Pope calls health care an "Inalienable Right". What's the right-wing spin?

[sqweels]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1004736.htm

Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

[yorick73]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

[Arnold Winkelried]

This is not a new idea. The United Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, says the same:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Amnesty International, one of the leading human rights organizations, has expanded its work from working mostly on political rights (prisoners of conscience / political prisoners / death penalty / political refugees) to economic and social cultural rights, including health care.

When a society becomes mature enough that people are not starving or dying in wars all the time, it makes sense to me that health care should become a right, not a privilege. In the same way that education, once considered a privilege, is now a right.

[Chronos]

I don't know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad's reaction when the Pope condemned the US' actions in Iraq: "Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn't understand the intricacies of foreign relations". And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.

But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn't?

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by yorick73

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

Sure:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists.

Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by sqweels

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1004736.htm

Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

First President Obama has to make a statement either supporting or not supporting the Pope, then the right wing will issue their opposing opinion.

[Mr. Moto]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

[sqweels]

I just noticed I typed "and" inalienable right.

Mods?

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

Oh fuck me, who the hell in this country (or any place that has UHC for that matter) is forcing or otherwise suggesting that doctors work for free or that the government confiscate their property. Provide some cites please.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Blalron

Sure:

So you link to the Wiki page on natural rights and you still don't get it?

[Mr. Moto]

That wasn't my point. My point was that health care wasn't a right that naturally accrues to people just by virtue of their presence on the planet - it has to be provided to them by others, including doctors, government entities, churches and maybe taxpayers. And while I am not against people having health care, and indeed belong to a church that provided for such before many governments did, I won't go so far as to state that it is an inalienable right that we have - it is more accurately described as a duty that we should all shoulder.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

That wasn't my point. My point was that health care wasn't a right that naturally accrues to people just by virtue of their presence on the planet - it has to be provided to them by others, including doctors, government entities, churches and maybe taxpayers. And while I am not against people having health care, and indeed belong to a church that provided for such before many governments did, I won't go so far as to state that it is an inalienable right that we have - it is more accurately described as a duty that we should all shoulder.

I would suggest that all rights have to be provided by others.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I would suggest that all rights have to be provided by others.

So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.

[Bricker]

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.

Or possibly he's right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church's teachings, then health care would be a right.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.

Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I don't know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad's reaction when the Pope condemned the US' actions in Iraq: "Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn't understand the intricacies of foreign relations". And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.

But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn't?

Meh, Catholics have been ignoring the political opinions of the Papacy since almost its inception. We're a long ways removed from Kings crawling across the snow on their knees to beg forgiveness for having offended the pontiff.

Even most devoutly Catholic countries rejected the right of the papacy to make geopolitical decisions by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia (and in truth major Catholic powers like the Spanish/Austrian Hapsburg Empire had long set their agendas based on their self interest and not that of the pope's.)

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.

Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

I know you're joking, but it's such a common misconception that I'm going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed.

The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn't been an Italian pope since 1978?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn't grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I know you're joking, but it's such a common misconception that I'm going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed.

The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one.

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human. (Well, in truth traditional legal philosophy views these rights as being granted by god, but saying they are granted by nature works just as well and removes concerns some might have in our more secular, modern 21st century world.)

Governments should primarily be concerned with protecting these rights. Governments do not grant inalienable rights. This is very fundamental and actually if you take it in the wider context of history it makes perfect sense. The whole "point" that guys like Jefferson made were that if a government failed in its duty to protect natural rights, or even started to assail those rights itself, that government was no longer to be viewed valid--and that in fact the individual citizens would be totally correct to revolt against said government.

If you view government as the "grantor" of rights, it essentially means you're saying that on a philosophical level the government is the sole arbiter of what rights you have or what rights you don't have--and that your only recourse to abusive government is through advocating legal change. The major political revolution of the 18th and early 19th century instead argues that since there are inalienable rights, you can go beyond the confines of the state and its legal framework to protect them yourself. These are the justifications American colonists used to justify breaking away from King George and Parliament, and the justifications the French used in deposing the Bourbon monarchy.

Your other point, that you only "have the rights that you can defend" does not sync up with the traditional legal philosophy of natural rights. Under said philosophy if I kill you I haven't taken away your right to life, I have violated your right to life. Taking it away would mean I had some power to alter the "natural order of things", that I had to power to deem you "not entitled to life." Natural law as a philosophy doesn't really have that view of things.

For that reason it is highly suspect to call something that has to be created, funded, regulated and supported by government an "inalienable" right. Inalienable rights are better seen as the rights we're born with.

Natural law philosophy doesn't say much about rights like a "right to healthcare", meaning it's not a bad or good thing to establish such rights.

Of course, I don't support this view and have never supported this view, namely I don't really believe in natural law or natural rights. The only law of mankind is the law of chaos and strength. However, flowery things like the Pope's statement, various things politicians from Patrick Henry to FDR have said, and things like U.N. declarations are all based on the concepts of natural rights and natural law. So we should probably remain internally consistent, since the whole presumption is that "inalienable" rights are rights that no government can deny--and that government must protect to remain valid, it doesn't make sense to argue that a right that can only exist inside of a governmental system is inalienable.

I would also add that rights that some governments technically cannot provide whatsoever are hard for me to accept as a valid "inalienable right" under the concepts of "natural rights." Many, many countries in the world simply cannot provide universal health care, or if they do it will be in the form of a few clinics which most of the country cannot access because of distance and which is poorly staffed due to lack of funding. Compared to those countries the United States has far better healthcare even if it is not "universal." (Let's net even get into the specifics of how vague the U.N Declaration is--the fact that you can get emergency medical care no matter what in the United States could be seen as fulfilling the "duty" imposed by the declaration.)

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

As a Catholic I'd just say he was wrong. Catholics have disagreed with Popes before. Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn't grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights.

You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.

Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn't been an Italian pope since 1978?

Obviously to honor Dom DeLuise in Johnny Dangerously.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by Bricker

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.

Or possibly he's right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church's teachings, then health care would be a right.

Your position seems utterly bizarre to me. If you can't get the whole loaf of bread, you may as well go hungry?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens?

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.

What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life?

The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

Plenty of (American) Catholics don't follow Rome's guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human.

I'm not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I'm talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'm not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I'm talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly.

I agree, that's why the U.N. Declaration is meaningless. That's why the Pope's comment is meaningless. However, in the context of inalienable rights (which conjures up natural law and Western legal tradition, unavoidably) it still doesn't make sense to say health care is an "inalienable" right.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by mlees

What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life?

The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke.

But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.

Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself.

It's protected by yourself, not by government. Government can kill you just as easily as a brigand.

The only real thing you're entitled to in this world is that which you can defend yourself. Buying into the concept that government is capable of omnipotent protective services, or that it is benevolent, is probably one of the more dangerous thoughts one can have.

Probably harmless in most first world countries, but deadly for most of the human population.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by mlees

Plenty of (American) Catholics don't follow Rome's guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic.

One small aside: I've always thought that you can tell much more about a person, not by what religion they claim to be, but by which portions of their religion they think are important, and which ones they think it is acceptable to ignore.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

Then it's stupid to bring up the Pope or the U.N. Declaration, no one living today established the Papacy, no one voted the U.N into power. They are both essentially just prominent NGOs, only vaguely accountable to anyone.

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by sqweels

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Which Republicans would these be? Southern Baptists?

Anyway, this is nothing new. See: death penalty.

At any rate, an inalenable right is something like free speech. We posses by virtue of our being human, and no one has to lift a finger to give it to us. Not so with health care or diamonds.

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

I'll let Bricker explain the difference involved here wrt RC doctrine. He knows it a lot better than I do.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

I agree that in a practical sense, the power ratio of individual versus an entire government is a bit skewed, so it definately appears as if the government is necessary for rights to exist.

Us outsiders consider the Taliban government "bad" because it does not afford (protect?) various rights of it's female citizens, even though those rights are not even codified in some type of Consitution or legal code. (In fact, the Taliban's laws state some of the opposite.)

Think about that. We call them wrong/bad for not doing something they don't have codified. Why? Because we assume certain rights as fundamental to a free human even without (or in spite of contrary) codification.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.

Well, my argument would be that there are some rights that all governments should respect (and / or provide) to the best of their ability, and health care is one of those rights. Different regions of the world, at different wealth levels, may not have the same level, but the right should still exist. Same as, for example, education (already mentioned), right to vote, freedom of religion, etc.

[Markxxx]

Health care should be a matter of public policy just as police protection and fire protection is. We pay taxes for that. No one says "I paid taxes for 50 years and never once had to call out the fire dept to put out a fire. I want my money back."

I think this is what the pope is getting at.

As for doctors working for a wage? Well so do fire fighters and policemen and the President of the USA. You think Mr Obama couldn't make more as a private citizen?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried

You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens?

Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It's not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care. We can decide, thru the legislative process to provide everyone with some amount of health care, but we can decide not to as well. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the "right" to public education or health care.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

Health care should be a matter of public policy just as police protection and fire protection is. We pay taxes for that. No one says "I paid taxes for 50 years and never once had to call out the fire dept to put out a fire. I want my money back."

I think this is what the pope is getting at.

As for doctors working for a wage? Well so do fire fighters and policemen and the President of the USA. You think Mr Obama couldn't make more as a private citizen?

Health care is a very valid argument as part of a public policy debate.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Then it's stupid to bring up the Pope or the U.N. Declaration, no one living today established the Papacy, no one voted the U.N into power. They are both essentially just prominent NGOs, only vaguely accountable to anyone.

I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.

We are perfecting the country over time. It's far from an inescapable conclusion to assume that we are done. If our culture were static women wouldn't vote, blacks would be slaves and wigs would be de rigueur.

We should have UHC, and we will someday, but there are still plenty of people working against it. Give it time. Your children will live in a world where gays get married, and healthcare is a right.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

It's protected by yourself, not by government. Government can kill you just as easily as a brigand.

The only real thing you're entitled to in this world is that which you can defend yourself. Buying into the concept that government is capable of omnipotent protective services, or that it is benevolent, is probably one of the more dangerous thoughts one can have.

Probably harmless in most first world countries, but deadly for most of the human population.

That strikes me as illogical. After all, I can kill me far more easily than can the government. I am by far more capricious, am constrained in killing myself by fewer alternate interests, and have no media groups following my actions that might learn of my plans. I can't be held to account for my crime. If the government is a weak or unreliable entity as regards protecting me, fair enough, but it's unreasonable to claim that we, personally, are much better, because we're not.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

Why? There probably isn't very much of a sync up between "people opposed to health care" and "people who hang on the Pope's every word." Even in America Catholics are pretty split between the parties. They may be more socially conservative on average, but Catholicism has a very long history of being very socialist-leaning economically. Hell, even before the formal doctrines of socialism were laid to print.

We are perfecting the country over time. It's far from an inescapable conclusion to assume that we are done. If our culture were static women wouldn't vote, blacks would be slaves and wigs would be de rigueur.

We should have UHC, and we will someday, but there are still plenty of people working against it. Give it time. Your children will live in a world where gays get married, and healthcare is a right.

Mm, I don't have children and since I'm an old man I doubt I ever will. (And I already live in a world where gays get married--and so do you.)

Secondly, I don't believe "we" (who is we? You and a few specific people? You and people who agree with you? Your political party? Everyone?) are perfecting anything. Societies change over time, period. I don't believe the "active" efforts of people have as much to do with it as the sheer weight of millions of individuals slowly becoming more and more different from previous generations with each successive generation.

Your comments are really nonsensical and all over the place.

Let's look at a specific case, at one points blacks did not have the right to vote. Is it your argument at that time that a) blacks had the right to vote but it was denied to them, or that b) blacks did not have the right to vote, because government had not yet created it?

Are rights a goal or are they factual things?

You also say that we create governments to "create" the rights that we want. Then when I say "well, that means that countries that do not have UHC do not want it" you say "well it's a process." I agree that change is a gradual process. However, I would also say that the reason blacks weren't voting in 1850 in the United States is because Americans did not want them to vote.

Honestly I think you'd make a lot more sense if you would stop using the word "rights" and instead use the word "policies" because that's honestly what you're talking about and the word that actually makes sense in the broader context of what you're saying.

People who believe in rights generally have some sort of philosophical framework from which they believe those rights are derived. Your description of a right is essentially synonymous with anyone else's description of "government policy."

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

What about the non-reflexively anti health care people? Or aren't there any of those. What about the reflexively and non-reflexively pro-choice people? Do you find it "yummy" that they have to deal with the Pope working against them?

I'm just struggling to understand why anyone cares what the Pope says about public policy. He's a religious, not a political leader. It's of no significance to disagree with him. He's not even saying Catholics are gong to hell if they vote against health care reform.

Once again, there is no "gotcha" here.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold

That strikes me as illogical. After all, I can kill me far more easily than can the government. I am by far more capricious, am constrained in killing myself by fewer alternate interests, and have no media groups following my actions that might learn of my plans. I can't be held to account for my crime. If the government is a weak or unreliable entity as regards protecting me, fair enough, but it's unreasonable to claim that we, personally, are much better, because we're not.

I didn't say that you were better or worse at protecting things than a government.

What I said was that the only thing you really have in this world is that which you can protect.

Sure, my house is protected far better by our system of laws and my government than it is protected by me personally. But that's all really an illusion. If a massive comet hit tomorrow that blocked out the sun for 10 years and killed 90% of the world's population it'd show that governments can change rapidly and you can quickly find that government can steal from you and take from you just as it can protect you. If you don't have the strength to protect what is yours, it can always be taken from you by superior strength.

What's it all mean? That individually humans are incredibly fragile, everything we hold is fragile, and we are safe based on societal whim and a remarkable period of historical stability, that in the grand scheme of human history is but a small part and could easily be wiped away on the morrow.

[Martin Hyde]

Just a quick dosage of facts, from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, the political leanings of American Catholics:

23% Republican
10% Lean Republican
10% Independent
15% Lean Democratic
33% Democratic
9%  Other / No preference

[Martin Hyde]

Also, from the same report:

Views About Size of Government Among Catholics

39% Smaller government, fewer services
51% Bigger government, more services
4%  Depends
6%  Don't know

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Why? There probably isn't very much of a sync up between "people opposed to health care" and "people who hang on the Pope's every word." Even in America Catholics are pretty split between the parties. They may be more socially conservative on average, but Catholicism has a very long history of being very socialist-leaning economically. Hell, even before the formal doctrines of socialism were laid to print.

I know, but a lot of Catholics forget that.

Mm, I don't have children and since I'm an old man I doubt I ever will. (And I already live in a world where gays get married--and so do you.)

Not with federal rights they don't.

Secondly, I don't believe "we" (who is we? You and a few specific people? You and people who agree with you? Your political party? Everyone?) are perfecting anything. Societies change over time, period. I don't believe the "active" efforts of people have as much to do with it as the sheer weight of millions of individuals slowly becoming more and more different from previous generations with each successive generation.

Well, if you believed in innate rights we're perfecting it. Liberty wasn't available to blacks at the outset. Women were certainly limited in their pursuit of happiness. We're getting better, fighting the stupidity of days past.

Your comments are really nonsensical and all over the place.

Possible. Not likely, but possible.

Let's look at a specific case, at one points blacks did not have the right to vote. Is it your argument at that time that a) blacks had the right to vote but it was denied to them, or that b) blacks did not have the right to vote, because government had not yet created it?

We agree that they should, because the golden rule in incorporated into us by evolution. But how can they be said to have those rights when they don't?

Are rights a goal or are they factual things?

Rights aren't tangible. They aren't bestowed by God. They are things we agree on and protect because we think they are the correct thing to do.

You also say that we create governments to "create" the rights that we want. Then when I say "well, that means that countries that do not have UHC do not want it" you say "well it's a process." I agree that change is a gradual process. However, I would also say that the reason blacks weren't voting in 1850 in the United States is because Americans did not want them to vote.

Yeah. So where was their right then? People do want health care reform when asked about it piecemeal. But misinformation by political operatives has muddied the field. People know that sick people shouldn't be ruined because of one illness. Or unable to purchase insurance at all because of a previous illness. But as of yet many haven't been convinced that UHC is the most logical way to that end.

Honestly I think you'd make a lot more sense if you would stop using the word "rights" and instead use the word "policies" because that's honestly what you're talking about and the word that actually makes sense in the broader context of what you're saying.

Rights created by policies. Enforced by them. They are an emergent property of them.

People who believe in rights generally have some sort of philosophical framework from which they believe those rights are derived. Your description of a right is essentially synonymous with anyone else's description of "government policy."

As I say, a stone age hunter has the right to life that he can procure. Working together we've enshrined this right into the fabric of our government. That's a good thing. It doesn't lessen it.

Evolution has built into us a cooperative capacity because we're social animals. To the extent that rights have a non governmental existence it is in our built in desires to see certain things done.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It's not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care.

I'm not using the word "should" to mean "legally obligated". I'm talking about what a modern government should provide to its people. The USA is a part of the UN, and the general assembly of the UN agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course you can always come back later and say "we didn't really mean it", but the UDHR is a good basis for determining what your standards are.