sooo....why is health care a human right? do you not see why that implies that someone is obligated to supply it without compensation? that's called slavery.
@prattleon Are we also not already obligated to supply the funds for the armed forces who protect every one of the rest of our rights? Why would you not consider that slavery?
@cobrompton Who said that the armed forces necessarily protects our rights? And why is a coercive monopoly on defense the only way to protect people? If i were to come to your house and repair something that you did not intend to repair, or that you wanted repaired either yourself or by another person, and then forced you to pay me for it, would that be ok? clearly not. why is it ok when the government does it?
@prattleon We pay taxes for The armed forces, law enforcement and a judicial system, all of which are charged with protecting and preserving our freedoms and our rights. How do you consider funding health care for all citizens slavery and not paying taxes for the rest of these services?
@cobrompton here's a simple fact you cannot avoid: if you claim health care is a right, then you are claiming that a provider of 'health care' MUST serve those who need their services, whether or not they wish to. in other words they are bound to servitude. shifting the burden from the healthcare provider to tax payers changes only where the injustice lies. this is, of course, absurd. anyone who claims health care is a right, has not thought clearly about what a right is or ought to be.
To claim that health care is a right is to claim that one person owes another person their labor simply because the person receiving the benefit of that labor exists. That is an absurd notion on its face. For one person to claim such a right, another person must necessarily be indebted to him from the start - by default - because the service being demanded has value, and that service will not have to be compensated for by the recipient due to a proclaimed birthright. How is that not slavery?
Instead of sourcing a whole document, try showing how this document supports your case. It saves a lot of time. It's like asking someone to do your homework. I could recommend whole books, but I won't because that would be unfair, and an effortless way to discuss any subject at all. Referring to important text from a book/document is another matter.
It is in fact quite the contrary. All conceptions of human rights are derived from self ownership. You have the right to your body, and the fruits of your labor. The idea that each and every individual is entitled to healthcare negates self ownership, the axiom by which all rights are derived, since the provision of healthcare requires the expenditure of time and labor, and to socialize it would require the expropriation of labor.
The way you describe self-ownership makes sound ironically like a collective right. Therein lies the problem..when self-ownership is defined in terms of private industry, it fails to recognize that this means the right to deprive others of rights.
One cannot make use of one's body or fruits of labour without being in good health. Additionally, private industry does not grant the labourers access to the full fruits of their labour.
Therefore, we can logically conclude that any conception of an inherent right to certain goods and services negates the idea that human beings own themselves and the fruits of their labor. All rights are derived from self ownership. If you do not own your body, you do not have rights.
The laborer's fruits are the wages they agreed to exchange their labor for. The right of self-ownership creates the other rights. One has a right of free speech only through a medium of their ownership. No one can tell a newspaper owner what to print but that owner, or government agency, cannot force someone to print something. You have freedom of speech as a result of ownership. No one has the right to come onto another's property and speak freely. It is a universal right not a collective one.
So what can I publish in if I do not own anything? Who chooses where my comments go? The government, the collective? Were is this right to free speech derived from? Why can the government or the collective simply say you cannot speak? Collective rights are not universal. My other point demonstrates this. I am forced to publish you in my paper so you right to free speech is protected but it may edge out a column I want to publish so my right to speech is damaged.
But you can speak. You can start your own newspaper and publish all you want. We both posses that same right to publish freely in our own newspaper. I have no need to hinder my speech for yours and you for mine. Your system relies on me hindering mine so you can claim some of my newspaper for an abstract right of speech. Where does that right come from? How can you have a right to part of my paper? My rights are rooted in the nature of man and property. Universal and absolute. Yours?
The right is not universal to both of us. It is granted to you but not me. On the other hand we both could own newspapers and print what we want without impeding each other. Then the right is extended universally.
I drowned you out not because I used force to stop you from speaking. People made a voluntary choice to listen to me instead of you. You can continue your freedom to publish your speech on paper with pencil. No one can stop you but you cannot force people to listen and pay you. You have to get them to do that voluntarily. If you wish to establish a free society, that is.
The expropriation of time and labour reduces the burden put on one person and also grants them the means to sustain a living for themselves. How is that against fundamental rights?
Under the current system, perhaps it is, since it is used as a pretext only to reduce wages.
I'm incredibly offended by anyone who would deny a life-saving operation to someone on the basis that they could not profit from it's provision.
Fairly splitting the burden is a way to promote, not to hinder "self-ownership".
Self ownership is defined as simply as stated, you own yourself. Refusing to relinquish your body and labor for the sake of others is not depriving anyone of their rights. Nobody owes you medical care. If a physician refused to provide you his services without compensation for his labor, he would not be depriving you of any right or coercing you in any manner.
However, if you were then to coerce him into providing you with the service, you would be depriving him of his right to his own labor. Forcing others to work for your sake is in explicit violation of self ownership and human rights.
Employers do nothing of the sort. People contract their time and energy voluntarily for their sustenance. Governments are the only institutions which demand servitude at gunpoint. If you do not relinquish your time and labor for the sustenance of government, you will be kidnapped and thrown into prison. You must relinquish your time and labor to government. You voluntarily relinquish your time and labor in the marketplace. That is the difference.
But as sole and exclusive owner of your body and labor, you don't HAVE to contribute it to any cause or relinquish it to any person. If you own your time and energy, it is yours to volunteer or not. Again, "positive rights" negates the idea that individuals own their bodies and labor. If you do not own your body, you do not own what that body produces, the fruits of your labor, and you consequentially have NO rights. Self ownership is the axiom by which ALL human rights are derived. Period!
"Right..you can just deny your labour to someone in need. Wait..I forgot..that's beneficial to NEITHER party!"
But coercing the physician to provide a service is a parasitic relationship in which one party benefits and the other party is robbed. Do you know what is mutually beneficial to BOTH parties? TRADE!
"Negative rights mean an obligation to refrain from interfering with something being done."
Yes. That is negative rights. It is called the "nonaggression principle" and it is voluntaryist. The free market is the economic expression of voluntaryism.
"Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
These assertions are both wrong! Where are you even getting these economic fallacies from? lol. I've never even heard them before. Companies are subject to what is known as "fair market price." If a company is making excess profit in any given industry, it serves as a warning signal for aspiring entreprenuers to enter the field and cut prices. Thus the price of goods and services is determined by the marketplace.
"Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
Consumers decide the products for consumption! Whenever you go out and make a purchase, you are casting your ballot for that particular good or service. If consumers do not purchase any good or service in significant quantities, that good or service will be taken off the market. The only way to make money in a market economy is to serve the consumer better than your competitors, thus in a market economy the consumer always wins.
"Only "choices" are: Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
The sheer irony of this statement is nearly impossible to fully appreciate or even comprehend. You are a COMMUNIST! ONLY in a command economy does the state determine the products consumers purchase, and actually establishes a "price fixing board" to determine the relative prices of items. Of course there can be no rational pricing in a command economic system. Your criticism only applies to your system! lol.
Each and every individual owns his body, and thus reserves the exclusive right to contract his labor, usually in some form of monetary exchange, to whomever he wishes. The individual calculates beforehand whether what is received in return for his time and energy is enough to be considered a profitable exchange.
Have I gone crazy or did you in fact assert that healthcare is a basic human right due to every person? There are only two models for service provision. In the marketplace is where goods and services are provided contractually and on a voluntary basis. By government services are provided coercively and at gunpoint. Either pay or get shot. That is how the government service model functions. Either pay or do not recieve a service is how businesses function.
If a physician wants to provide you his services without monetary compensation, being a self owner of himself and his labor, it is his right to do so, assuming your consent to his service. If a physician does not want to devote his time and energies into serving you, forcing him to serve you is stealing the products of his labor regardless of whether his refusal offends you or not.
The system brings negative results with this choice, hence it hinders that freedom.
In the case of health care, it is as basic a need as water you get from the taps. when you deny someone a life-saving surgery, you essentially steal the greatest thing of all--their life!
"when you deny someone a life-saving surgery, you essentially steal the greatest thing of all--their life!"
But if I am a self owner of body and labor, I reserve the exclusive right to contract my labor. Suppose I refuse to relinquish my time and energy without compensation, then what? To guarentee your right to healthcare, you would have to force me to serve you at gunpoint or steal from other people to compensate me. Both are coercive.
Expropriation of time and labor(or the money created) creates a life of substance and violates ownership. The newspaper owner is forced to sustain someone else's speech. That person has no right to force another to listen or pay them to speak. Quite the contrary, everyone has the right not to listen or pay because of ownership in property and self. These rights are derived from the clear nature of man and to violate the nature of man and those rights created by it is unethical.
If I do not want to give up a space in my paper for your column how are you going to get it published without force? You can start you own paper. Then you are doing the market a favor by introducing competition and enjoying the right of speech derived from ownership. Otherwise someone will have to force me to let you speak, in which case I am involuntarily supporting their speech, or have the paper taking away from me a depriving me of the speech I enjoyed when I had the paper.
Competition also lowers prices and raises living standards. How can you justify this use of force? You still have no ethical foundation for it. Why must one sacrifice their right to freely publish if it is so paramount? I only assume a right is absolute and universal. You continue do demonstrate a system of partial rights, aka privileges. BTW, what other rights are open to infringement and how far will that infringement go? Were does your government derive the ability to do so?
The point is not that the procedure would not make money but their may be not interest. Some doctors may do work for free because they are motivated to do so. Others may need monetary compensation. If I could I would treat people for free but I am not a physician nor would I have the money to afford the resources. By the way fair is subjective. Those having their money taken may not see it as fair. The point of self-ownership is that the fruits of you industry, as well as the burdens, are yours.
Chris, are you a HC professional? I think not, because you have no idea what you are asking. HC is a right, just like food & transportation & a job, etc.! I do not see any propositions for governmental regulation of Kroger or Exxon.
There are many steps that should be taken to prevent Universal HC. One is to give Physicians actual tax write-offs for seeing a legitimate indigent patient. This would end Medicaid. Check the Fed. CFR's. HC has been reg. to death! Malpractice is the next step!
"HC is a right, just like food & transportation & a job, etc.!"
Really!? And whose food do you have a right to? Whose car do you have a right to? Whose house do you have a right to? Whose labor do you have a right to? Now watch as your strawman conception of human rights comes crumbling down.
First off, I think that was sarcasm on their part. Regardless, everyone has a right to benefit from a collective pool of wealth that comes from everyone's contribution.
Currently, there is an unacceptable discrepancy in contribution that comes as a result of the system. When that systemic problem is addressed, the right to access what one produces will finally be put into practice.
Your complaints are based on an idea that self-ownership is promoted by wage slavery..which is demonstrably false.
It doesn't necessarily have to be by coercive means.
Oh and by the way, workers are coerced to provide labour for their employers, and the overall product of their collective labour results in, you guessed it, a collective pool of wealth. So you can see that, under the current system, a collective pool of wealth is being created through coercion.
Such coercion isn't necessary, as under a different system, people will produce on their own.
"Oh and by the way, workers are coerced to provide labour for their employers..."
So if I tried to quit my job at Taco Bell tomorrow, Taco Bell would hire agents to kidnap me and take me to work the next day, where i would be forced to make tacos at gunpoint? Individuals are NOT coerced in the marketplace! The marketplace is the ONLY place where goods and services are exchanged nonviolently and voluntarily!
Firstly, "slippery slope fallacy". By that logic you're suggesting that air we breathe should be privatized.
Secondly, "I do not see any propositions for governmental regulation of Kroger or Exxon."
Regulation, no, but it'd be foolish to deny that corporate welfare exists.
This begs the question, why prevent it? It shouldn't be prevented.
Regulated? Even if that were true, it would not negate the problem of health insurance providers being profit-driven, not driven by the need for health care.
People do privatize air. They sell them in big steel tanks. If you are suggesting the air we breath should be privatized, ownership rights puts an end to that nonsense. You own the air above your property as much as you own the ground you have homesteaded. In a world of private roads and the like the business attracted, and the cost to police the air, would create enough incentive to leave the air free to breathe. Of course the person or company would be free to erect a dome if they please.
"If you are suggesting the air we breath should be privatized, ownership rights puts an end to that nonsense. You own the air above your property as much as you own the ground you have homesteaded." Exactly, you have to pay someone for that. You didn't start off owning it at all.
I might be slow in replying as I have others matters to attend to.
True, where there's high cost now that might be discouraging..but if technology advanced enough, we'd see a change there..
Right and I bought the space above the land, because the government has final ownership thanks to eminent domain, and with that purchase I won the air as well. Hence I can sue if you pollute my air and I owe no one money for that air. We can speculate about what companies will do with the air above their land but you are always entitled to enjoy your air free from the pollution and coercion of others.
Right, I purchase it with my home, just like the lawn and the porch and all that. Should homes be free also? I do not understand the problem. The Real Estate company will charge whatever they can to sell the plot. Prices will not sky rocket because the market would fall apart. Again, what companies do with their air is their business. You can build a dome and charge people for your air if you want.
sooo....why is health care a human right? do you not see why that implies that someone is obligated to supply it without compensation? that's called slavery.
prattleon 2 years ago
@prattleon Are we also not already obligated to supply the funds for the armed forces who protect every one of the rest of our rights? Why would you not consider that slavery?
cobrompton 1 year ago
@cobrompton Who said that the armed forces necessarily protects our rights? And why is a coercive monopoly on defense the only way to protect people? If i were to come to your house and repair something that you did not intend to repair, or that you wanted repaired either yourself or by another person, and then forced you to pay me for it, would that be ok? clearly not. why is it ok when the government does it?
prattleon 1 year ago
@prattleon We pay taxes for The armed forces, law enforcement and a judicial system, all of which are charged with protecting and preserving our freedoms and our rights. How do you consider funding health care for all citizens slavery and not paying taxes for the rest of these services?
cobrompton 1 year ago
@cobrompton here's a simple fact you cannot avoid: if you claim health care is a right, then you are claiming that a provider of 'health care' MUST serve those who need their services, whether or not they wish to. in other words they are bound to servitude. shifting the burden from the healthcare provider to tax payers changes only where the injustice lies. this is, of course, absurd. anyone who claims health care is a right, has not thought clearly about what a right is or ought to be.
prattleon 1 year ago
@prattleon Then the same principle applies to the rest of our rights.
cobrompton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To claim that health care is a right is to claim that one person owes another person their labor simply because the person receiving the benefit of that labor exists. That is an absurd notion on its face. For one person to claim such a right, another person must necessarily be indebted to him from the start - by default - because the service being demanded has value, and that service will not have to be compensated for by the recipient due to a proclaimed birthright. How is that not slavery?
DarcPrynce 2 years ago
Word of advice:
Instead of sourcing a whole document, try showing how this document supports your case. It saves a lot of time. It's like asking someone to do your homework. I could recommend whole books, but I won't because that would be unfair, and an effortless way to discuss any subject at all. Referring to important text from a book/document is another matter.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
This response is a bit late, but:
I agree with the title.
Without health care, there are no other rights.
Even freedom of speech can't exist if someone is too ill to speak up!
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"Without health care, there are no other rights."
It is in fact quite the contrary. All conceptions of human rights are derived from self ownership. You have the right to your body, and the fruits of your labor. The idea that each and every individual is entitled to healthcare negates self ownership, the axiom by which all rights are derived, since the provision of healthcare requires the expenditure of time and labor, and to socialize it would require the expropriation of labor.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Wow..never expected a reply.
Thanks, I suppose.
In any case:
The way you describe self-ownership makes sound ironically like a collective right. Therein lies the problem..when self-ownership is defined in terms of private industry, it fails to recognize that this means the right to deprive others of rights.
One cannot make use of one's body or fruits of labour without being in good health. Additionally, private industry does not grant the labourers access to the full fruits of their labour.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Therefore, we can logically conclude that any conception of an inherent right to certain goods and services negates the idea that human beings own themselves and the fruits of their labor. All rights are derived from self ownership. If you do not own your body, you do not have rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
The laborer's fruits are the wages they agreed to exchange their labor for. The right of self-ownership creates the other rights. One has a right of free speech only through a medium of their ownership. No one can tell a newspaper owner what to print but that owner, or government agency, cannot force someone to print something. You have freedom of speech as a result of ownership. No one has the right to come onto another's property and speak freely. It is a universal right not a collective one.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Collective rights are universal.
Bullshit. Free speech can easily exist without ownership.
Again, there's no need to force someone to print something.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
So what can I publish in if I do not own anything? Who chooses where my comments go? The government, the collective? Were is this right to free speech derived from? Why can the government or the collective simply say you cannot speak? Collective rights are not universal. My other point demonstrates this. I am forced to publish you in my paper so you right to free speech is protected but it may edge out a column I want to publish so my right to speech is damaged.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
In the Capitalist case, the owner decides you cannot speak.
Collective rights are universal.
All that's damaged is your "right" to infringe on my right to speak.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
But you can speak. You can start your own newspaper and publish all you want. We both posses that same right to publish freely in our own newspaper. I have no need to hinder my speech for yours and you for mine. Your system relies on me hindering mine so you can claim some of my newspaper for an abstract right of speech. Where does that right come from? How can you have a right to part of my paper? My rights are rooted in the nature of man and property. Universal and absolute. Yours?
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The right is not universal to both of us. It is granted to you but not me. On the other hand we both could own newspapers and print what we want without impeding each other. Then the right is extended universally.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Nonsense.
If we both own newspapers, you could still effectively manage to drown me out.
In fact, you could expand into a media empire and make many newspapers. Eventually, mine couldn't keep up, for lack of business.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
I drowned you out not because I used force to stop you from speaking. People made a voluntary choice to listen to me instead of you. You can continue your freedom to publish your speech on paper with pencil. No one can stop you but you cannot force people to listen and pay you. You have to get them to do that voluntarily. If you wish to establish a free society, that is.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The expropriation of time and labour reduces the burden put on one person and also grants them the means to sustain a living for themselves. How is that against fundamental rights?
Under the current system, perhaps it is, since it is used as a pretext only to reduce wages.
I'm incredibly offended by anyone who would deny a life-saving operation to someone on the basis that they could not profit from it's provision.
Fairly splitting the burden is a way to promote, not to hinder "self-ownership".
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Self ownership is defined as simply as stated, you own yourself. Refusing to relinquish your body and labor for the sake of others is not depriving anyone of their rights. Nobody owes you medical care. If a physician refused to provide you his services without compensation for his labor, he would not be depriving you of any right or coercing you in any manner.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
However, if you were then to coerce him into providing you with the service, you would be depriving him of his right to his own labor. Forcing others to work for your sake is in explicit violation of self ownership and human rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Forcing others to work for your sake is in explicit violation of self ownership and human rights."
..And Capitalists do what?
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Employers do nothing of the sort. People contract their time and energy voluntarily for their sustenance. Governments are the only institutions which demand servitude at gunpoint. If you do not relinquish your time and labor for the sustenance of government, you will be kidnapped and thrown into prison. You must relinquish your time and labor to government. You voluntarily relinquish your time and labor in the marketplace. That is the difference.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"If you do not relinquish your time and labor for the sustenance of government, you will be kidnapped and thrown into prison."
If you refuse to contribute anything, you do harm worthy of apprehension/reprehension.
"In the marketplace is where goods and services are provided contractually and on a voluntary basis."
Utter bullshit. Only "choices" are: Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
But as sole and exclusive owner of your body and labor, you don't HAVE to contribute it to any cause or relinquish it to any person. If you own your time and energy, it is yours to volunteer or not. Again, "positive rights" negates the idea that individuals own their bodies and labor. If you do not own your body, you do not own what that body produces, the fruits of your labor, and you consequentially have NO rights. Self ownership is the axiom by which ALL human rights are derived. Period!
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Either keep it here, or PM.
Right..you can just deny your labour to someone in need. Wait..I forgot..that's beneficial to NEITHER party! Even if they can't pay immediately.
Negative rights mean an obligation to refrain from interfering with something being done.
Self-ownership is not Capitalist.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"Right..you can just deny your labour to someone in need. Wait..I forgot..that's beneficial to NEITHER party!"
But coercing the physician to provide a service is a parasitic relationship in which one party benefits and the other party is robbed. Do you know what is mutually beneficial to BOTH parties? TRADE!
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Negative rights mean an obligation to refrain from interfering with something being done."
Yes. That is negative rights. It is called the "nonaggression principle" and it is voluntaryist. The free market is the economic expression of voluntaryism.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
These assertions are both wrong! Where are you even getting these economic fallacies from? lol. I've never even heard them before. Companies are subject to what is known as "fair market price." If a company is making excess profit in any given industry, it serves as a warning signal for aspiring entreprenuers to enter the field and cut prices. Thus the price of goods and services is determined by the marketplace.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
Consumers decide the products for consumption! Whenever you go out and make a purchase, you are casting your ballot for that particular good or service. If consumers do not purchase any good or service in significant quantities, that good or service will be taken off the market. The only way to make money in a market economy is to serve the consumer better than your competitors, thus in a market economy the consumer always wins.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
"Only "choices" are: Volunteer to buy products at prices we decide, or die."
The sheer irony of this statement is nearly impossible to fully appreciate or even comprehend. You are a COMMUNIST! ONLY in a command economy does the state determine the products consumers purchase, and actually establishes a "price fixing board" to determine the relative prices of items. Of course there can be no rational pricing in a command economic system. Your criticism only applies to your system! lol.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Each and every individual owns his body, and thus reserves the exclusive right to contract his labor, usually in some form of monetary exchange, to whomever he wishes. The individual calculates beforehand whether what is received in return for his time and energy is enough to be considered a profitable exchange.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Nobody's advocating coercion.
As for the rest, exactly. They aren't free to charge whatever they wish.
It is a profit driven system, and the only way to survive is to charge up to a certain amount.
Who calculates this? The seller? The seller is not the labourer.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"Nobody's advocating coercion."
Have I gone crazy or did you in fact assert that healthcare is a basic human right due to every person? There are only two models for service provision. In the marketplace is where goods and services are provided contractually and on a voluntary basis. By government services are provided coercively and at gunpoint. Either pay or get shot. That is how the government service model functions. Either pay or do not recieve a service is how businesses function.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
If a physician wants to provide you his services without monetary compensation, being a self owner of himself and his labor, it is his right to do so, assuming your consent to his service. If a physician does not want to devote his time and energies into serving you, forcing him to serve you is stealing the products of his labor regardless of whether his refusal offends you or not.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
The system brings negative results with this choice, hence it hinders that freedom.
In the case of health care, it is as basic a need as water you get from the taps. when you deny someone a life-saving surgery, you essentially steal the greatest thing of all--their life!
Also, they still get paid for their labour.
In fact, they can affordably be paid more.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"when you deny someone a life-saving surgery, you essentially steal the greatest thing of all--their life!"
But if I am a self owner of body and labor, I reserve the exclusive right to contract my labor. Suppose I refuse to relinquish my time and energy without compensation, then what? To guarentee your right to healthcare, you would have to force me to serve you at gunpoint or steal from other people to compensate me. Both are coercive.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Expropriation of time and labor(or the money created) creates a life of substance and violates ownership. The newspaper owner is forced to sustain someone else's speech. That person has no right to force another to listen or pay them to speak. Quite the contrary, everyone has the right not to listen or pay because of ownership in property and self. These rights are derived from the clear nature of man and to violate the nature of man and those rights created by it is unethical.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Slow down, both of you. I'm one guy. I can't keep up.
"That person has no right to force another to listen or pay them to speak."
Force isn't necessary when there is recognized to be benefit in publishing said speech.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
If I do not want to give up a space in my paper for your column how are you going to get it published without force? You can start you own paper. Then you are doing the market a favor by introducing competition and enjoying the right of speech derived from ownership. Otherwise someone will have to force me to let you speak, in which case I am involuntarily supporting their speech, or have the paper taking away from me a depriving me of the speech I enjoyed when I had the paper.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
*Sigh* cut me a break here.
Yeah, obviously force will be used.
Competition is cause to reduce workers' wages, not a "favour".
You assume that sole ownership is needed. Bullshit.
My right as a writer/speaker would be paramount.
The rich shall be coerced. That is the only way workers will get rights from Capitalist society.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Competition also lowers prices and raises living standards. How can you justify this use of force? You still have no ethical foundation for it. Why must one sacrifice their right to freely publish if it is so paramount? I only assume a right is absolute and universal. You continue do demonstrate a system of partial rights, aka privileges. BTW, what other rights are open to infringement and how far will that infringement go? Were does your government derive the ability to do so?
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The point is not that the procedure would not make money but their may be not interest. Some doctors may do work for free because they are motivated to do so. Others may need monetary compensation. If I could I would treat people for free but I am not a physician nor would I have the money to afford the resources. By the way fair is subjective. Those having their money taken may not see it as fair. The point of self-ownership is that the fruits of you industry, as well as the burdens, are yours.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I do agree, get us out of Iraq & Afghanistan NOW!
NanaHall55 4 years ago
Chris, are you a HC professional? I think not, because you have no idea what you are asking. HC is a right, just like food & transportation & a job, etc.! I do not see any propositions for governmental regulation of Kroger or Exxon.
There are many steps that should be taken to prevent Universal HC. One is to give Physicians actual tax write-offs for seeing a legitimate indigent patient. This would end Medicaid. Check the Fed. CFR's. HC has been reg. to death! Malpractice is the next step!
NanaHall55 4 years ago
"HC is a right, just like food & transportation & a job, etc.!"
Really!? And whose food do you have a right to? Whose car do you have a right to? Whose house do you have a right to? Whose labor do you have a right to? Now watch as your strawman conception of human rights comes crumbling down.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
First off, I think that was sarcasm on their part. Regardless, everyone has a right to benefit from a collective pool of wealth that comes from everyone's contribution.
Currently, there is an unacceptable discrepancy in contribution that comes as a result of the system. When that systemic problem is addressed, the right to access what one produces will finally be put into practice.
Your complaints are based on an idea that self-ownership is promoted by wage slavery..which is demonstrably false.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"Regardless, everyone has a right to benefit from a collective pool of wealth that comes from everyone's contribution."
Yes... but no one has a right to create a collective pool of wealth by coercive means.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
It doesn't necessarily have to be by coercive means.
Oh and by the way, workers are coerced to provide labour for their employers, and the overall product of their collective labour results in, you guessed it, a collective pool of wealth. So you can see that, under the current system, a collective pool of wealth is being created through coercion.
Such coercion isn't necessary, as under a different system, people will produce on their own.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
"Oh and by the way, workers are coerced to provide labour for their employers..."
So if I tried to quit my job at Taco Bell tomorrow, Taco Bell would hire agents to kidnap me and take me to work the next day, where i would be forced to make tacos at gunpoint? Individuals are NOT coerced in the marketplace! The marketplace is the ONLY place where goods and services are exchanged nonviolently and voluntarily!
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Firstly, "slippery slope fallacy". By that logic you're suggesting that air we breathe should be privatized.
Secondly, "I do not see any propositions for governmental regulation of Kroger or Exxon."
Regulation, no, but it'd be foolish to deny that corporate welfare exists.
This begs the question, why prevent it? It shouldn't be prevented.
Regulated? Even if that were true, it would not negate the problem of health insurance providers being profit-driven, not driven by the need for health care.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
People do privatize air. They sell them in big steel tanks. If you are suggesting the air we breath should be privatized, ownership rights puts an end to that nonsense. You own the air above your property as much as you own the ground you have homesteaded. In a world of private roads and the like the business attracted, and the cost to police the air, would create enough incentive to leave the air free to breathe. Of course the person or company would be free to erect a dome if they please.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"If you are suggesting the air we breath should be privatized, ownership rights puts an end to that nonsense. You own the air above your property as much as you own the ground you have homesteaded." Exactly, you have to pay someone for that. You didn't start off owning it at all.
I might be slow in replying as I have others matters to attend to.
True, where there's high cost now that might be discouraging..but if technology advanced enough, we'd see a change there..
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Right and I bought the space above the land, because the government has final ownership thanks to eminent domain, and with that purchase I won the air as well. Hence I can sue if you pollute my air and I owe no one money for that air. We can speculate about what companies will do with the air above their land but you are always entitled to enjoy your air free from the pollution and coercion of others.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You do owe money for the air. You had to purchase it initially.
Companies will no doubt charge what they can.
NaturalSelection2 3 years ago
Right, I purchase it with my home, just like the lawn and the porch and all that. Should homes be free also? I do not understand the problem. The Real Estate company will charge whatever they can to sell the plot. Prices will not sky rocket because the market would fall apart. Again, what companies do with their air is their business. You can build a dome and charge people for your air if you want.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago