Is health care a right or a privelege?

For HC to be a right, all that is involved from conception to death would require government involvement and the actual purpose of the movement. Everything from the involved sex of a couple, health and genetics, would or should be reviewed, to virtually all aspects of human behavior. As are most all things, how you live your life is YOUR responsibility and virtually all human HC needs come from those choices.

 

Exactly.
Suddenly unskilled schlumps who have put forth no effort to better themselves are entitled to large sums of money for menial labor

 

What rights, specifically?

 

that's nice.
Did God write this law on stone tablets or something?

This is nothing but the rumination of an envious man

 

I have to hand it to you, I would have never had the patience to put up with those long winded posts in order to drill down to the source of Shiva's misunderstanding of Locke's positions. Kudos to you!

 

Thanks. Locke is trying to explain how someone could establish title to some as-yet-unused natural resource. He does so by being the first person to homestead it. Locke's position is that one homesteads a resource by mixing his labor with it.

However, it must be remembered that he is talking about establishing title to an unowned resource. One could also acquire title by purchasing from an existing owner. In that case, the mixing of labor is irrelevant. Title is acquired by contract and is permanent.

 

Demsetz 1967.

Locke's claim is that the land user "mixes his labor" with the land (which is a bald physical impossibility, and nothing but a misleading metaphor), and thus obtains a property right in the land.

That's clearly just false. The land one person needs to survive might be the only good land in the area. In any case, Locke's Proviso has been proved to unzip logically, like the Hangman's Paradox: even if there is enough and as good for the next person, there isn't enough and as good for everyone. So no one can rightly appropriate the last increment that is enough and as good. But if the last one can't appropriate the last increment, then there wasn't enough and as good when the second last appropriated his portion either, so they could not rightly have appropriated it. But that means there wasn't enough and as good for the third last, either, etc. The whole thing unzips right back to the first land thief.

 

That's exactly what you mean.

 

Because if he can't explain it, the whole basis of private landowning goes bye-bye, which would be intolerable to Locke's patrons. And he can't.

But Locke never explains (because he can't) how being the first to make fixed improvements to some land (the essence of homesteading) extinguishes everyone else's liberty rights to use it.

Which is physically impossible, and nothing but a misleading metaphor. By APPLYING his labor to a natural resource, the worker removes it from its natural place, so that others would no longer have been at liberty to use it. That is what enables it to be made into property: the fact that no one else is deprived of their rights to liberty.

I.e., removing others' rights to liberty.

No, for title to be acquired through exchange, it would have to be valid in the first place, which land titles are not. You can't get title to the sun by just paying some guy who claims to own it.

 

No it isn't.

 

But, of course, it is!

Without the State backing the Liberal Agenda, you'd be nowhere.

 

No It isn't.