What should be subsidized besides health care?

That wasn't his argument.
Reading comprehension much?

 

Well is it a government mandate (like I said) or not?

 

Guns the government should pay people to buy guns and get trained how to use them defensively. This would be a huge benefit to society.

 

Speaking of made up, from where does one find the physical source of objectively legitimate government authority to monopolize justice?

Can you succinctly describe that universal moral principle that you believe exists even though negative rights are made up?

That doesn't justify any organization having a monopoly on justice. Society is not government, and there are a lot of different societies. Which one has the legitimate, objective right to rule based on your alleged universal moral principle?

Military and civil policing exist to uphold the state, not cohese society, whichever society it is you speak of.

More made up rights?

Obligations and government authority are also ethereal. Hell, so are laws as they are nothing more than words on paper backed up by ritual. Society is a conceptual label. Are you capable of using actual logic to bolster your arguments, rather than obfuscated rhetoric and sophistry?

 

I need a subsidy to help me pay for all you guys' subsidies.

 

Well now, that wouldn't be "fair" would it?
Give the little cretinous beggars what they want!

 

True.

The fact is, that any "entitlement" for any person constitutes a dis-entitlement for somebody else. There are exactly as many people to be provided for as there are people to do the providing.
Obviously if each person took care of themselves (and the children they produced, which only exist because of their actions) then everybody would be taken care of. Nothing could be more fair; that places no unjust burden on anyone.

Being a generous people, we have always been willing to care for those genuinely in need through no fault of their own; help them get back on their feet and productive again. Of course, that is not the point of today's "entitlement" movement. No, what those people seek today is for things they decide they need to be provided by those who work harder and achieve more than they do. It's pretty simple- they have more than I do, so I should get it. Disregards how that person accomplished their success, or why the person demanding to be entitled failed to accomplish theirs. More like robbing the banks because that's where the money is.

Each of us is fully entitled to provide for ourselves, to have as much as wealth as we are willing to earn, to live at whatever level we are willing to support, and to have full title to the benefits of consequences of our own decisions- good or bad. Nothing could be more fair as a fundamental principle of a society.

Now we can add to that to help in many ways, and we do- but to authorize stealing from the productive to give to the unwilling..... No. Stolen goods, stolen wealth.... nobody is entitled to that, it is a violation of the basic principles of liberty. Nobody has that right, and no law can legitimize it. Worse- it creates dependent people who see no reason to be productive, and that is a fatal flaw in a society.

 

Sadly, a disabled person who can not pay for his/her medical care does not have a Right to Life in USA. The vast majority of 72,000 people in USA who died from overdose in 2017 had neither effective health care which would have given them antidepressants nor a Right to Life.

 

Right to life is a restraint on government not an entitlement of the citizen

 

Again with the confusion about rights. All legitimate rights are negative rights.

 

There is no such thing as "negative" or "positive" rights. There is only rights.

 

HuuuH? What college professor who told the university s/he didn't want the fully paid health insurance policy given to them as a benefit in their incredible package of benefits, told you that? Hmm?

 

No. I don't even know what a "government mandate" is.

 

Of course there are. A negative right is essentially a right to be left unmolested. You know, the right to not be killed. The right to not be robbed. Things like that. They require people from refraining from violating your person or property.

A positive right is one that requires the resources of other people, such as the right to health care.

Positive rights require the violation of other people's person and/or property. That's why they are not really legitimate rights.

 

So then, the gov won't mandate that I pay for you.
You have the right to buy your own healthcare

 

I remember a webpage where you had three columns, and you just grabbed a term from each column to come up with meaningless statements that sounded so authoritative like "Authority to monopolize justice"... "Independence to liberalize freedom"... "Liberty to modernize tranquility"... All meaningless.... but they "sound" so profound.

Sorry, but I'm done with that, you know. I'll wait for your point.

I already did. See message you quoted where I talk about social cohesion.

What "organization" are you talking about? What "monopoly"? Still meaningless gibberish. You need to be more specific on what it is you're talking about.

Please make a specific point, if you have one. Mine is simple: we live in a society because the human race cannot survive if not in society (a community). Therefore, anything that preserves the cohesion of the community, is morally "good", anything that opposes it is morally "bad". That is a universal moral principle. Allowing people to get sicker and sicker until they die because they can't afford healtchcare, when this is due to high cost of healthcare, and that high cost is due to the profit of big corporations, goes against the cohesion of the community. Therefore it's morally wrong. So the community must act to prevent that. Healthcare is a human right. Profits are not a human right. Therefore, healthcare trumps profits.

 

That's a lot of words just to say you want your healthcare subsidized by your fellow citizens.

 

You realize that in most of these evil places that provide basic healthcare for their citizens you can still buy private insurance, right?

You cannot opt out of a lot of things. I would like to opt out of trumps 30 million in golf trips but my letters to the IRS have gone unanswered. Do you have a direct line for the opt out center?

 

So you are saying that the only rights are the ones that cannot be guaranteed, cannot be enforced and cannot be defended.

Cute. But useless. It does not account for the fact that we live in communities. And that, due to the nature of our species, we need to live in communities. And that, for that reason, all of our rights (positive, negative neutral... whatever you want) are limited by the rights of others. You don't just have some abstract "right" to not be robbed or killed. That would be useless. What you have is a real practical right to be protected from being robbed or killed as an individual who is part of a community of human beings. And that right is protected by laws, law enforcement, a judicial system,... And in order to enjoy all that, you need to live according to the rules of that society. Which includes paying taxes.

So the definition may refer to the "idea" of a right, but not to the practical sense of a right. And therefore, in practice, it's useless. However, I'm sure it will produce great deal of self-gratification to some on the right.

 

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not sure how your reached that conclusion.

You kind of do.

Useless? How so?

No you don't. The supreme court has ruled that the government has no obligation to protect any particular individuals.

Yes, the rules of the state demand we pay taxes to it. Everyone knows this.

You kind of lost me there.

 

Sure. And you have the absolute right to apply for refugee status in the country of your choosing where they sell the healthcare that you like. This is why the right to asylum is an inalienable international right. Hopefully they don't have a wall, and no Trump with xenophobe followers.

Good luck!

 

In Scandinavia and Canada the Government can not abandon people who can not support themselves.

People who can not afford

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

are denied the Right to Life.

 

That is an inhumane view which has been opposed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All religions view Charity as a duty.

 

US Government already imposes enough taxes to waste $700 Billion a year on defense budget.

 

If I take money from you by force, are you engaged in charity?