Is health care a right or a privelege?

That's false because it assumes that the person applying for the job is independently wealthy and can simply refuse to work if the compensation isn't enough to live on. The fact that people "MUST WORK" in our society introduces market coercion in the employment contract because they can't just say no to jobs that don't provide enough income to live on. .

The employer, not the employee, determines the wage and compensation package. It's not really negotiable at the lower income levels and the applicant has no choice because the "market" sets the compensation. The market has driven the "price for labor" below the "cost for labor" and that's a sign of capitalism failing because it requires an external subsidy (government welfare assistance) to keep capitalism from failing.

 

No it doesn't assume that. It assumes that if A and B agree that A will perform some task for $X, that is the extent of their agreement. There is no implied agreement that B becomes the father/parent/guardian of A. We are all independent and equal. None of us is the child of any other person. (Figuratively, I mean.)

 

Then don't become an employee, if you don't think it pays enough. Establish your own enterprise.

 

Yes absolutely, but it'll cost you the air fare to get here and back..
A tip- as you step off the plane, simply pretend to collapse on the tarmac and within 5 minutes you'll be in a nice warm hospital bed being fussed over, pampered, cuddled and maybe even kissed by our nurses (preferably female ones), and be operated on within no time.
PS- Just remember to put on an act by making your symptoms seem worse than they are, I learnt that lesson some years ago when I had suspected appendicitis, the sour-faced ambulancemen came to my home and almost refused to take me to hospital because "You're standing up and not laying on the floor!".
So next time they'll find me semi-comatose moaning on the floor..

 

A nice pragmatically impossible evasion of the truth for the following reasons:

1) The person is still dependent upon "commerce" to survive and is incapable of escaping commerce in our society.
2) The vast majority of people are fundamentally untrained to start and/or operate an enterprise which is why four out of five start-up enterprises fail in the first five years. (e.g. Most people that start a business don't create and follow a written business plan.)
3) The enterprise would have to provide immediate income from the moment of creation to fund all of the expenditures of the person and that virtually never happens.
4) A major factor in business failure is a lack of funding and the people that can actually afford to fund an enterprise are not the ones that are forced to accept employment because they have the money (assets) so they can say "no" to under-compensation for employment.

This "start your own business" proposal is the most absurd proposition ever put forward because it's virtually impossible for poor people to start a successful enterprise because they don't have the money, knowledge, or time required to start a successful enterprise.

By way of example my wife started a new business exactly a year ago after we relocated to Arizona. She has a written business plan and we're "ahead of schedule" based upon the business plan. She "broke even" on covering her monthly overhead expenditures at seven months but has yet to receive a dime in compensation for her labor so far. We've also invested roughly $50,000 to purchase inventory and make capital investments in the business and facility improvements required for the enterprise. She's "ahead of schedule" based upon the business plan and according to the business plan she'll be earning a decent income and the investments in the enterprise will be paid off in five years. A "poor person" could not establish this successful enterprise because they can't live without the income and they don't have the financial assets to invest.

Republicans need to remember this simple statement of wisdom because it applies in two different cases.

It takes money to make money.

In the case of poor people they don't have the money necessary to make money.
People that inherit a lot of money are able to make money regardless of how horrible they are as business people. (Donald Trump is the perfect example because he has a history of being a horrible corporate executive).

 

Another classic example of Shiva misinterpreting Locke, I see.

I have always wondered if Shiva does this to bend the fact to his beliefs or if he just genuinely does not understand.

 

What you describe has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. That is all Socialism is.

 

We all require exchange to survive. Unless one is a hermit. So what?

So if they are incapable of establishing their own enterprise, then they must choose the course of an employee. However, no one owes them a living. They need to fulfill a marketable need.

Or...they start their business on the side, and save money. Then when they are ready to go full-time in the business, they can live off savings while they grow the business from side-hustle to full-time gig.

No one owes anyone else a living. If one is incapable of starting and running their own enterprise, then they need to provide some useful service to an employer to earn money.

Spend less than you earn. Constantly increase your human capital so your labor is in demand. Learn how to run your own business. These are the ways to succeed. Nobody owes you anything.

Anybody can become financially successful by: 1) Spending less than they earn, and 2) Investing the difference in something they understand.

 

So slaves are not entitled to liberty, because their rights to liberty are the property of others...?

 

No, it is not, and you haven't even attempted to provide an argument that it is. Maybe you don't know what opportunity costs are, or what public education is.

I'm guessing I understand it far better than you.

I have. But what I saw there did not resemble working people getting on their knees begging the rich to take their money.

 

Wrong again. No person is entitled to the body (property) of another, so therefore nobody is entitled to enslave another person.

 

Slaves still had their own bodies, and in many cases owned property. It was their rights to liberty that their owners owned. This was explicit in the expression "buy a slave's liberty." A slave who wanted to purchase his freedom from his owner was not buying his body back but his right to liberty.

 

Wrong again. The owners were violating the bodies of their slaves. That's how they kept them enslaved. No person is entitled to the body (property) of another, so therefore nobody is entitled to enslave another person.

 

A distinction without a difference.

 

Wrong. Owning someone's right to liberty is possible. Owning their body is not, while they are still alive. Their body is inseparably their own, and under the control of their own will. Some slave owners thought they owned their slaves' bodies -- until the slaves used their bodies to kill their owners.

 

Own a right? WTF?

Yes, their body is inseparably their own. They own it. And nobody has a right to violate that ownership.

 

What do you think it means to buy a slave's liberty? Are you unaware of that expression?

No, they INHABIT it. They can't sell it, so they don't own it.

Nobody has the ABILITY to violate physical facts. It's physically and impossible to separate a person from their body. That's why people who enslave others remove their rights to liberty, not their bodies.

GET IT???

 

I think it means that you pay one slaveowner for him to sell you his slave.

Okay, since we seem to have a communication issue, I'll rephrase my initial statement: "Nobody is entitled to violate the body or property of others."

Nobody is entitled to violate the body or property of others.

GET IT???

 

I think he is another that speaks imprecise terminology.

Only concrete things can be owned. Concepts such as ideas, love and liberty can not be owned. They do not exist in the physical world.

 

People are so confused. It makes discussion difficult.

 

No one has a right to the labor of another person. If they choose to use the labor of another person then they have an obligation to provide a living wage/compensation package to the person that provides their labor. .

 

Agreed.

Why? And says who?

 

Just the opposite.

Clearly false. Rights can be owned. It's quite common.

An individual person's liberty is not a concept.

Individual people's liberty does not exist in the real world?

Further down the rabbit hole...

 

This dispute can easily be resolved. Simply take a picture of you liberty and post it in response to this post.

See? Easily resolved.