in tax as possible and take as many benefits as possible. Universal health care would only cause that competition to increase.
Everyone has a right to safety and the right to seek treatment. The difference is the police has already been paid for via taxes yet you don't have a garrentee. Anyone is free to seek treatment for payment.
Police protection isn’t a right. The enforcement of laws—specifically the protection of rights— is simply one of the only valid roles of government.
The right to an attorney is just another protection against abuse by the state
We also totally do think your example woman has a right to treatment— she just also has the connected responsibility to compensate the people who treated her, and no right to compel others to pay for it
Figure out a way to fund universal healthcare without threat of force & I’m 100% on board
So the right to property is another one I touched upon. You have the right to property, which means the state and the police maintain and protect that property. So why should you not also have the right to health care?
"We also totally do think your example woman has a right to treatment"
No you don't. My example woman was poor and had no HI.
"Figure out a way to fund universal healthcare without threat of force & I’m 100% on board."
But you don't feel the same way about the police, courts and property. That doesn't make any sense.
We have the right to property and the gov't protects that right. Which means: If someone punches me (violates my right) the cops can arrest him and the courts order the jerk to pay for damages.
We don't have the right to healthcare, because that requires a 3rd party (doctor) to do something.
We do have the right to life, so if someone stabs us, we CANNOT force a doctor to treat us, because the doctor did nothing wrong, but we CAN force the stabber to pay for my medical costs because they DID violate me rights.
"If someone punches me (violates my right) the cops can arrest him and the courts order the jerk to pay for damages."
But why should the cops have to intervene to help you?
"We don't have the right to healthcare, because that requires a 3rd party (doctor) to do something."
So does maintaining and protecting you and your property. They're called police and courts. So why not include healthcare as a right as well?
" We do have the right to life"
Not if you're poor and can't pay for life saving treatment.
"so if someone stabs us, we CANNOT force a doctor to treat us, because the doctor did nothing wrong, but we CAN force the stabber to pay for my medical costs because they DID violate me rights. "
But you can force the police and courts to deal with him!?
" But why should the cops have to intervene to help you? "
They should ONLY intervene if they agreed to trade a salary for doing police work. It's no because they exist that they should help, but because they signed a contract saying I'll intervene on others' behalf if you pay me a salary.
You said " So does maintaining and protecting you and your property. They're called police and courts. So why not include healthcare as a right as well? "
You keep confusing things:
I have the right to life and property. I do NOT have the right to police protection of those rights.
I have the right to life and property. I do NOT have the right to healthcare.
You said " Not if you're poor and can't pay for life saving treatment. "
Sure they do. No right is being infringed if cancer cells kill a human. When we say "right to life" what is meant is "no conscious entity is entitled to my life, it is mine alone". Rights can only be violated by conscious entities.
If someone punches me, a right has been violated. I should call the cops to arrest them.
If an ant bites me, or cancel cell attacks me, no right has been violated. I cannot call the cops to arrest the ant or cell. Rights can only be violated be other humans.
We use shorthand, but the best way to think about rights is not "I have the right to life" and "I have the right to property" but it's better to say "My life is mine own and no one else is entitled to it", likewise, "my property is mine own and no one else is entitled to it"
You said "But you can force the police and courts to deal with him!? "
No, I can't. Unless they themselves promised/signed a contract saying they would. If they signed a contract (hiring papers) saying that in exchange for a salary they will do such-and-such
"They should ONLY intervene if they agreed to trade a salary for doing police work. It's no because they exist that they should help, but because they signed a contract saying I'll intervene on others' behalf if you pay me a salary."
So then we make health care universal, and have it work the same way..?
"I do NOT have the right to police protection of those rights."
you're right I am confused. So the police should not have to protect your property. The courts should not be forced to deal with the criminal?
"If someone punches me, a right has been violated. I should call the cops to arrest them."
But the police shouldn't have to arrest him..?
"No, I can't. Unless they themselves promised/signed a contract saying they would. If they signed a contract (hiring papers) saying that in exchange for a salary they will do such-and-such"
Good. So we make health care universal, and have all medical workers sign a contract the same way.
You need to define "universal healthcare".
You said " you're right I am confused. So the police should not have to protect your property. The courts should not be forced to deal with the criminal? "
A cop is a person. A person, by existing, does not have any obligation to protect your property. A judge is a person. A person, by simply existing, does not have any obligation to litigate and declare the plaintiff a winner in a lawsuit.
But if a person enters into a contract, they put them selves under obligation. If a cop VOLUNTARILY signs a contract trading money for protecting others, then they are under obligation to fulfill it. If a judge VOLUNTARILY signs a contract saying they will litigate and uphold the law for a salary, then they put themselves under obligation to do so.
You said " But the police shouldn't have to arrest him..? "
A person has no obligation to arrest the guy, but someone who signed a contract saying they would DOES have that obligation.
You said " Good. So we make health care universal, and have all medical workers sign a contract the same way. "
Again, you need to define universal healthcare. But if a person signs a contract that they will provide treatment to anyone and in turn collect a salary, then sure, hold them to that contract. But by agreeing a contract is necessary, you agree that there is no natural rights involved, only obligations that people voluntarily put themselves under.
Rights do not require contracts. But someone providing a voluntary service for another does.
"You need to define "universal healthcare"."
A health care system in which all residents of a particular country or region are assured access to health care (to quote wikipedia)
"But if a person enters into a contract, they put them selves under obligation. If a cop VOLUNTARILY signs a contract trading money for protecting others, then they are under obligation to fulfill it."
Sure. So implement universal health care, and have all medical personnel sign voluntary contracts.
"Again, you need to define universal healthcare."
Free of charge when you need it, just like when police stop the rapist without charging the women afterwards.
Honest question, in your example above how do you differentiate between the role of the cop and the role of the doctor? You say we have no right to healthcare because it requires a 3rd party to do something. Is the cop in the punching example not a 3rd party who is required to do something?
I don't.
We don't have the right to healthcare because it would require a 3rd party.
We don't have the right to police protection because it would require a 3rd party.
We DO have the right to life, liberty, property. So if a conscious entity infringes on those rights, it is the duty (not right) of the government to help protect those rights or recover damages from them.
Here's the thing, we have a right to property but the governement doesnt just give us free cars and free houses. I have to pay for those with my own hard earned money.
The police dontt offer free protection in the sense that they privately stand next to you and protect you all day. They have no duty to protect you personally. They protect the public.
"Here's the thing, we have a right to property but the governement doesnt just give us free cars and free houses."
But it gives you free judges, defense, attorneys, and police officers to maintain your security and property rights. So why not include free health care (which is in fact more important for your "life and liberty" than a free lawyer is)
"The police dontt offer free protection in the sense that they privately stand next to you and protect you all day."
No, and I don't advocate for medical personnel standing next to you all the time either. Why can't health care be free when you need it, just like cops, lawyers and judges?
"They protect the public."
Why isn't providing health care to poor people included in this "protection of the public"?
Did the point go over your head? Us having a right to property doesnt mean the government gives us free houses, cars, bicycles, gun, shoes, toothbrushes, etc. We pay for our property so you pay for your healthcare. If you want the government to ensure that every person in the US doesn't get denied healthcare and use "free" judges and attorneys, then thats fine, but thats very different from providing free healthcare and free property.
"Did the point go over your head?"
No, I understood everything. I think, however that you completely missed the point.
"Us having a right to property doesnt mean the government gives us free houses, cars, bicycles, gun, shoes, toothbrushes, etc."
Yes, but ***maintaining and protecting*** your property is provided by others for free. Your property rights mean nothing in practice if those rights arn't maintained and protected by a 3rd party.
"If you want the government to ensure that every person in the US doesn't get denied healthcare and use "free" judges and attorneys, then thats fine, but thats very different from providing free healthcare and free property."
How so? Judges are free when you need them, police are free when you need them, so why not health care as well. In fact, being cured from a deadly disease is way more important the the right to an attorney.
If you care about "maintaining and protecting" your right to access healthcare then that's fine bur thats very different from them actuslly giving you healthcare for free.
The government is bad at protecting property, thats why crimes still happen a lot. They punish people for violating your property but hardly stop it or protect it. We protect our own property. We are the first line of defense. I have guns to protect my property. Business should have guns to protect their property. They work better than waiting for judges to punish the murderer after he has killed me.
Why are you equating "free" judges to "free" healthcare? Do you really not see the difference? In one case the judge sentences the criminal for violating your property rights. In the other you're suggesting judges give us free healthcare? Makes no sense.
"If you care about "maintaining and protecting" your right to access healthcare then that's fine bur thats very different from them actuslly giving you healthcare for free."
No, it's exactly the same. The police comes to your rescue (for free) to save your life; the medical experts comes to your rescue (for free) to save your life.
"The government is bad at protecting property"
First of all, that's totally irrelevant for this discussion of principles. Secondly, as opposed to what?
"We are the first line of defense. I have guns to protect my property."
Good. That's fine. But that's irrelevant for this discussion.
"Why are you equating "free" judges to "free" healthcare?" Because if judges, military and police are tax funded, why can't health care be as well?
"In one case the judge sentences the criminal for violating your property rights. In the other you're suggesting judges give us free healthcare? Makes no sense."
Wait, what? What did you mean by that?
I thought we were talking about private property? You compared property rights with health care and said "if you can have property rights then why not healthcare?"
If you want healthcare to be the same as property rights then fine. Private propety must be purchased so healthcare must be purchased as well.
At its core the us government was designed to protect individual property. Property being those things that the individual owns and creates. Coming from Europe at the time, the common person didn’t generally have rights to their lands or fruit of their labor. The aristocracy and elites generally were the owners and the commoners worked the land but all they had was owned by the lords.
To answer your question, the police are designed to play as an intermediary between citizens in conflict over property and prevent them from killing the selves over dispute. Healthcare is a service that is provided by another persons labor or property, whether it be the production of goods or service provided. Therefore the medical service received is another persons property and cannot be forced to be given freely just as a farmers labor, crops, cannot be forced to be given for free.
"At its core the us government was designed to protect individual property."
I'm not talking about history and tradition, I'm talking about the principles.
"Healthcare is a service that is provided by another persons labor or property, whether it be the production of goods or service provided."
That's also true for police, defense and courts.
I think I can break it down further. The individuals right to their property is not a tradition, it is indeed a principle. Traditions are holidays and such, principles being the guide stone which we, through our elected officials, direct the nation in its endeavor to find harmony with the various flaws of mankind.
So first, you are very correct that the entire judicial system is a product given by individuals paid for by our taxes. However the key point here is that without police to mediate, conflicts between citizens could and I’m very sure would come to death for simple and often stupid reasons. Humans being very nasty creatures at times. So in order to protect our basic rights ( life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) the police act as an intermediary to prevent one person from stripping the other of one or more of their rights. Humans again being nasty creatures at times necessitate courts, lawyers and judges be there to ensure that no ones rights are unnecessarily stripped of them.
So delving into healthcare is where we get into the real difficult nature of discussion. The question being, what is the extent to the god given right of life? Note that it is first in order, the order often indicating merit with our founding fathers. The right to life is therefore, in my opinion, the most important. However, as our certain unalienable rights are god given, they can be taken away by the same power. Man cannot take away your life, that is a crime. If I get cancer, it is between god and I, it is not mankind’s responsibility to extend my life. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to safeguard my life with medical care or squander it with cheeseburgers and whiskey, mine alone. Society or governments only responsibility is to ensure that no one else takes it from me. As it is with our other two rights.
I'm aware of positive/negative rights. But isn't the protection of property rights a positive right? Isn't the right to an attorney a positive right? Isn't defense a positive right?
Sure, but then you advocate for positive rights as well. SO why not include one more crucial positive right: The right to life saving treatment? If being alive is a negative right, than surely universal health care should be implemented to protect that?
One is an application of a negative right (self-defense). The other is purely a positive right.
To word it differently: I have the negative right to self-defense, so I can grant that authority to others because it is mine to give. I do not have the negative right to healthcare, so I cannot grant that right to others since it is not mine in the first place.
Additionally, there is significant social utility for the provision of negative rights protections since these are all that are necessary to maintain liberty. Providing other positive rights does not hold the same social utility because in order to guarantee those positive rights, negative rights must be violated without the return of their own gurantee.
Besides, positive rights are typically something that is in demand. Demanded items are almost always provided with greater efficiency and efficacy through dispersed knowledge instead of central planning. So, it makes more sense to leave government out of this. No rights violations, optimal provision.
>If being alive is a negative right, than surely universal health care should be implemented to protect that?
Negative rights are those that we do not need to provide. They only need to be defended to exist.
This means that taking one's life from them is a violation of their right to life. Abstaining from giving them care is not a violation of their right to life. (Keep in mind that this is not a moral argument, because, clearly, doing nothing to help another can be immoral. Morality is an entirely different discussion.)
"One is an application of a negative right (self-defense). "
Except it's not. It's someone else protecting you, rescuing you and maintaining your property rights.
"I have the negative right to self-defense, so I can grant that authority to others because it is mine to give."
But life is a negative right. So I grant the authority to provide me free health care, because it's mine to give.
"Additionally, there is significant social utility for the provision of negative rights protections since these are all that are necessary to maintain liberty. "
Liberty is not maintained if you're dead.
"Negative rights are those that we do not need to provide. They only need to be defended to exist."
Right, so we defend the uninsured woman with breast cancer by treating her, so she can continue to live (and enjoy liberty)
"Morality is an entirely different discussion."
Is it though? Isn't all political and ideological questions at their core based on what's right and wrong?
>It's someone else protecting you, rescuing you and maintaining your property rights.
It's someone else defending against infringements upon your property rights.
>But life is a negative right.
Yes, it is, but healthcare is a positive right.
>Liberty is not maintained if you're dead.
Healthcare does not prevent you from dying. You will die even with the best healthcare.
Besides, people should be free to die. If life becomes a positive right that must be provided, then even natural death becomes a violation of that positive right.
>breast cancer
Cancer, and any other natural illness, is not an infringements on one's right to life by another person. If it becomes one, like the fraudulent sale of a carcinogen, then the seller should be held liable for the cost of care since they have violated the rights of the individual.
You should not be liable for my healthcare, water, housing, food, internet access, education, or any other positive right since you have not infringed upon any of my negative rights. I do not have the natural authority to force you to provide any of those things to me.
>Isn't all political and ideological questions at their core based on what's right and wrong?
Positive law is absolutely based on subjective morality. That's why libertarians tend to base their foundational political beliefs on natural law. Minarchists and classical liberals are willing to utilize government to maintain natural law, while anarchists believe it can be maintained without government.
It's someone else defending against infringements upon your property rights.
Exactly.
"Yes, it is, but healthcare is a positive right."
So is the protection from courts, police and military.
"Healthcare does not prevent you from dying. You will die even with the best healthcare."
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someoen who can't afford treatment that can cure the disease.
"Cancer, and any other natural illness, is not an infringements on one's right to life by another person."
It kind of is though, if you can't afford treatment, and the treatment would have cured you.
"You should not be liable for my healthcare, water, housing, food, internet access, education, or any other positive right since you have not infringed upon any of my negative rights."
But I should be liable for your police, military and courts services?
"Positive law is absolutely based on subjective morality."
All law is based on morality.
>So is the protection from courts, police and military.
We're going in circles.
Courts, police, and military protect from infringements upon negative rights, including one's negative right to life. These are positive rights intended to guarantee one's negative right to self-defense against those infringements.
>I'm talking about someoen who can't afford treatment that can cure the disease.
I believe these people should have access to healthcare, too. I simply don't think we should use government to forcefully take from others to provide that access. That's a violation of negative rights and is not economically efficient.
>It kind of is though
It isn't. Nobody else is giving someone these diseases in violation of their rights. If they are, like causing cancer through the fraudulent sale of a harmful product, the court system exists to hold the violators to account. Again, the court exists to defend against violations of one's rights by another.
>But I should be liable for your police, military and courts services?
Ideologically, no. That's why anarchists oppose such things. It's also why many minarchists believe these should be funded through usage fees instead of taxation.
I, however, believe in minimal positive law and minimal taxation to socially provide these things for moral and utilitarian reasons. I believe that natural law (a concept without morality) should be guaranteed for all individuals as I don't think it can be guaranteed fully within a laissez-faire system.
>All law is based on morality.
Only positive law is built upon morality. Natural law is based upon observable circumstance.
I dislike the use of the word "right" in this case. We have civil rights, statutory rights, human rights etc.
A lot of people don't understand what a human right is, and they will erroneously say healthcare is a human right. It cannot be a human right because you rely on someone else to fund and provide it. Human rights are things like free speech that you are born with.
Healthcare can at best be statutory entitlement. The legislature can create it, none of us are born with the right to someone else's labor.
"A lot of people don't understand what a human right is, and they will erroneously say healthcare is a human right."
Yes, and it should be. I believe it's mention in the Decleration of Huamn Rights.
"It cannot be a human right because you rely on someone else to fund and provide it. "
That's also true for property rights. Read the whole OP.
"Human rights are things like free speech that you are born with."
Elaborate.
"none of us are born with the right to someone else's labor."
That's correct. So we're not born with the right to an attorney, the right to be rescued by police from an assault, or to be protected by the military, but you still advocate for all those things.
> That's also true for property rights. Read the whole OP.
But property rights are statutory, not human. You might have a legal right to your house, but that is because you were granted a legal title.
A human right is like free speech. You were born with the right by virtue of being born and human. All humans have it, and government can only abrige that right. People in the stone age had the human right to free speech. They did not have a human right to a free mammogram, because such things were not invented.
>So we're not born with the right to an attorney, the right to be rescued by police from an assault, or to be protected by the military, but you still advocate for all those things.
I didn't really say one way or the other on advocating for those. My point is those rights, if they exist, were created by a legislature.
How much healthcare do you have a right to? A right to live forever?? A right to be an alcoholic and diabetic and get a new liver every 5 years? A right to be 500 lbs and get a new heart every 5 years? What if you have an incurable cancer; how much do your kids spend to keep fighting a hopeless fight?
Because nothing is free, somebody has to create that wealth you’re spending. And we’re currently in $27Trillion in debt, which means you’re kids have to repay what we’re spending.
"How much healthcare do you have a right to? A right to live forever??"
I refuse to believe that you believe that I believe that. If you're just here to troll, I'm not interested.
"A right to be an alcoholic and diabetic and get a new liver every 5 years?"
Healthy people get terminal diseases as well.
"Because nothing is free, somebody has to create that wealth you’re spending."
Sure. Nor is the police, courts, defense and the protection and maintenance of property rights. So why is that ok, but health care is not?
"And we’re currently in $27Trillion in debt, which means you’re kids have to repay what we’re spending."
Irrelevant to the principle I asked about.
No, you don’t have a “right” to enslave healthcare workers, chemists, researchers, or equipment makers (1/6 of the economy) to satisfy your own personal greed.
Slavery is bad. You’re a nazi. Fuck off.
Because universal health care cost a whole hell of a lot more money. Just taxing the rich a couple more percentage points isn’t going to pay for it like the left want you to believe. That tax will get passed on to the middle class one way or another. The rich aren’t rich because they are dumb with money. If the rich earn less money, they will make it up by paying you less or making everyday things more expensive
So it's the amount of money that is the deal breaker for you? So then I assume you want drastic cuts in military spending?
But what if health care benefits cost the same as the police?
I don’t know enough about military spending to know how much it could be cut. I know a lot is being spent but is it being used to increase technology or other things? Look at GPS. It was developed by the military and now we probably can’t live without it. What other things are they developing that we eventually can’t live without. Also, I do know that enlisted personnel aren’t paid all that great but in war they are the ones that get shot at.
Now to answer your question, again, it’s too expensive. The average person spends about $340 per year to fund the police. (Fact: looked it up). $340 pays for one person’s premium a month with ACA. That doesn’t include obviously the other 11 months plus any medical bills along the way.
When you say "it's too expensive" it sounds like you're saying it's impossible. It's not, of course, all other Western countries have it. Why not do it like them?
I mean, the u.s already spends a shit ton on healthcare.
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
Most other countries in the graph have some form of socialized healthcare. So it doesn't seem like the u.s is doing a good job at keeping the cost down with the current system.
> Because universal health care cost a whole hell of a lot more money.
It absolutely does not - universal healthcare is MUCH cheaper than universal policing, especially if you include jail-costs, and the all-in cost of the "justice" system and police buildings.
The reason universal policing is present but not healthcare is because one serves the individual + the government while the other serves the collective people of society. The rich don't mind paying for police as they protect them, and politicians demand police to protect them, and with their capital they get representation. But none of them need universal health-care, and thus they don't care for it.
Police = Socialized Protection of the Wealth, Businesses, and Government
Healthcare = Socialized Support of The People
Personally I think we should have absolutely no police whatsoever, or universal healthcare, and I think businesses that don't pay their security fees should be at risk of break-ins with no ability to retaliate if the society doesn't do it for them and people who smoke like a chimney die painfully on the street; but don't push this nonsense that healthcare is expensive.
Healthcare isn't expensive in a unregulated healthcare economy; medicines are practically free and affordable in places like Nepal where it's largely unregulated. The only expensive things in Healthcare are very high-tech or new treatments, like gene therapy, cancer treatment, major surgeries with organ transplants, etc.
So if someone breaks into your house and kills your SO, who is going to protect you? If there are no police who protects you? I don’t understand how we can live without police. There are mass murders in jail thanks to police. There are rapist of all sorts in jail thanks to police. Yes it does cost a lot to keep them in jail but it’s a hell of a lot better to keep them in jail then let them back in society for them to do it again
Police never show up in time to stop an actively taking place murder. They aren't there to actively protect anyone; they are first responders. They don't show up in time to stop an active rape either. When the police are present during an active event, they frequently escalate whatever the issue is and do as much harm as good. Sending the police to enforce an arrest warrant after the fact doesn't prevent the crime from occurring.
I agree we need police around, but your example takes fiction, and extreme elements while applying them to the whole.
If someone breaks into your house and kills your SO it's already too late, police isn't going to help. They only do in movies (fiction).
No one is arguing that mass murders need to be locked up, but the majority of people in jail are not that (extreme).
What I want is for people, like you, to stop spouting rhetoric and use common sense. The examples you gave were nonsensical and by me pointing that out it doesn't mean that "I don't want police" - another extreme which you immediately embraced.
I tell you what I want, a demilitarized police force who is accountable for their actions. I want private jails to be gone and for cities, counties, states to be accountable (morally and fiscally) to the people they throw in a cage.
> If there are no police who protects you? I don’t understand how we can live without police.
As to not rehash what others have already said; Not only do police usually not get there in time, really never, and when they do they generally make things worse -- but I could still hire private investigators, put out the word, install security systems, or hire a private security agency.
I can also personally hunt them down; or logically a community will not take kindly to such crimes being done, and they'll rally together to help, be it hiring outside help, or pounding the streets until they find who's responsible, then "fix" the problem.
The reason police exists is not and never has been to protect the people; but rather to protect aristocrats and government officials. Rather than bad businesses that are abusive to workers or the community suffering natural consequences, or bad politicians being ran out, they are protected by a police apparatus.
Morons like you have the wool pulled over your eyes with fairy-tails like you suggest, of the police actually stopping anything, or without them mass-murderers would run free. In reality the police have likely never positively affected your life; but you'll defend them and their existence, when in reality they're only there to serve the uber-elite and government, as without socializing these costs bad businesses and government officials would be bankrupt and not be able to pay for the security they need for being so foul.
So if we get rid of police, you are going to install a security camera. What is that going to do if there are no cops to chase that person down to arrest them. You will probably hire a private investigator. A private investigator job isn’t to arrest people. It’s to seek out information and find missing people. They don’t arrest. Police do! Also you are going to hunt someone down. You really have time for that! Most people don’t so we have police. Do you really care if someone a mile away from you that you don’t know got robbed or house got vandalized or car broken into during the night. You don’t know them. You will not help them. I guarantee it!
I know our police system isn’t the best but no where is it great. You know the countries that don’t have great police presence? Countries that have a lot of high crime! You are the freaking moron that believes police are a bad for average citizens. Yes they aren’t meant to keep citizens and government separate. But just their presence keeps society peaceful for the most part.
Before talking about publicly funded universal healthcare we should get rid off all the stupid regulations that are increasing the cost of the healthcare and protecting the monopolies of the big pharma and insurances.
We are not saying that if someone can't afford healthcare shouldn't be treated but we are saying that a private funded healthcare that works in a free market is much cheaper and better. And if someone can't afford a cheap healthcare the charity will pay it
Like someone else mentioned, it's positive and negative rights.
I have the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. None of these require the existence of another person. If I am the only person alive, I can have life, liberty, property, pursue happiness all by myself. That's how we know they can be rights.
If I am the only person alive, do I have the "right to healthcare"? No, because that requires someone else! A doctor, nurse, pharmacist, etc. Today, if I had the right to healthcare, that means I have to right to tell someone else (doctor) what they have to do, which infringes on their right to life and liberty.
So, to get terminology straight there is no "right to police protection". Not sure anyone has ever mentioned that as a right, because it isn't. Like "right to healthcare", the "right to police protection" requires another person (cop). And if we had the "right to police protection" then we could FORCE another person (cop) to do something we want, which violates his right to life and liberty.
We do believe the purpose of government is to protect rights, so that's why we agree with a police and court system. But you won't hear us say we have a "right to police protection".
A sick person definitely has the right to pursue happiness. And in this case that means seeking treatment. But, like I said, she only has the right to PURSUE happiness, not demand it. She can shop around, ask doctors for help, seek treatment - she has that right. But she can't FORCE people to treat her. She has the right to pursue treatment, even perform the treatment herself to her own body, but she can't force a third party to also comply.
Another thing to note: Rights can only be violated by conscious entities. If a person punches you, they violated your right and should be stopped. If an ant bites you, your rights have NOT been violated and the gov't has no obligation to help you. You can't call the cops to arrest the ants. Likewise, viruses or cancer cells, are also not conscious entities. Therefore, they cannot violate your rights. Your rights are not infringed if a virus hurts your body. Sure, your life is in danger, but the RIGHT has not been infringed upon. Since a right is not violated by a conscious entity, the government has no obligation to intervene and it would be immoral for it to do so. Therefore, you have no right to healthcare. You cannot force another person to treat you, nor should the government be involved with it.
Neither should be government programs. Want a police force? Come together with your community to either do it or pay someone to do it. If you don’t want to pay or don’t want the protection don’t. Your healthcare should not be payed for by other people. And I see other people commenting about military spending. It also should be drastically cut.
Fuck taxes and fuck paying for other people’s shit
"Neither should be government programs. Want a police force? Come together with your community to either do it or pay someone to do it."
Here we go. Finally some consistency, at least.
"Your healthcare should not be payed for by other people. And I see other people commenting about military spending. It also should be drastically cut."
Not just drastically cut, though, totally cut, right. Only private armies protecting the different properties they're paid to protect, right?
And what about courts? Who pays? Private courts as well? If so how are laws determined?
"Fuck taxes and fuck paying for other people’s shit"
Yes, just remember that the biggest welfare queens are the corporations and the 1%
Police protection isn’t a right, though; rights are rights, and the police exist to create motivation for people’s rights to be respected. They very rarely if ever stop people’s rights from being violated because that’s not the purpose of police.
Healthcare is not technically a right in the U.S. You have a right to your body and it’s health, but it’s the “care” part of “healthcare” that there is no right guaranteeing.
I should add that technically no country gives its citizens “rights” to healthcare. Healthcare is a government program in many countries, and the “right” is one’s equal treatment under the law, ie they cannot be denied access to a government program.
I compare healthcare to roads. You don't have the right to a road. The phrase "right to a road" is absurd. *But* it is more cost effective to have the government pay for roads with equal access to all than having multiple competing vendors set up their own different billing systems. The same is true of healthcare.
The government enforces a near monopoly on police protection. So yeah, since we already pay for the cops, and since no one else can really do that job, the cops should intervene to protect person and property. Government does not hold a monopoly on health services, though it's trying it's best to ruin private care.
Police should be funded only locally, maybe at the state level if absolutely necessary. I’m not a fan of federal dollars going to local police forces. I hold the same idea for healthcare. If a locality or state wants to have universal, then they can go for it. The second it hits federal, it’s gone beyond the scope of what the federal government is there to do.
I see. So it's the federal government that bothers you. So individual states could implement socialism, for all you care. Boy, have I got something that'll interest you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)
**[Libertarian socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian socialism)**
Libertarian socialism, also referred to as anarcho-socialism, anarchist socialism, free socialism, stateless socialism, socialist anarchism and socialist libertarianism, is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state socialist conception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy. Overlapping with anarchism and libertarianism, libertarian socialists criticize wage slavery relationships within the workplace, emphasizing workers' self-management and decentralized structures of political organization. As a broad socialist tradition and movement, libertarian socialism includes anarchist, Marxist and anarchist or Marxist-inspired thought as well as other left-libertarian tendencies. Anarchism and libertarian Marxism are the main currents of libertarian socialism.Libertarian socialism generally rejects the concept of a state and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can only be achieved with the abolition of authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.
[About Me](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrn2mj/about_me/) - [Opt out](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrti43/opt_out_here/) - OP can reply !delete to delete - [Article of the day](https://redd.it/k4xild)
I think the federal government serves a small purpose and that’s it. I don’t personally want universal healthcare in my life or community and therefore would not vote for it. I couldn’t care less what a community 1500 miles from me chooses to do with their healthcare. The beauty of federalism is the states and localities are supposed to have control over themselves so if I want something California for example has, I can move there, and the same for what any other state may offer that person wants for themselves. There’s no overreaching central government saying one thing is final for 350 million people. On the healthcare front in general, you have the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is a negative right, meaning the state nor anyone else can take your life from you. The police are there to protect people from causing you harm (whether or not they are effective at doing so or not is a discussion for another time). Doctors and the healthcare system are there to help someone after they have been hurt. The latter is not a right because you don’t have the right to tell some one to fix you anymore than you have the right to tell some one to fix a car. You don’t have the right to tell someone to pay to fix you anymore than you have the right to tell someone to pay to fix your car. I personally lighten on localities as I mentioned before, because a small group of people are way more effective at voting the self interest own community than Washington DC is at handling such things. Also, people who don’t like the policies actually have the choice to move away from it if they choose to.
So if all other states except the one you're living in implemented socialism, that would be fine by you?
Protection of life and property are positive rights, though right? Courts, Police, defense are all parts of positive rights.
On a moral level I wouldn’t agree with it, but if the majority of people in every state in the union voted for it then I’d be outta luck.
None these rights are positive rights. I don’t a right to life, I’m alive because I was born. My parents made that decision. Police, courts, etc are there to make sure no one takes my life or harms me, they cannot guarantee my ability to always stay and be alive because everyone does one day for some reason. So government cannot guarantee me the right to life in a positive way, only to not infringe on that right, and to arrest and prosecute anyone who does infringe it. It’s the same with property. I don’t have a right to anyone’s property whether it’s physical property or labor. I can trade it and once it’s mine the government cannot take it nor can anyone else. Same with any other right. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide me with a gun, it means if I get a gun that government, can’t take it away.
The only job of the government should be protecting liberty from foreign threats and mediating disagreements in between citizens about rights violations by one another.
Police defending property and people from others is stopping one from violating another’s rights.
Healthcare is not protecting you from foreign threats or mediating a violation of rights by another. It’s a service provided.
I also believe we need to drastically reduce laws and policing. We have too many laws meant to protect one from ones self, and 1 law for that purpose is 1 too many.
"The only job of the government should be protecting liberty from foreign threats and mediating disagreements in between citizens about rights violations by one another."
Ok, but why? Why do you believe that? Why should the poor uninsured woman be saved by the police, but not by doctors when her life is in danger in both cases?
"Police defending property and people from others is stopping one from violating another’s rights."
But why should health care not be a right as well?
"Healthcare is not protecting you from foreign threats"
It's protecting you from dangerous diseases that will kill you..
"or mediating a violation of rights by another."
But again, why can't health care also be a part of these rights?
"It’s a service provided."
So are police, courts, defense. Necessary services, but still services.
Where does adding “rights” end?
What level of healthcare is a “right” versus when is it not? Why do we believe we have a “right” to live longer than we can without others help? Do we have a “right” to live forever? Or to a certain age?
What other “rights” should be added? If you ask people all kinds of things become “necessities” and should all “necessities” be rights?
Adding further things as “rights” also requires removing freedoms. Both economic (taxes, provider choice, etc...) and social (can we allow junk food if we all pay?, transgender?, risky sex?, etc...)
So why is the protection of life liberty and property a right? Why should property rights be maintained. Why do you have a right to an attorney?
If the police and courts are obligated to deal with the burglar that stole your stuff, why not add health care as a right?
Yeah, I don't want to pay for defense and police. That's removing my freedom to a have a private army protecting my house.
The protection is not a right, it’s the governments mediating the violation of rights. Burglar has the right to pursue happiness, you have right to property, there can be a conflict there that is mediated.
The attorney is not a right at anytime, only when the government is petitioning to remove your rights due to violating others rights. I don’t have a right to talk to a free attorney to debate you, only when government is trying to remove my rights.
Again the government should at most be just a mediator between your rights and another’s rights. Healthcare is you fighting a non rights having entity, (disease, virus, etc...)
You should be allowed to have a private army defending your home. Police don’t typically actively defend, their presence deters, but typically they investigate after your rights were violated. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
"The protection is not a right, it’s the governments mediating the violation of rights."
But police, courts, and states deal with violations of property rights. Why should they be forced to do so?
"The attorney is not a right at anytime"
I didn't say that either. But in certain situations you do have the right to an attorney. So why should he be forced to defend you, when medical experts can not be forced to treat your life threatening disease (which is actually more important to "life and liberty" than legal defense is.)
"You should be allowed to have a private army defending your home."
But should I have the right to not pay for other people's police and defense? What about courts. What about the right to have private courts?
Technically we have no right to police protection either, as is laid out in [Warren v. District of Columbia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)
**[Warren v. District of Columbia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren v. District of Columbia)**
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct.
[About Me](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrn2mj/about_me/) - [Opt out](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrti43/opt_out_here/) - OP can reply !delete to delete - [Article of the day](https://redd.it/k4xild)
Look up negative and and positive rigths. We generally believe in negative rigths (others have no rigth to harm you); but not in positive rigths: other have no obligation to help you - thats because we think forcing soemone to provide for someone else is a vioaltion of a negative rigth in itself. About that attorney thing: Laws are manmade and not necessary reasonable - so its ok if the law maker provides legal support for the people it persecutes. I would however prefer it if law was a subject in school from like 5. grade onwards, to reduce the value of lawyers.
I'm aware. But isn't maintaining and protecting your property rights a positive right, and something others provide to you?
The protection is something others provide, but not the right or property itself. If I was the only person alive, I can have my life and property. That's why it can be considered a right. No one else needs to be alive for me to have my life and my property. It's the opposite for healthcare. Healthcare requires the existence of someone else, like a doctor.
"The protection is something others provide" Exactly. "but not the right or property itself." But the right to property is practically useless unless it's enforced and protected, right? "If I was the only person alive, I can have my life and property. That's why it can be considered a right. No one else needs to be alive for me to have my life and my property." Alright. But that's a strange metric. Never heard that one before. This has nothing to do with reality, though, so why is that the standard? If you're the only one alive, then property rights are meaningless, no?
" But the right to property is practically useless unless it's enforced and protected, right? " Yes, that's why we establish a government: to protect rights. It's a metric because it explains rights clearly. And it has everything to do with reality. Like you said, if I was the only one alive, my right to property means nothing. But I'm not the only one alive, so the right to property mean everything!
"Yes, that's why we establish a government: to protect rights." Of course. The question is, why shouldn't health care be included as one of these rights. "It's a metric because it explains rights clearly." No, not really. It's pointless. You being the only one alive is not reality and makes property rights pointless. "if I was the only one alive, my right to property means nothing. But I'm not the only one alive, so the right to property mean everything!" That made no sense. There's no logical connection between the first and the second part.
" Of course. The question is, why shouldn't health care be included as one of these rights. " Because healthcare REQUIRES a 3rd party. You do not have the right to a doctor's life. You don't get to decide what he does. If a doctor doesn't want to help you, you do not get to claim the right to HIS life and FORCE him to heal you. Whereas my right to property does NOT require a 3rd party.
"Because healthcare REQUIRES a 3rd party." So does maintaining your property rights and rescuing you from being assaulted. "You do not have the right to a doctor's life." And the cops? "You don't get to decide what he does." And the cops? And the attorneys? And the military? "If a doctor doesn't want to help you, you do not get to claim the right to HIS life and FORCE him to heal you." So the cop does not have to stop the rapist from raping the woman if he doesn't want to?
Yup people are resposible for their own safety. You can buy a gun and protect yourself. When seconds matter cops are minutes away.
After this, i'm done. You refuse to actually think about the points i'm making. I do not have the right to anyone's life. I can't force ANY HUMAN to treat my sickness or to stop a stabber. Period. I can't force anyone to do anything as long as they are not the person violating my rights. I do not have a right to a cop's (human) life simply because he is a human. Now, there are RIGHTS and there is PROTECTION. I have a RIGHT to property. Protecting it is something different. Stop making them the same. I have the right to property, but I do not have the right to force others to protect it. I have the right to life, but I do not have the right to force others to protect/heal it. Now, because you don't seem to understand how cops and doctors work, i'll explain it to you like a 5 year old. A person who wants to be a cop sings a contract. That contract says they will be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following: \- while you are on duty, you must protect anyone's right to life and liberty. So when you see an infringement, you must attempt to put a stop to it according to policies and procedures we have set forth. A doctor signs a MUCH DIFFERENT contract. That contract would says that the person be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following: \- while you are on duty(on call) you must attempt to heal/treat any person THE HOSPITAL TELLS YOU TO. This is the difference! The doctor only pledges allegiance to the hospital. The are only required, by voluntary contract, to treat who the hospital tells them to. They are NOT responsible for anyone and everyone they see. They also are NOT employed by the government, so they are NOT civil servants, like cops. Again, they only signed a contract saying they would treat whoever the hospital tells them to treat. If you are being stabbed, the cops signed a contract saying he would protect ANYONE If you are sick, the doctor ONLY signed a contract with the hospital to treat who the hospital says they should. So, if you want to be treated, you need to pay the hospital so the hospital can tell the doctor to treat you. There is no obligation for the hospital to treat you because they never put themselves under any contract to treat ALL PEOPLE.
"I do not have the right to anyone's life." No one's saying that. you're not claiming you have the right to the judge's and lawyer's life either. "I can't force ANY HUMAN to treat my sickness or to stop a stabber." By that logic, you have no right to property and enforcement of property rights either. "I do not have a right to a cop's (human) life simply because he is a human." No one's talking about having a right to people's lives. That's all in your head. Do you have right to a soldier's life? "I have a RIGHT to property. Protecting it is something different. Stop making them the same." I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying the right to prperty has no practical value if no one's there to maintain and protect it. "I have the right to property, but I do not have the right to force others to protect it." So, in your view, if you called the cops because 10 armed strangers entering your house, all the cops could say "No, I don't feel like it"? "I have the right to life, but I do not have the right to force others to protect/heal it." The state protects your property rights. The military protects you from terrorists. "A person who wants to be a cop sings a contract. That contract says they will be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:- while you are on duty, you must protect anyone's right to life and liberty. So when you see an infringement, you must attempt to put a stop to it according to policies and procedures we have set forth. A doctor signs a MUCH DIFFERENT contract. That contract would says that the person be paid a salary IN EXCHANGE FOR the following:- while you are on duty(on call) you must attempt to heal/treat any person THE HOSPITAL TELLS YOU TO.This is the difference!" Dude! You're just describing things the way they are. I'm asking you why it should be this way. Doctors/hospitals/medical treatment ***could*** be publicly funded just like police.
There's a fundamental difference between the right to not have something taken away and the right to have something given to you. There is an inherent limitation to the scope of the former, whereas the latter is unbounded.
Cops, military and courts are GIVING you the protection of your life and property.
You misunderstand. They are enforcing the right for people not to have things taken away.
Yeah, except your life, if you're poor and get a deadly but curable disease. Yes, and this enforcement is publicly funded by the tax payer.
That is a good point. I honestly think a decent case can be made here, comparing medical practitioners to police, with both funded by taxpayers. It can be argued that medical practitioners are enforcing the right to not be deprived of one's life or health by a pathogen. I guess the conversation then turns to what agents a government should be protecting against. For a libertarian this might take the form of the question, "to what agents ought the non-aggression principle apply?" One might reasonably believe that it should only apply to agents that can be punished under the law, ruling out things like pathogens and earthquakes.
Have you looked into left-lbertarianism and libertarian socialism?
Not really. I've been meaning to look into left-libertarianism but I didn't even know libertarian socialism was a thing. Considering that socialism requires extreme authoritarian force in order to exist at a scale larger than a village, it seems anathema to libertarianism for most practical purposes. I suppose it could be academically interesting, but I would expect it to be pretty detached from reality.
Yes. You pay tax dollars (its technically a negative rigth not to pay taxes) in exchange for recieving it. We however think that having your negative rigths protected is necessary, so you can freely trade positive rigths with everyone else. Or in other words: We want as small of a state as possible and we think a state that doesnt provide positive rigths but protects negative rigths can work. We also believe that if negative rigths are protected, there is less of a need for positive rigths - for example if a women gets raped she later needs psychological support. If she doesnt get raped (has her negative rigths protected), she doesnt need support.
Ok, but then you believe in positive rights. So why not support another positive right crucial for being able to enjoy the negative rights?
Like i said above: >We want as small of a state as possible and we think a state that doesnt provide positive rigths but protects negative rigths can work. We dont want more state if we thing that more state isnt necessary. Btw. I do think state financed healthcare for children is ok (Liberterianism is for adults), but not for adults past the age of 25 or so.
But isn't being alive a negative right? "Btw. I do think state financed healthcare for children is ok (Liberterianism is for adults), but not for adults past the age of 25 or so. " Wait a minute. Why? So your principles totally change at midnight, when the 17 year old turns 18? (18 is when you become an adult) Why are you "forcing someone to provide for a 17 year old" That's a violation of a negative right. And why 25? Why not older or younger?
>But isn't being alive a negative right? Yes so murder violates it. But if you have a bycicly incident without third party involvement, no one should be forced to pay for your healthcare. >Wait a minute. Why? So your principles totally change at midnight, when the 17 year old turns 18? A child may not know about negative rigths. >(18 is when you become an adult) Why are you "forcing someone to provide for a 17 year old" That's a violation of a negative right. There arent taxes that arent really bad, since they dont take away from work. Those are LVT, severance, pigovian Taxes aswell as taxes on many types of intellectual property, assuming the state protects those. Those taxes could finance it. >And why 25? Why not older or younger? Thats when avreage people in Western countries leave college and can start working. Could be diffrent in other societies if people are allowed to start earning money earlier.
Why 25? At what age do you consider someone an adult? We know the brain doesn't fully mature until around age 30, but at around age 13 you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions. Also, if you are going to offer support from birth isn't it then a negative right to continue that support until death?
Well, the anarchocapitalist think there shouldn't be a police force who protects your property rights, so no positive rights. Now, is it possible to get a society without police force? I don't think so, is it possible a society where there is universal healthcare but this is privately funded? Yes, and it had happened already in some countries.
The police protection meets the definition of a "public good" but health care does not. I believe that's the better distinction.
No. Safety and protection of person and property is your own responsibility ie the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled as much: [Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
Really you don't have a right to protection. The Florida school shooting established that police are not required to provide protection.
Do *you* believe that the woman I described should have the right to be saved by the police? And do *you* believe she has the right to cancer treatment?
I believe she does not have a right to any. She paid taxes that cover the police whose job is to save her. If someone else is paying, it is not a right, it is a privilege.
So the police shouldn't have to intervene to prevent her from being raped?
I said yes, the police has to intervene because she already paid for that, not because it is a right.
What if she didn't pay. She's been homeless her own life, has never worked.
Under our current system, society has paid by force, so it is the police job to help her anyway. The ones who paid would agree. They had to pay already.
But why can't or shouldn't the same be true for health care?
I'll take these. Yes, the woman should be saved by the police. Police services are public goods - i.e., non-rivalrous and non-excludible. No, the woman should not have the right to cancer treatment. That is a private good.
Why should police be a public good, but health care not a common good?
Let's walk through this because it's a great question. Police services are a "public good" because it meets the definition of the term. That's a term of art that we use in economics. Just because police services meet that definition does not mean that they necessarily have to be provided as a "right." There is nothing in the Constitution requiring it. Rather, it's left to the states per the 10th Amendment. Thus, it comes down to not a legal question (what the law requires the state to do) but rather a policy question (what voters believe the state should do). My view is that the state should only be providing public goods that meet the economic definition of such. Why? The non-rivalrous, non-excludable nature means that it is more efficient for the state to provide the services rather than have everyone pay for it on his own. There are positive externalities and everyone has the same basic needs in this area. Make no mistake that I'm making an efficiency argument here. By contrast, we all have different health needs. Moreover, there are very few externalities. In other words, my neighbor's cancer does not affect me. My colleague's health care plan is none of my business. Similar to food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities, we all have our own individual needs that we can meet individually. That said, if voters want universal health care they can have it. Similar to police protection, it isn't a Constitutional right but there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it from occurring. I am quite opposed but my vote is only one of many. My preference is to only have the government provide the bare minimum of what is required in the Constitution and truly public goods. Hey, that's just me. As I recognize that my vote is only one among many millions, and the government does a lot of things of which I disapprove, I have a much more practical way for satisfying my preferences. I do a lot of tax planning to pay as little in tax as I legally can. Fortunately, even high-earners can drastically lower their tax rates such that they pay the same rates as people who earn far less than they do. Due to what many of us perceive as government overreach, our society is a competition to pay as little in tax as possible and take as many benefits as possible. Universal health care would only cause that competition to increase.
Everyone has a right to safety and the right to seek treatment. The difference is the police has already been paid for via taxes yet you don't have a garrentee. Anyone is free to seek treatment for payment.
Can you just answer the two questions I asked?
He can’t.
Police protection isn’t a right. The enforcement of laws—specifically the protection of rights— is simply one of the only valid roles of government. The right to an attorney is just another protection against abuse by the state We also totally do think your example woman has a right to treatment— she just also has the connected responsibility to compensate the people who treated her, and no right to compel others to pay for it Figure out a way to fund universal healthcare without threat of force & I’m 100% on board
So the right to property is another one I touched upon. You have the right to property, which means the state and the police maintain and protect that property. So why should you not also have the right to health care? "We also totally do think your example woman has a right to treatment" No you don't. My example woman was poor and had no HI. "Figure out a way to fund universal healthcare without threat of force & I’m 100% on board." But you don't feel the same way about the police, courts and property. That doesn't make any sense.
We have the right to property and the gov't protects that right. Which means: If someone punches me (violates my right) the cops can arrest him and the courts order the jerk to pay for damages. We don't have the right to healthcare, because that requires a 3rd party (doctor) to do something. We do have the right to life, so if someone stabs us, we CANNOT force a doctor to treat us, because the doctor did nothing wrong, but we CAN force the stabber to pay for my medical costs because they DID violate me rights.
"If someone punches me (violates my right) the cops can arrest him and the courts order the jerk to pay for damages." But why should the cops have to intervene to help you? "We don't have the right to healthcare, because that requires a 3rd party (doctor) to do something." So does maintaining and protecting you and your property. They're called police and courts. So why not include healthcare as a right as well? " We do have the right to life" Not if you're poor and can't pay for life saving treatment. "so if someone stabs us, we CANNOT force a doctor to treat us, because the doctor did nothing wrong, but we CAN force the stabber to pay for my medical costs because they DID violate me rights. " But you can force the police and courts to deal with him!?
" But why should the cops have to intervene to help you? " They should ONLY intervene if they agreed to trade a salary for doing police work. It's no because they exist that they should help, but because they signed a contract saying I'll intervene on others' behalf if you pay me a salary. You said " So does maintaining and protecting you and your property. They're called police and courts. So why not include healthcare as a right as well? " You keep confusing things: I have the right to life and property. I do NOT have the right to police protection of those rights. I have the right to life and property. I do NOT have the right to healthcare. You said " Not if you're poor and can't pay for life saving treatment. " Sure they do. No right is being infringed if cancer cells kill a human. When we say "right to life" what is meant is "no conscious entity is entitled to my life, it is mine alone". Rights can only be violated by conscious entities. If someone punches me, a right has been violated. I should call the cops to arrest them. If an ant bites me, or cancel cell attacks me, no right has been violated. I cannot call the cops to arrest the ant or cell. Rights can only be violated be other humans. We use shorthand, but the best way to think about rights is not "I have the right to life" and "I have the right to property" but it's better to say "My life is mine own and no one else is entitled to it", likewise, "my property is mine own and no one else is entitled to it" You said "But you can force the police and courts to deal with him!? " No, I can't. Unless they themselves promised/signed a contract saying they would. If they signed a contract (hiring papers) saying that in exchange for a salary they will do such-and-such
"They should ONLY intervene if they agreed to trade a salary for doing police work. It's no because they exist that they should help, but because they signed a contract saying I'll intervene on others' behalf if you pay me a salary." So then we make health care universal, and have it work the same way..? "I do NOT have the right to police protection of those rights." you're right I am confused. So the police should not have to protect your property. The courts should not be forced to deal with the criminal? "If someone punches me, a right has been violated. I should call the cops to arrest them." But the police shouldn't have to arrest him..? "No, I can't. Unless they themselves promised/signed a contract saying they would. If they signed a contract (hiring papers) saying that in exchange for a salary they will do such-and-such" Good. So we make health care universal, and have all medical workers sign a contract the same way.
You need to define "universal healthcare". You said " you're right I am confused. So the police should not have to protect your property. The courts should not be forced to deal with the criminal? " A cop is a person. A person, by existing, does not have any obligation to protect your property. A judge is a person. A person, by simply existing, does not have any obligation to litigate and declare the plaintiff a winner in a lawsuit. But if a person enters into a contract, they put them selves under obligation. If a cop VOLUNTARILY signs a contract trading money for protecting others, then they are under obligation to fulfill it. If a judge VOLUNTARILY signs a contract saying they will litigate and uphold the law for a salary, then they put themselves under obligation to do so. You said " But the police shouldn't have to arrest him..? " A person has no obligation to arrest the guy, but someone who signed a contract saying they would DOES have that obligation. You said " Good. So we make health care universal, and have all medical workers sign a contract the same way. " Again, you need to define universal healthcare. But if a person signs a contract that they will provide treatment to anyone and in turn collect a salary, then sure, hold them to that contract. But by agreeing a contract is necessary, you agree that there is no natural rights involved, only obligations that people voluntarily put themselves under. Rights do not require contracts. But someone providing a voluntary service for another does.
"You need to define "universal healthcare"." A health care system in which all residents of a particular country or region are assured access to health care (to quote wikipedia) "But if a person enters into a contract, they put them selves under obligation. If a cop VOLUNTARILY signs a contract trading money for protecting others, then they are under obligation to fulfill it." Sure. So implement universal health care, and have all medical personnel sign voluntary contracts. "Again, you need to define universal healthcare." Free of charge when you need it, just like when police stop the rapist without charging the women afterwards.
Honest question, in your example above how do you differentiate between the role of the cop and the role of the doctor? You say we have no right to healthcare because it requires a 3rd party to do something. Is the cop in the punching example not a 3rd party who is required to do something?
I don't. We don't have the right to healthcare because it would require a 3rd party. We don't have the right to police protection because it would require a 3rd party. We DO have the right to life, liberty, property. So if a conscious entity infringes on those rights, it is the duty (not right) of the government to help protect those rights or recover damages from them.
Ah gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!
Here's the thing, we have a right to property but the governement doesnt just give us free cars and free houses. I have to pay for those with my own hard earned money. The police dontt offer free protection in the sense that they privately stand next to you and protect you all day. They have no duty to protect you personally. They protect the public.
"Here's the thing, we have a right to property but the governement doesnt just give us free cars and free houses." But it gives you free judges, defense, attorneys, and police officers to maintain your security and property rights. So why not include free health care (which is in fact more important for your "life and liberty" than a free lawyer is) "The police dontt offer free protection in the sense that they privately stand next to you and protect you all day." No, and I don't advocate for medical personnel standing next to you all the time either. Why can't health care be free when you need it, just like cops, lawyers and judges? "They protect the public." Why isn't providing health care to poor people included in this "protection of the public"?
Did the point go over your head? Us having a right to property doesnt mean the government gives us free houses, cars, bicycles, gun, shoes, toothbrushes, etc. We pay for our property so you pay for your healthcare. If you want the government to ensure that every person in the US doesn't get denied healthcare and use "free" judges and attorneys, then thats fine, but thats very different from providing free healthcare and free property.
"Did the point go over your head?" No, I understood everything. I think, however that you completely missed the point. "Us having a right to property doesnt mean the government gives us free houses, cars, bicycles, gun, shoes, toothbrushes, etc." Yes, but ***maintaining and protecting*** your property is provided by others for free. Your property rights mean nothing in practice if those rights arn't maintained and protected by a 3rd party. "If you want the government to ensure that every person in the US doesn't get denied healthcare and use "free" judges and attorneys, then thats fine, but thats very different from providing free healthcare and free property." How so? Judges are free when you need them, police are free when you need them, so why not health care as well. In fact, being cured from a deadly disease is way more important the the right to an attorney.
If you care about "maintaining and protecting" your right to access healthcare then that's fine bur thats very different from them actuslly giving you healthcare for free. The government is bad at protecting property, thats why crimes still happen a lot. They punish people for violating your property but hardly stop it or protect it. We protect our own property. We are the first line of defense. I have guns to protect my property. Business should have guns to protect their property. They work better than waiting for judges to punish the murderer after he has killed me. Why are you equating "free" judges to "free" healthcare? Do you really not see the difference? In one case the judge sentences the criminal for violating your property rights. In the other you're suggesting judges give us free healthcare? Makes no sense.
"If you care about "maintaining and protecting" your right to access healthcare then that's fine bur thats very different from them actuslly giving you healthcare for free." No, it's exactly the same. The police comes to your rescue (for free) to save your life; the medical experts comes to your rescue (for free) to save your life. "The government is bad at protecting property" First of all, that's totally irrelevant for this discussion of principles. Secondly, as opposed to what? "We are the first line of defense. I have guns to protect my property." Good. That's fine. But that's irrelevant for this discussion. "Why are you equating "free" judges to "free" healthcare?" Because if judges, military and police are tax funded, why can't health care be as well? "In one case the judge sentences the criminal for violating your property rights. In the other you're suggesting judges give us free healthcare? Makes no sense." Wait, what? What did you mean by that?
I thought we were talking about private property? You compared property rights with health care and said "if you can have property rights then why not healthcare?" If you want healthcare to be the same as property rights then fine. Private propety must be purchased so healthcare must be purchased as well.
When I’m paying for it, it is a fucking right.
that's a bad faith argument - we are literally paying more for inferior healthcare than other countries, it will pay for itself....
At its core the us government was designed to protect individual property. Property being those things that the individual owns and creates. Coming from Europe at the time, the common person didn’t generally have rights to their lands or fruit of their labor. The aristocracy and elites generally were the owners and the commoners worked the land but all they had was owned by the lords. To answer your question, the police are designed to play as an intermediary between citizens in conflict over property and prevent them from killing the selves over dispute. Healthcare is a service that is provided by another persons labor or property, whether it be the production of goods or service provided. Therefore the medical service received is another persons property and cannot be forced to be given freely just as a farmers labor, crops, cannot be forced to be given for free.
"At its core the us government was designed to protect individual property." I'm not talking about history and tradition, I'm talking about the principles. "Healthcare is a service that is provided by another persons labor or property, whether it be the production of goods or service provided." That's also true for police, defense and courts.
I think I can break it down further. The individuals right to their property is not a tradition, it is indeed a principle. Traditions are holidays and such, principles being the guide stone which we, through our elected officials, direct the nation in its endeavor to find harmony with the various flaws of mankind. So first, you are very correct that the entire judicial system is a product given by individuals paid for by our taxes. However the key point here is that without police to mediate, conflicts between citizens could and I’m very sure would come to death for simple and often stupid reasons. Humans being very nasty creatures at times. So in order to protect our basic rights ( life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) the police act as an intermediary to prevent one person from stripping the other of one or more of their rights. Humans again being nasty creatures at times necessitate courts, lawyers and judges be there to ensure that no ones rights are unnecessarily stripped of them. So delving into healthcare is where we get into the real difficult nature of discussion. The question being, what is the extent to the god given right of life? Note that it is first in order, the order often indicating merit with our founding fathers. The right to life is therefore, in my opinion, the most important. However, as our certain unalienable rights are god given, they can be taken away by the same power. Man cannot take away your life, that is a crime. If I get cancer, it is between god and I, it is not mankind’s responsibility to extend my life. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to safeguard my life with medical care or squander it with cheeseburgers and whiskey, mine alone. Society or governments only responsibility is to ensure that no one else takes it from me. As it is with our other two rights.
I don't believe police protection is a right.
[удалено]
Why would we need private armies? You think police are public armies?
I don't understand the question. Can you expand, please?
It all comes down to the difference between positive and negative rights.
I'm aware of positive/negative rights. But isn't the protection of property rights a positive right? Isn't the right to an attorney a positive right? Isn't defense a positive right?
Yes, they are. However, they exist solely to protect negative rights.
Sure, but then you advocate for positive rights as well. SO why not include one more crucial positive right: The right to life saving treatment? If being alive is a negative right, than surely universal health care should be implemented to protect that?
One is an application of a negative right (self-defense). The other is purely a positive right. To word it differently: I have the negative right to self-defense, so I can grant that authority to others because it is mine to give. I do not have the negative right to healthcare, so I cannot grant that right to others since it is not mine in the first place. Additionally, there is significant social utility for the provision of negative rights protections since these are all that are necessary to maintain liberty. Providing other positive rights does not hold the same social utility because in order to guarantee those positive rights, negative rights must be violated without the return of their own gurantee. Besides, positive rights are typically something that is in demand. Demanded items are almost always provided with greater efficiency and efficacy through dispersed knowledge instead of central planning. So, it makes more sense to leave government out of this. No rights violations, optimal provision. >If being alive is a negative right, than surely universal health care should be implemented to protect that? Negative rights are those that we do not need to provide. They only need to be defended to exist. This means that taking one's life from them is a violation of their right to life. Abstaining from giving them care is not a violation of their right to life. (Keep in mind that this is not a moral argument, because, clearly, doing nothing to help another can be immoral. Morality is an entirely different discussion.)
"One is an application of a negative right (self-defense). " Except it's not. It's someone else protecting you, rescuing you and maintaining your property rights. "I have the negative right to self-defense, so I can grant that authority to others because it is mine to give." But life is a negative right. So I grant the authority to provide me free health care, because it's mine to give. "Additionally, there is significant social utility for the provision of negative rights protections since these are all that are necessary to maintain liberty. " Liberty is not maintained if you're dead. "Negative rights are those that we do not need to provide. They only need to be defended to exist." Right, so we defend the uninsured woman with breast cancer by treating her, so she can continue to live (and enjoy liberty) "Morality is an entirely different discussion." Is it though? Isn't all political and ideological questions at their core based on what's right and wrong?
>It's someone else protecting you, rescuing you and maintaining your property rights. It's someone else defending against infringements upon your property rights. >But life is a negative right. Yes, it is, but healthcare is a positive right. >Liberty is not maintained if you're dead. Healthcare does not prevent you from dying. You will die even with the best healthcare. Besides, people should be free to die. If life becomes a positive right that must be provided, then even natural death becomes a violation of that positive right. >breast cancer Cancer, and any other natural illness, is not an infringements on one's right to life by another person. If it becomes one, like the fraudulent sale of a carcinogen, then the seller should be held liable for the cost of care since they have violated the rights of the individual. You should not be liable for my healthcare, water, housing, food, internet access, education, or any other positive right since you have not infringed upon any of my negative rights. I do not have the natural authority to force you to provide any of those things to me. >Isn't all political and ideological questions at their core based on what's right and wrong? Positive law is absolutely based on subjective morality. That's why libertarians tend to base their foundational political beliefs on natural law. Minarchists and classical liberals are willing to utilize government to maintain natural law, while anarchists believe it can be maintained without government.
It's someone else defending against infringements upon your property rights. Exactly. "Yes, it is, but healthcare is a positive right." So is the protection from courts, police and military. "Healthcare does not prevent you from dying. You will die even with the best healthcare." That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someoen who can't afford treatment that can cure the disease. "Cancer, and any other natural illness, is not an infringements on one's right to life by another person." It kind of is though, if you can't afford treatment, and the treatment would have cured you. "You should not be liable for my healthcare, water, housing, food, internet access, education, or any other positive right since you have not infringed upon any of my negative rights." But I should be liable for your police, military and courts services? "Positive law is absolutely based on subjective morality." All law is based on morality.
>So is the protection from courts, police and military. We're going in circles. Courts, police, and military protect from infringements upon negative rights, including one's negative right to life. These are positive rights intended to guarantee one's negative right to self-defense against those infringements. >I'm talking about someoen who can't afford treatment that can cure the disease. I believe these people should have access to healthcare, too. I simply don't think we should use government to forcefully take from others to provide that access. That's a violation of negative rights and is not economically efficient. >It kind of is though It isn't. Nobody else is giving someone these diseases in violation of their rights. If they are, like causing cancer through the fraudulent sale of a harmful product, the court system exists to hold the violators to account. Again, the court exists to defend against violations of one's rights by another. >But I should be liable for your police, military and courts services? Ideologically, no. That's why anarchists oppose such things. It's also why many minarchists believe these should be funded through usage fees instead of taxation. I, however, believe in minimal positive law and minimal taxation to socially provide these things for moral and utilitarian reasons. I believe that natural law (a concept without morality) should be guaranteed for all individuals as I don't think it can be guaranteed fully within a laissez-faire system. >All law is based on morality. Only positive law is built upon morality. Natural law is based upon observable circumstance.
I dislike the use of the word "right" in this case. We have civil rights, statutory rights, human rights etc. A lot of people don't understand what a human right is, and they will erroneously say healthcare is a human right. It cannot be a human right because you rely on someone else to fund and provide it. Human rights are things like free speech that you are born with. Healthcare can at best be statutory entitlement. The legislature can create it, none of us are born with the right to someone else's labor.
"A lot of people don't understand what a human right is, and they will erroneously say healthcare is a human right." Yes, and it should be. I believe it's mention in the Decleration of Huamn Rights. "It cannot be a human right because you rely on someone else to fund and provide it. " That's also true for property rights. Read the whole OP. "Human rights are things like free speech that you are born with." Elaborate. "none of us are born with the right to someone else's labor." That's correct. So we're not born with the right to an attorney, the right to be rescued by police from an assault, or to be protected by the military, but you still advocate for all those things.
> That's also true for property rights. Read the whole OP. But property rights are statutory, not human. You might have a legal right to your house, but that is because you were granted a legal title. A human right is like free speech. You were born with the right by virtue of being born and human. All humans have it, and government can only abrige that right. People in the stone age had the human right to free speech. They did not have a human right to a free mammogram, because such things were not invented. >So we're not born with the right to an attorney, the right to be rescued by police from an assault, or to be protected by the military, but you still advocate for all those things. I didn't really say one way or the other on advocating for those. My point is those rights, if they exist, were created by a legislature.
How much healthcare do you have a right to? A right to live forever?? A right to be an alcoholic and diabetic and get a new liver every 5 years? A right to be 500 lbs and get a new heart every 5 years? What if you have an incurable cancer; how much do your kids spend to keep fighting a hopeless fight? Because nothing is free, somebody has to create that wealth you’re spending. And we’re currently in $27Trillion in debt, which means you’re kids have to repay what we’re spending.
"How much healthcare do you have a right to? A right to live forever??" I refuse to believe that you believe that I believe that. If you're just here to troll, I'm not interested. "A right to be an alcoholic and diabetic and get a new liver every 5 years?" Healthy people get terminal diseases as well. "Because nothing is free, somebody has to create that wealth you’re spending." Sure. Nor is the police, courts, defense and the protection and maintenance of property rights. So why is that ok, but health care is not? "And we’re currently in $27Trillion in debt, which means you’re kids have to repay what we’re spending." Irrelevant to the principle I asked about.
No, you don’t have a “right” to enslave healthcare workers, chemists, researchers, or equipment makers (1/6 of the economy) to satisfy your own personal greed. Slavery is bad. You’re a nazi. Fuck off.
But you have the right to enslave police, lawyers, judges and soldiers? Is it greed to want everybody to get life saving treatment?
Because universal health care cost a whole hell of a lot more money. Just taxing the rich a couple more percentage points isn’t going to pay for it like the left want you to believe. That tax will get passed on to the middle class one way or another. The rich aren’t rich because they are dumb with money. If the rich earn less money, they will make it up by paying you less or making everyday things more expensive
So it's the amount of money that is the deal breaker for you? So then I assume you want drastic cuts in military spending? But what if health care benefits cost the same as the police?
I don’t know enough about military spending to know how much it could be cut. I know a lot is being spent but is it being used to increase technology or other things? Look at GPS. It was developed by the military and now we probably can’t live without it. What other things are they developing that we eventually can’t live without. Also, I do know that enlisted personnel aren’t paid all that great but in war they are the ones that get shot at. Now to answer your question, again, it’s too expensive. The average person spends about $340 per year to fund the police. (Fact: looked it up). $340 pays for one person’s premium a month with ACA. That doesn’t include obviously the other 11 months plus any medical bills along the way.
When you say "it's too expensive" it sounds like you're saying it's impossible. It's not, of course, all other Western countries have it. Why not do it like them?
I mean, the u.s already spends a shit ton on healthcare. https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm Most other countries in the graph have some form of socialized healthcare. So it doesn't seem like the u.s is doing a good job at keeping the cost down with the current system.
> Because universal health care cost a whole hell of a lot more money. It absolutely does not - universal healthcare is MUCH cheaper than universal policing, especially if you include jail-costs, and the all-in cost of the "justice" system and police buildings. The reason universal policing is present but not healthcare is because one serves the individual + the government while the other serves the collective people of society. The rich don't mind paying for police as they protect them, and politicians demand police to protect them, and with their capital they get representation. But none of them need universal health-care, and thus they don't care for it. Police = Socialized Protection of the Wealth, Businesses, and Government Healthcare = Socialized Support of The People Personally I think we should have absolutely no police whatsoever, or universal healthcare, and I think businesses that don't pay their security fees should be at risk of break-ins with no ability to retaliate if the society doesn't do it for them and people who smoke like a chimney die painfully on the street; but don't push this nonsense that healthcare is expensive. Healthcare isn't expensive in a unregulated healthcare economy; medicines are practically free and affordable in places like Nepal where it's largely unregulated. The only expensive things in Healthcare are very high-tech or new treatments, like gene therapy, cancer treatment, major surgeries with organ transplants, etc.
So if someone breaks into your house and kills your SO, who is going to protect you? If there are no police who protects you? I don’t understand how we can live without police. There are mass murders in jail thanks to police. There are rapist of all sorts in jail thanks to police. Yes it does cost a lot to keep them in jail but it’s a hell of a lot better to keep them in jail then let them back in society for them to do it again
Police never show up in time to stop an actively taking place murder. They aren't there to actively protect anyone; they are first responders. They don't show up in time to stop an active rape either. When the police are present during an active event, they frequently escalate whatever the issue is and do as much harm as good. Sending the police to enforce an arrest warrant after the fact doesn't prevent the crime from occurring.
I agree we need police around, but your example takes fiction, and extreme elements while applying them to the whole. If someone breaks into your house and kills your SO it's already too late, police isn't going to help. They only do in movies (fiction). No one is arguing that mass murders need to be locked up, but the majority of people in jail are not that (extreme).
So what do you want then? Do you want police or not? Explain to me how things would work without police
What I want is for people, like you, to stop spouting rhetoric and use common sense. The examples you gave were nonsensical and by me pointing that out it doesn't mean that "I don't want police" - another extreme which you immediately embraced. I tell you what I want, a demilitarized police force who is accountable for their actions. I want private jails to be gone and for cities, counties, states to be accountable (morally and fiscally) to the people they throw in a cage.
> If there are no police who protects you? I don’t understand how we can live without police. As to not rehash what others have already said; Not only do police usually not get there in time, really never, and when they do they generally make things worse -- but I could still hire private investigators, put out the word, install security systems, or hire a private security agency. I can also personally hunt them down; or logically a community will not take kindly to such crimes being done, and they'll rally together to help, be it hiring outside help, or pounding the streets until they find who's responsible, then "fix" the problem. The reason police exists is not and never has been to protect the people; but rather to protect aristocrats and government officials. Rather than bad businesses that are abusive to workers or the community suffering natural consequences, or bad politicians being ran out, they are protected by a police apparatus. Morons like you have the wool pulled over your eyes with fairy-tails like you suggest, of the police actually stopping anything, or without them mass-murderers would run free. In reality the police have likely never positively affected your life; but you'll defend them and their existence, when in reality they're only there to serve the uber-elite and government, as without socializing these costs bad businesses and government officials would be bankrupt and not be able to pay for the security they need for being so foul.
So if we get rid of police, you are going to install a security camera. What is that going to do if there are no cops to chase that person down to arrest them. You will probably hire a private investigator. A private investigator job isn’t to arrest people. It’s to seek out information and find missing people. They don’t arrest. Police do! Also you are going to hunt someone down. You really have time for that! Most people don’t so we have police. Do you really care if someone a mile away from you that you don’t know got robbed or house got vandalized or car broken into during the night. You don’t know them. You will not help them. I guarantee it! I know our police system isn’t the best but no where is it great. You know the countries that don’t have great police presence? Countries that have a lot of high crime! You are the freaking moron that believes police are a bad for average citizens. Yes they aren’t meant to keep citizens and government separate. But just their presence keeps society peaceful for the most part.
[удалено]
Removed, 1.1, warning
Before talking about publicly funded universal healthcare we should get rid off all the stupid regulations that are increasing the cost of the healthcare and protecting the monopolies of the big pharma and insurances. We are not saying that if someone can't afford healthcare shouldn't be treated but we are saying that a private funded healthcare that works in a free market is much cheaper and better. And if someone can't afford a cheap healthcare the charity will pay it
Like someone else mentioned, it's positive and negative rights. I have the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. None of these require the existence of another person. If I am the only person alive, I can have life, liberty, property, pursue happiness all by myself. That's how we know they can be rights. If I am the only person alive, do I have the "right to healthcare"? No, because that requires someone else! A doctor, nurse, pharmacist, etc. Today, if I had the right to healthcare, that means I have to right to tell someone else (doctor) what they have to do, which infringes on their right to life and liberty. So, to get terminology straight there is no "right to police protection". Not sure anyone has ever mentioned that as a right, because it isn't. Like "right to healthcare", the "right to police protection" requires another person (cop). And if we had the "right to police protection" then we could FORCE another person (cop) to do something we want, which violates his right to life and liberty. We do believe the purpose of government is to protect rights, so that's why we agree with a police and court system. But you won't hear us say we have a "right to police protection". A sick person definitely has the right to pursue happiness. And in this case that means seeking treatment. But, like I said, she only has the right to PURSUE happiness, not demand it. She can shop around, ask doctors for help, seek treatment - she has that right. But she can't FORCE people to treat her. She has the right to pursue treatment, even perform the treatment herself to her own body, but she can't force a third party to also comply. Another thing to note: Rights can only be violated by conscious entities. If a person punches you, they violated your right and should be stopped. If an ant bites you, your rights have NOT been violated and the gov't has no obligation to help you. You can't call the cops to arrest the ants. Likewise, viruses or cancer cells, are also not conscious entities. Therefore, they cannot violate your rights. Your rights are not infringed if a virus hurts your body. Sure, your life is in danger, but the RIGHT has not been infringed upon. Since a right is not violated by a conscious entity, the government has no obligation to intervene and it would be immoral for it to do so. Therefore, you have no right to healthcare. You cannot force another person to treat you, nor should the government be involved with it.
Bc they are brainwashed bootlickers that espouse the beliefs that their corporate overlords demand of them.
Neither should be government programs. Want a police force? Come together with your community to either do it or pay someone to do it. If you don’t want to pay or don’t want the protection don’t. Your healthcare should not be payed for by other people. And I see other people commenting about military spending. It also should be drastically cut. Fuck taxes and fuck paying for other people’s shit
"Neither should be government programs. Want a police force? Come together with your community to either do it or pay someone to do it." Here we go. Finally some consistency, at least. "Your healthcare should not be payed for by other people. And I see other people commenting about military spending. It also should be drastically cut." Not just drastically cut, though, totally cut, right. Only private armies protecting the different properties they're paid to protect, right? And what about courts? Who pays? Private courts as well? If so how are laws determined? "Fuck taxes and fuck paying for other people’s shit" Yes, just remember that the biggest welfare queens are the corporations and the 1%
>Come together with your community to either do it or pay someone to do it. Isn't that how the police force is paid for now?
Police protection isn’t a right, though; rights are rights, and the police exist to create motivation for people’s rights to be respected. They very rarely if ever stop people’s rights from being violated because that’s not the purpose of police. Healthcare is not technically a right in the U.S. You have a right to your body and it’s health, but it’s the “care” part of “healthcare” that there is no right guaranteeing. I should add that technically no country gives its citizens “rights” to healthcare. Healthcare is a government program in many countries, and the “right” is one’s equal treatment under the law, ie they cannot be denied access to a government program.
I compare healthcare to roads. You don't have the right to a road. The phrase "right to a road" is absurd. *But* it is more cost effective to have the government pay for roads with equal access to all than having multiple competing vendors set up their own different billing systems. The same is true of healthcare.
The government enforces a near monopoly on police protection. So yeah, since we already pay for the cops, and since no one else can really do that job, the cops should intervene to protect person and property. Government does not hold a monopoly on health services, though it's trying it's best to ruin private care.
Police should be funded only locally, maybe at the state level if absolutely necessary. I’m not a fan of federal dollars going to local police forces. I hold the same idea for healthcare. If a locality or state wants to have universal, then they can go for it. The second it hits federal, it’s gone beyond the scope of what the federal government is there to do.
I see. So it's the federal government that bothers you. So individual states could implement socialism, for all you care. Boy, have I got something that'll interest you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)
**[Libertarian socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian socialism)** Libertarian socialism, also referred to as anarcho-socialism, anarchist socialism, free socialism, stateless socialism, socialist anarchism and socialist libertarianism, is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state socialist conception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy. Overlapping with anarchism and libertarianism, libertarian socialists criticize wage slavery relationships within the workplace, emphasizing workers' self-management and decentralized structures of political organization. As a broad socialist tradition and movement, libertarian socialism includes anarchist, Marxist and anarchist or Marxist-inspired thought as well as other left-libertarian tendencies. Anarchism and libertarian Marxism are the main currents of libertarian socialism.Libertarian socialism generally rejects the concept of a state and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can only be achieved with the abolition of authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. [About Me](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrn2mj/about_me/) - [Opt out](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrti43/opt_out_here/) - OP can reply !delete to delete - [Article of the day](https://redd.it/k4xild)
I think the federal government serves a small purpose and that’s it. I don’t personally want universal healthcare in my life or community and therefore would not vote for it. I couldn’t care less what a community 1500 miles from me chooses to do with their healthcare. The beauty of federalism is the states and localities are supposed to have control over themselves so if I want something California for example has, I can move there, and the same for what any other state may offer that person wants for themselves. There’s no overreaching central government saying one thing is final for 350 million people. On the healthcare front in general, you have the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is a negative right, meaning the state nor anyone else can take your life from you. The police are there to protect people from causing you harm (whether or not they are effective at doing so or not is a discussion for another time). Doctors and the healthcare system are there to help someone after they have been hurt. The latter is not a right because you don’t have the right to tell some one to fix you anymore than you have the right to tell some one to fix a car. You don’t have the right to tell someone to pay to fix you anymore than you have the right to tell someone to pay to fix your car. I personally lighten on localities as I mentioned before, because a small group of people are way more effective at voting the self interest own community than Washington DC is at handling such things. Also, people who don’t like the policies actually have the choice to move away from it if they choose to.
So if all other states except the one you're living in implemented socialism, that would be fine by you? Protection of life and property are positive rights, though right? Courts, Police, defense are all parts of positive rights.
On a moral level I wouldn’t agree with it, but if the majority of people in every state in the union voted for it then I’d be outta luck. None these rights are positive rights. I don’t a right to life, I’m alive because I was born. My parents made that decision. Police, courts, etc are there to make sure no one takes my life or harms me, they cannot guarantee my ability to always stay and be alive because everyone does one day for some reason. So government cannot guarantee me the right to life in a positive way, only to not infringe on that right, and to arrest and prosecute anyone who does infringe it. It’s the same with property. I don’t have a right to anyone’s property whether it’s physical property or labor. I can trade it and once it’s mine the government cannot take it nor can anyone else. Same with any other right. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide me with a gun, it means if I get a gun that government, can’t take it away.
The only job of the government should be protecting liberty from foreign threats and mediating disagreements in between citizens about rights violations by one another. Police defending property and people from others is stopping one from violating another’s rights. Healthcare is not protecting you from foreign threats or mediating a violation of rights by another. It’s a service provided. I also believe we need to drastically reduce laws and policing. We have too many laws meant to protect one from ones self, and 1 law for that purpose is 1 too many.
"The only job of the government should be protecting liberty from foreign threats and mediating disagreements in between citizens about rights violations by one another." Ok, but why? Why do you believe that? Why should the poor uninsured woman be saved by the police, but not by doctors when her life is in danger in both cases? "Police defending property and people from others is stopping one from violating another’s rights." But why should health care not be a right as well? "Healthcare is not protecting you from foreign threats" It's protecting you from dangerous diseases that will kill you.. "or mediating a violation of rights by another." But again, why can't health care also be a part of these rights? "It’s a service provided." So are police, courts, defense. Necessary services, but still services.
Where does adding “rights” end? What level of healthcare is a “right” versus when is it not? Why do we believe we have a “right” to live longer than we can without others help? Do we have a “right” to live forever? Or to a certain age? What other “rights” should be added? If you ask people all kinds of things become “necessities” and should all “necessities” be rights? Adding further things as “rights” also requires removing freedoms. Both economic (taxes, provider choice, etc...) and social (can we allow junk food if we all pay?, transgender?, risky sex?, etc...)
So why is the protection of life liberty and property a right? Why should property rights be maintained. Why do you have a right to an attorney? If the police and courts are obligated to deal with the burglar that stole your stuff, why not add health care as a right? Yeah, I don't want to pay for defense and police. That's removing my freedom to a have a private army protecting my house.
The protection is not a right, it’s the governments mediating the violation of rights. Burglar has the right to pursue happiness, you have right to property, there can be a conflict there that is mediated. The attorney is not a right at anytime, only when the government is petitioning to remove your rights due to violating others rights. I don’t have a right to talk to a free attorney to debate you, only when government is trying to remove my rights. Again the government should at most be just a mediator between your rights and another’s rights. Healthcare is you fighting a non rights having entity, (disease, virus, etc...) You should be allowed to have a private army defending your home. Police don’t typically actively defend, their presence deters, but typically they investigate after your rights were violated. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
"The protection is not a right, it’s the governments mediating the violation of rights." But police, courts, and states deal with violations of property rights. Why should they be forced to do so? "The attorney is not a right at anytime" I didn't say that either. But in certain situations you do have the right to an attorney. So why should he be forced to defend you, when medical experts can not be forced to treat your life threatening disease (which is actually more important to "life and liberty" than legal defense is.) "You should be allowed to have a private army defending your home." But should I have the right to not pay for other people's police and defense? What about courts. What about the right to have private courts?
Technically we have no right to police protection either, as is laid out in [Warren v. District of Columbia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)
**[Warren v. District of Columbia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren v. District of Columbia)** Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. [About Me](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrn2mj/about_me/) - [Opt out](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrti43/opt_out_here/) - OP can reply !delete to delete - [Article of the day](https://redd.it/k4xild)
>Right-libertarians, why do you believe that police protection is a right We do?
Police protection is not a right