I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege.
Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying.
and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege.
It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore.
Well I dunno some of the definitions are this
the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
&
something that one may properly claim as due
and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is.
There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else.
I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community.
Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't.
Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day.
When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other.
The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery.
There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it.
The point is that a Lockean system of justice is just as socially constructed as any other conception of justice. He might refer to it as 'natural law', but property rights are in no way 'natural'. They are an historical, social agreement between members of a society and are dependant on a certain interpretation of freedom.
'Natural law' just refers to rights that certain authors claim to be independant of time and place, yet property rights are by all means a relatively modern invention (compared to pre-history). In this sense, anything can be constructed as being natural.
It is not true that adding 'more' rights leads to a logically inconsistent system. Philosophers like Rawls and Dworkin have come up with systems of rights entirely compatible with universal healthcare, based on different assumptions. The fact that you subscribe to a Lockean worldview does not invalidate others.
I recognize the fact that a Lockean system is just as socially constructed as any other conception of justice; I wasn't disputing that point. What concerns me is whether or not you can add the right to healthcare to a system of rights without creating a contradiction. You suggest that Rawls and Dworkin have done so. I've not read Dworkin, so I can't comment on that. But personally I think Rawls is pretty terrible. I don't know anyone that's gone to law school and hasn't come back ranting about how much they disagree with him, and although I'm not actually a huge fan of Nozick, I think his arguments against Rawls are fairly effective.
But since, in your words, it's just not true that adding more rights leads to a logically inconsistent system, would you mind elaborating on that? What assumptions do they make that save rights and universal healthcare?
Also, your implication that I subscribe to a Lockean worldview is incorrect. I just don't think that supporting universal healthcare on the basis of rights is a solid argument.
I'm not really interested in getting into a huge argument on political philosophy, it's not like we're going to solve all these complex issues that professional philosophers still have problems with.. I just think some of you guys aren't really being charitable to your opposition.
On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote: [quote] Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare.
By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong.
I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you.
No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim!
I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege.
Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying.
and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege.
It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore.
Well I dunno some of the definitions are this
the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
&
something that one may properly claim as due
and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is.
There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else.
I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
As we defined it, a right to healthcare would perfectly fit definitions 2.a. ("something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights>") and 3 ("something that one may properly claim as due") of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Sorry.
On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote: [quote] No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim!
I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege.
Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying.
and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege.
It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore.
Well I dunno some of the definitions are this
the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
&
something that one may properly claim as due
and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is.
There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else.
I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
Are you serious? Anything and everything can be defined as a right. At the end of the day rights are only rights if they are respected and as such all rights are dependant on recognition of the community.
Whether something is or should be a right hinges on how well you can argue for it and if the community recognizes it or not. There are very strong arguments for health care to be concidered a right, but it doesn't seem like the American community is going to recognize it as a right and thus it isn't.
Thanks for letting me apply some logic. Making posts like this one really does brighten my day.
When you're formulating a political theory of rights you have to consider whether any of the proposed rights contradict each other. If you go back to the original formulation of rights under John Locke you'll notice there's startlingly few. But people have been "adding" rights ever since then. Locke's proposed rights created a very elegant political philosophy, but the more rights you try to add the more difficult it gets to make sure none of them contradict each other.
The problem that people have with suggesting healthcare be a right is that is conflicts with the right to freedom. If you mandate that a doctor HAS to provide medical care to anyone, then you're infringing on that doctors right to freedom. This is why you'll occasionally see libertarians hyperbolically refer to certain healthcare systems as imposing slavery.
There are many ways to try to justify government healthcare programs, but an appeal to healthcare as a natural right isn't the way to do it.
As we defined it, the right to healthcare would not be opposable to doctors but to the government (you wouldn't be able to randomly take an unwilling doctor and force him to cure you, just like the right to counsel does not mean you can randomly take any lawyer and force him to defend you). The government would pay willing doctors to provide you with healthcare. There would therefore be no contradiction. This matter was addressed dozens of pages ago.
On February 05 2012 10:08 1Eris1 wrote: So how about that Republican Nomination? . . . oh crap sorry, didn't check that this was the forms of government and their effects thread, my bad
Its the inevitability of anything on TL marginally related to the government. As thread increases in length, probability of discussion being about (socialism/keynes vs austrian/healthcare) approaches 1.
On February 05 2012 04:57 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country.
which degree in which field...
BS in financial mathematics and physics, MS in geophysics, PhD in petroleum engineering.
Most of my interest in economics stems from reading philosophical novels. Initially, it was Nietzsche's criticism of socialism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Fountainhead by Rand. In turn this made me read books like The Law by Frederic Bastiat, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, and The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. To me, these latter books seemed considerably more profound and based in the true nature of man than any of the Keynesian books I had read years earlier as a student.
lovely
I would not go into a thread about petrol eng. and start talking, yet once again someone with no training has to inform me how their folk knowledge is just as good real training. clearly you are an intelligent guy but it has not stopped you from falling prey to this common trapping.
well, Im done here. the assertion that Hazlitt is "profound" or is even a real economist is enough to make this a fool's discussion.
I hope this is clear to the rest of you; one forms economic opinion from econometric analysis, the other from an angry know-nothing and her ilk.
No surprises there, not a southern state with plenty of mormons. It's pretty much decided to be Romney already anyways. Gingrich is just hanging on to be a dick and satisfy his ego.
On February 05 2012 04:57 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country.
which degree in which field...
BS in financial mathematics and physics, MS in geophysics, PhD in petroleum engineering.
Most of my interest in economics stems from reading philosophical novels. Initially, it was Nietzsche's criticism of socialism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Fountainhead by Rand. In turn this made me read books like The Law by Frederic Bastiat, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, and The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. To me, these latter books seemed considerably more profound and based in the true nature of man than any of the Keynesian books I had read years earlier as a student.
lovely
I would not go into a thread about petrol eng. and start talking, yet once again someone with no training has to inform me how their folk knowledge is just as good real training. clearly you are an intelligent guy but it has not stopped you from falling prey to this common trapping.
well, Im done here. the assertion that Hazlitt is "profound" or is even a real economist is enough to make this a fool's discussion.
I hope this is clear to the rest of you; one forms economic opinion from econometric analysis, the other from an angry know-nothing and her ilk.
Are you talking about Rand? Because traditional liberalism existed long before she was even born.
I'm pretty libertarian (same thing as traditional liberal basically) in my views as you obviously noticed, but I hate when people credit any of the movement to her, because like you said she was angry, crazy, and irrationally polarized in her beliefs.
On February 05 2012 04:57 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country.
which degree in which field...
BS in financial mathematics and physics, MS in geophysics, PhD in petroleum engineering.
Most of my interest in economics stems from reading philosophical novels. Initially, it was Nietzsche's criticism of socialism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Fountainhead by Rand. In turn this made me read books like The Law by Frederic Bastiat, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, and The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. To me, these latter books seemed considerably more profound and based in the true nature of man than any of the Keynesian books I had read years earlier as a student.
lovely
I would not go into a thread about petrol eng. and start talking, yet once again someone with no training has to inform me how their folk knowledge is just as good real training. clearly you are an intelligent guy but it has not stopped you from falling prey to this common trapping.
well, Im done here. the assertion that Hazlitt is "profound" or is even a real economist is enough to make this a fool's discussion.
I hope this is clear to the rest of you; one forms economic opinion from econometric analysis, the other from an angry know-nothing and her ilk.
You're quite angry for no reason. I never insulted you. Is it because I said the ideals you keep espousing, specifically self-sacrifice, are very blatant side effects of your irrational Christian religion?
Also, I'm not sure how you consider a degree in financial mathematics from Stanford as "no training." It doesn't really matter anyway, as formal education is generally garbage and I have more business in this thread than you do. I have a Republican candidate that I'm following, Dr. Paul. Your only "contributions" to this thread have been to tell everybody else that they are stupid for being either Republican or Libertarian.
I know you like to believe that econometric analysis is the quantitative holy grail of economics, but it's not. I specialize in stochastic modeling in the physical sciences and it's already a nightmare to not facilitate biased statistical findings. Now imagine attempting that in economics... it's mostly junk.
Finally, Hazlitt was a real economist, just as Rand was a real philosopher. Just because they have picked apart your two saviors, Keynes and Jesus respectively, doesn't mean they aren't legitimate.
I know you like to believe that econometric analysis is the quantitative holy grail of economics, but it's not. I specialize in stochastic modeling in the physical sciences and it's already a nightmare to not facilitate biased statistical findings. Now imagine attempting that in economics... it's mostly junk.
This. Unfortunately econometrics becomes a fancy word for data mining in tons of situations. When used right, it is great, but it is used wrong often.
On topic: Romney looking to win in a landslide in Nevada as was expected.
He is? All of the reports I am getting show Gingrich leading Paul by 3% atm. I thought all of the Paul supporters said he was going to ignore Florida so he could win caucus states like Nevada.
Mitt Romney's two solid debate performances in Florida are credited with turning around his campaign, which in turn earned him a double-digit win in that state's primary. Brett O'Donnell is credited with helping Romney sharpen his debate skills.
So, in recognition for a job well done, O'Donnell will not have a permanent position with the Romney campaign, according to Politico. It seems O'Donnell's contributions have become too well known to the media. That did not sit well with Romney staffers, who were envious of O'Donnell. Also it seems the required narrative is Romney pulled himself out of the tailspin, with no one else's help.
According to the O'Donnell and Associates Strategic Communications page, O'Donnell prepped John McCain for debates in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. He would seem the perfect person for doing the same for Romney in this year's election cycle.
An ABC News analysis at the time of the Jacksonville, Fla., debate suggested Romney wanting to win -- and it showed. Romney got in some good punches and Gingrich, who had shined in South Carolina, had fallen flat.
It says a lot about how the Romney campaign operates that a debate coach has seen his services no longer required for being too successful. It is as if a big league football team, having won an important game after a string of losses, decided to get rid of the coach because he was seen to be overshadowing the quarterback.
Mitt Romney's two solid debate performances in Florida are credited with turning around his campaign, which in turn earned him a double-digit win in that state's primary. Brett O'Donnell is credited with helping Romney sharpen his debate skills.
So, in recognition for a job well done, O'Donnell will not have a permanent position with the Romney campaign, according to Politico. It seems O'Donnell's contributions have become too well known to the media. That did not sit well with Romney staffers, who were envious of O'Donnell. Also it seems the required narrative is Romney pulled himself out of the tailspin, with no one else's help.
According to the O'Donnell and Associates Strategic Communications page, O'Donnell prepped John McCain for debates in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. He would seem the perfect person for doing the same for Romney in this year's election cycle.
An ABC News analysis at the time of the Jacksonville, Fla., debate suggested Romney wanting to win -- and it showed. Romney got in some good punches and Gingrich, who had shined in South Carolina, had fallen flat.
It says a lot about how the Romney campaign operates that a debate coach has seen his services no longer required for being too successful. It is as if a big league football team, having won an important game after a string of losses, decided to get rid of the coach because he was seen to be overshadowing the quarterback.
Mitt Romney's two solid debate performances in Florida are credited with turning around his campaign, which in turn earned him a double-digit win in that state's primary. Brett O'Donnell is credited with helping Romney sharpen his debate skills.
So, in recognition for a job well done, O'Donnell will not have a permanent position with the Romney campaign, according to Politico. It seems O'Donnell's contributions have become too well known to the media. That did not sit well with Romney staffers, who were envious of O'Donnell. Also it seems the required narrative is Romney pulled himself out of the tailspin, with no one else's help.
According to the O'Donnell and Associates Strategic Communications page, O'Donnell prepped John McCain for debates in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. He would seem the perfect person for doing the same for Romney in this year's election cycle.
An ABC News analysis at the time of the Jacksonville, Fla., debate suggested Romney wanting to win -- and it showed. Romney got in some good punches and Gingrich, who had shined in South Carolina, had fallen flat.
It says a lot about how the Romney campaign operates that a debate coach has seen his services no longer required for being too successful. It is as if a big league football team, having won an important game after a string of losses, decided to get rid of the coach because he was seen to be overshadowing the quarterback.
The story about Romney abusing his dog on that trip to Canada really did it for me. How you treat your pets really can show the type of person you are, and leaving a dog in a crate strapped to the top of a moving vehicle for 12 hours is despicable. Not to mention only stopping to hose down the dog when he got so scared he was suffering from diarrhea from the ordeal.
Someone really needs to tell Romney just to stick to a basic stump speech as so far he has five different stump speeches for five different states. Also Romney asking a all white crowd to remember why their ancestors came to America...
On February 05 2012 10:08 1Eris1 wrote: So how about that Republican Nomination? . . . oh crap sorry, didn't check that this was the forms of government and their effects thread, my bad
Hi, I hope you realize that 27 of 35 Bush Articles of Impeachment Apply to Obama.
I cannot fathom why any american would *not* vote Ron Paul… Its mind blowing. Look at what you get from Mitt, more of the same goldman sachs p*ece of ****. Just like Obama is controlled by them bankers.
On February 05 2012 10:08 1Eris1 wrote: So how about that Republican Nomination? . . . oh crap sorry, didn't check that this was the forms of government and their effects thread, my bad
Hi, I hope you realize that 27 of 35 Bush Articles of Impeachment Apply to Obama.
EPT
