Nestled in an obscure Florida Attorney General candidates' debate Friday was a fundamental disagreement over the nature of rights. The specific issue at hand was whether health care is a right.
Notably, one Democratic candidate, Dan Gelber, asserted the following on the matter:
Health care should be a right, not a privilege.
Note the verb "should be." Gelber didn't claim it "was" a right. Such phrasing seems to deny that rights are fundamental to all individuals (e.g.; "endowed by their Creator") and not determined by the whims of popular opinion or government decree. He is suggesting, at least in his wording, that rights become rights after being acknowledged by government.
Government creation of rights is anathema to the framers' understanding of rights. Rights, to them, were innate to being human. They were only to be protected by government, not dependent on government for their existence.
'Rights' like the 'right' to health care are not rights; they are more accurately defined as "goods" or "services" -- things to be allocated based on the ability to pay. Health care may be an important and critical good/service, but to define it as a 'right' is a confusion of terms that needs to be avoided if political debates are to be meaningful.
To argue that taxpayers should pay for the health care of others is a legitimate point of debate, but don't confuse things by claiming it should be a government-granted 'right.' Such 'rights' aren't rights.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Who is the Creator, and when did she endow rights?
But I agree that health care is best considered a good, not a right.
you do realize that rights are only privileges upheld by the use of power/force.
Rights can be upheld by defense which is different than force or coercion.
They are more/most often respected through mutual agreement. (Do unto others...).
If force is used to defend rights, whether of yourself or others, then coercion is involved.
But if someone comes at me w/ a knife in the woods, and they run into my bullets in self defense with no one around to see them fall - I haven't coerced them or forced them to do anything, they have just been reminded to respect the rights I was mutually respecting of theirs as well.
Defense is never force.
Sounds like force to me.
but its not, its "reminding someone"
education is such a thankless job
haha. you're pretty good at rhetoric
thanks! - that's what I studied in my undergrad.
I understand what's going on here:
BBQ is either denying the definition of the word "Defense" or saying it cannot exist w/out the having "force" be connected to it. Such as "Defense by force." Where I am saying that "Defense/protection" is the exact opposite of "Force" and has no connotations with it whatsoever. Partly because no one on the site believes defense is force, pretty sure there are some epistemological articles about this out there on the web, and its sort of absurd to say "stopping force by force is force" when we all agree "force = bad."
If that's wrong then our minor premise fails in pretty much every single argument created in Libertarian thought - we'd all have to go home and submit to the fact that in this one instance "force for defensive purposes is okay" and that means that we believe in "force" so we are contradicting ourselves and we actually all secretly worship the State and want to become part of it and it will all be okay as soon as we are the ones forcing others to do what we want. No one owns there own body or has natural rights, everything is contract theory only and nothing is naturally endowed to us by our creator(s)(non-creator(s))(the thing that allows you to believe you own your own body, that body is private property w/ naturally endowed rights you are allowed to protect and that the protection you give it has nothing to do w/ force).
I encourage us all to just give up on Liberty now that a few bloggers have totally eroded our premises after xx amount of years. We should all be collectivists and conform to the norms of the majority.
'its sort of absurd to say "stopping force by force is force" when we all agree "force = bad."'
Sounds like a problem of an unjustified and overly narrow definition on your part. I think it results in a semantic dance.
Cutting to the chase: Miss Gigi steals Miss Fifi's poodle Madame Fufu. Whether Miss Fifi blows Miss Gigi's brains out in the act of the theft or in the act of retrieving the stolen property, such a defense of one's property rights uses what is probably an improper act of physical coercion. I'll call it force, you call it a (de|re)minder, and we'll just continue to understand each other.
"I encourage us all to just give up on Liberty now that a few bloggers have totally eroded our premises after xx amount of years. We should all be collectivists and conform to the norms of the majority."
Don't get all despairy over what at most might amount to a philosophical enema. We all have to build and rebuild as we get to a better place in our heads. Revising your assumptions does not necessarily mean you will conclude something wildly different in the end.
For example, you mentioned before that you are an atheist. People often assume that atheists, because they reject deiticious premises for morality, should be thoroughly amoral. But in my experience 'converted' atheists often become even more fastidiously moral than their religious incarnations were. And the moral positions are largely identical.
It's OK to be wrong and rethink. It can even be a little exciting.
I'll call it force, you call it defense, and we'll just continue to understand each other.
But everyone on here considers defense not to be force. It causes confusion when no one else is using that term in that manner.
I can't split all the hairs, but killing someone over a stolen dog seems a bit much. I guess I was thinking of someone trying to attack one and it be perfectly okay not to allow them to. (I'm considering immediate vicinity bar fight sort of thing - not preemptive war between governments).
The force/defense axiom is major component in Libertarian thought. And it really is a minor premise for a ton of arguments and this one thing really does separate us from other schools of thought.
What I'm saying - what I've always said - is that this group has examined that axiom, accepts a certain criteria, and has moved on. There are no takers willing to accept that defense of property is coercive in nature or forceful. That this is such a basic premise it would maximize your utility to accept the definition all of us agree on rather than state it in a way that becomes confusing or misleading. In articles on other sites it is used in such a way as I have described, so in order for us all to utilize the language of the discourse properly - we maintain a certain lexicon of agreed upon words.
I don't understand why you would want to ask us all - or yourself - to believe that self-defense is a form of coercion or that force or threat of force is involved. I've only ever heard this from people who steal wood from my Dad because they need it more than him and when he would take the wood back that he chopped and earned himself he was somehow doing "violence" to them. Because "property is violence, or force or whatever." Now, doesn't mean my Dad was the biggest jerk about it - just strapped a firearm to his leg and brought the wheelbarrow over to the neighbors and suggested that he must have misplaced it and "sorry it ended up in your yard under your tarp - I assure you it won't happen again!"
This is perfectly valid and legitimate. And no scholar in the Liberty movement would ever describe this as a use of force.
I don't want to quibble over terminology, and from now on I'll try to keep in mind that you guys use 'force' in a very limited way.
But I still feel that this usage lends itself to fallacy. I'm guessing that it originally comes from how of 'force' is used in a legal context: 'unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.' So you use 'force' to label what you consider improper harm and 'defense' to label what might include proper harm. (I'm pretty sure that shooting someone in any context is considered harm, probably even violence, and it does seem to coerce people.) And then in an argument you can find yourself mixing the common and specific meanings and committing a fallacy of equivocation. I.e., defense (specific meaning) is proper harm, so because Miss Fifi was defending (common meaning) her property, her harm (reminder) was proper. Or there can even be circularity. I.e., we call all that is proper harm 'defense,' this action is defense, therefore it is proper harm.
If your father had shot someone to get back his wood, would you label that defense or force?
For the most part I like this definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defense
but this definition does not involve "proper harm" because "harm" should be totally out of the equation due to some of its connotations.
My father had no intention of shooting anyone, and had he actually felt in danger I'm sure he would have called the police. He was just sending a message that white trash meth heads shouldn't walk a slippery slope of thinking they could eventually go inside the house to steal things. Honestly - had they really needed it or asked for it he would have given them some. He was not trying to antagonize or intimidate which would have given him cause for alarm if the situation/people were different.
Well there was that guy in Texas who never faced any charges, but this is a different situation - although more similar than say an actual mugging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE
... I can't think fast enough to give you an answer right now. It may be lawfully, naturally, or morally right (I haven't made all the hair splits yet) but there are much easier (less bloody) ways to get ones property back when one is in fear of thieves - tell me what you think and I'll mull it over for a day.
It sounds like the assertion of property rights at the end of a gun does not find a comfy home with your definitions of 'force' and 'defense.'
Well, most things can be solved through education and reminding people of certain rights - like a second chance for a non-violent offense - as my Dad was doing.
Intellectual private property - no, body or personal pet/zoo animal - yes, some tangible goods (where is the $ split, $100 - $10,000????), I'm sure there are other forms and I'm sure that others have written about it - but I haven't been curious enough about any of these things to look it up. Let me know if you find anything on Mises or something. Rights and morals sometimes get confusing too and the slight differences... - life boat, uncommon, rare occurrences are bad for general laws and rules.
As for the guy who killed a kid for stepping on his lawn:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ohio_man_kills_teen_who_walked_on_his_lawn
this man killed himself in prison 3 years later.
a. i think its a bit sketchy to say force is bad. probably fairer to say most coercion is bad. but thats just me nit-picking. its probably not a legit point of contention.
b. the fear of collectivism is really overrated. i think its a false dichotomy. generally speaking people are social individuals. there's not really any reason to draw battle lines. maybe as a point of jurisprudence, but even then its should be a rarely utilized point.
nathan, you're active in a YAL chapter, right? what do you actually agree with other YAL members about?
im an active member of the wake chapter. not national.
I would say that health care is a right but then I'm from Britain and we seem to have a completely set of morals and concept of rights to you. As part of an advanced western society I think you should expect that healthcare to be provided to you- Being unable to work shouldn't disqualify you from your right to live.
Also doesn't the declaration of independence guarantee your population LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
i think you have a good point. its important to consider that even if you believe in "rights" their interpretation has alot to do with the culture that you live in. the rights to life, liberty, and property, even if they do exist, are culturally instituted and protected. e.g. property rights are based on cultural expectations and sentiments. just look at the popularity (and success) of common (not state) property in other cultures.
The problem I have with health care as a right is that it is an overly broad category and a scarce good/service that someone is obligated to provide.
I can understand society having some kind of reasonable obligation to save your life in an emergency, but when it comes to vitamins, shampoos, pimple creams, or liposuctions that also improve your health, does society have that much obligation?
And when the state's budget is insufficiently funded to pay for all the health care desired, is it violating your rights? If Doctor Smith is the only doctor in reach and turns you away because he is unable to handle the patient load, is he violating your rights?
Admittedly all rights require a good bit of delineation. None are black and white. But with health care it would seem to require an awful lot of detailing. I think the desire to make health care available to all makes more sense as a social goal than a legal obligation.
Whaaaaa? Agreeing with BBQ Brains? Craziness :D
I think I pee-ed myself a little too :O
...but that doesn't mean government can't be used to build public roads to destination good health. There'll always be room for toll roads.
So let's not get carried away with the rejoicing.
well if a private company built the toll road and forgave emergency vehicles rushing back and forth as part of a charity - or put that cost back into everyone else's toll - that would be a legit use of private property...
Oi, one of the guys at Mises has written about public roads, I think there is a whole book on it, but I can't remember who did it....Walter Block??
But why should it be used that way? And what's the difference between declaring a scarce good itself a right and declaring transportation to purchase that good a right -- isn't the transport itself a scarce resource?
I was speaking metaphorically and probably should have been clearer.
How the government is used to create and maintain a basic road system while allowing private toll roads to be developed simultaneously is similar to how the government can be used to provide basic health care. Neither roads nor health care are rights. But if the majority wish their government to pursue those goals, OK.
Ok -- I wasn't clear if you meant to be metaphorical and decided to play it on the safe side. However, I'd still ask: If you grant that health care isn't a right; and that it's a scarce resource; and that if it is treated as a right, then some doctors will be obliged (i.e. forced) to provide it; then why does majority desire override all that?
I'm not sure I understand how the goal of basic universal health care obliges doctors to do something. I wasn't advocating treating health care as a right where a doctor or hospital can be held liable for your non-acquisition of a good. Similarly, I can't sue someone because there are too few highways in my neck of the woods.
Nice blog... A liberal system such as ours enshrines individual rights, but its health depends upon people exercising those rights responsibly. It depends on people taking seriously their duty to respect the rights of others. Many observers believe that, while Americans today are eager to claim their rights, too few are willing to shoulder the attendant responsibilities... Hospitalist Billing