Health care is a very valid argument as part of a public policy debate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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
I know, but a lot of Catholics forget that.
Not with federal rights they don’t.
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.
Possible. Not likely, but possible.
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?
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.
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.
Rights created by policies. Enforced by them. They are an emergent property of them.
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.
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.
What about them?
Are you of the opinion that “so many” means everyone? I didn’t intend to use it that way.
Sure. Mostly because many of them are actually Catholic.
He is, in the larger sense, of no consequence. He’s just a deluded old man. However, he does wield a lot of temporal power. He is hardly not a major player on the world stage.
I don’t really think there is in fact a gotcha. I’d agree.
And my point is that that’s true of me, too. If the protection of my person or what I own by the government is simply an illusion, so much greater an illusion is it that I am capable of protecting those things. It doesn’t take a massive comet killing 90% of the world’s population to change *my *mind about me. Really, it makes much more sense to me to declare (if I had to pick between the two) that the only thing I really have in this world is that which the government can protect.
I can think of one example where the Constitution affirmatively requires the government to provide people with something: The indigent have the right to be provided with an attorney if they are accused of a crime.
Whatever, I’ve already presented some evidence showing that Catholics are left leaning and big-government left leaning at that. (As a life long Catholic I’ll say that is very typical of my experience, I’ve always felt very far to the right from most of my fellow parishioners on economic matters, while being a bit to the left of them on social matters.)
Yeah, but marriage wasn’t strictly defined. Gays can get married with various degrees of recognition in the United States–and since you said “a world in which gays will marry” I’ll point to the 96% of the world’s population that doesn’t live in the United States and remind you they have their own laws.
I would agree we’ve had social progress. However as I said, I don’t believe in innate rights. I would ask though, what is your concept of a right? You tie it so closely to existing government policies that you essentially seem to be saying rights can only exist in the framework of specific countries and specific countries legal system.
So you are essentially saying that you (someone who I believe advocates UHC) would view UHC as a “right” in countries where that policy has been enacted, but “not a right” in countries where it hasn’t been enacted. As someone who believes it “should” be a right, you thus advocate that the right should be “created” in countries where it doesn’t already exist.
That seems very, very alien to me. I don’t know of any major doctrine or philosophy that views rights that way. What makes more sense is the more mainstream view of universal rights (I’ll quickly add a again that I think rights are a meaningless concept–but I’m arguing from the perspective of the majority and tradition in regards to the concept, not based on my own views), this view would thus hold not that blacks during the 1960s lacked rights but that they were fighting for equal protection of their rights. I don’t think MLK Jr. was fighting for the right to vote, he was fighting to protect a right that he already had.
Or an even more clear-cut example, various Jewish groups that actively fought the Nazis during World War II. I don’t think it makes sense to say the Jews lacked a right to life rather it makes sense to say that a powerful government was infringing on that right, and that the militant Jewish resistance groups were fighting to protect that right. I don’t believe the right just vanished because a government said it did…that would make sense if we were talking about policies, but rights have never been advocated by anyone I’ve ever heard of (other than you) as something governments can create and destroy with the whims of the mob.
Because a right doesn’t have to be viewed the way you are viewing it. Most people way say blacks had a right to freedom, even while enslaved. Enslaving them just violated their innate right, it did not destroy it. If it destroyed it then you’re essentially tying rights solely to the exact present tense situation, such that rights have no meaning at all since the moment they are violated they no longer exist…
So rights are only things that people agree on? I’d hate to be in the minority…
He gets a lot of attention, but I can’t see that he’s actually influential in policy making. Look at the hot button issue of abortion. Catholics are divided between pro-choice and pro-life in pretty much the same % as non-Catholics. The RCC has no problem with evolution, and yet you don’t see Catholics leading the charge against the Creationists. Americans, at least, seem very capable of compartmentalizing their political beliefs and the official RCC positions.
Yeah, but as some sort of “gotcha” this makes no sense. In the context of American politics you can’t really say “a statistically relevant portion of anti-UHC persons are Catholic.” Note that I say 'statistically relevant, which means–a large portion of anti-UHC types are Catholic, but if you compare the % of anti-UHC people who are Catholic to the % of people who are Catholic in the country at large, you’ll probably find it is a similar percentage. If anything, you’ll find a smaller % of anti-UHC types are Catholic than % of people who are Catholic in the country at large.
Your “gotcha” and “finding it yummy” that the Pope advocates UHC really only would make sense if there was some irony or something in this.
I can see it if the Pope came out saying, “I support a woman’s right to choose”, Catholics are a core part of the pro-life crowd. With UHC, it really makes no sense.
What I honestly think has happened is your probably under some weird impression that because Catholics and the Pope are anti-abortion and anti-birth control they are hard core right wingers. In truth, that doesn’t really sync with any polls done on Catholics. They tend to be more Democrat than Republic, they tend to support social policies and not fiscal conservatism, they tend to believe in entitlement programs. They tend more towards anti-war activities than the population at large, they tend more towards anti-death penalty activities than the population at large.
Essentially Catholics are socially conservative and economically quite liberal. Of course, Catholics are the single largest religious group in the United States and because of the nature of the religion many life long Catholics are only minor adherents but aren’t willing to totally shed association with the church. So to speak as I just did about Catholics is only relevant in extremely broad strokes, in the real world there is of course much more nuance.
Your reaction would only really make sense if the Pope came out in support of abortions, gay marriage, or birth control. Since Catholics are left leaning, it doesn’t really make sense to act like this thing the Pope has said is some sort of “gotcha.”
Fortunately I am Presbyterian and do not have to worry about what a Pope says. 
And I am what C. S. Lewis would call a “mere Christian” and worry even less.
I look forward to Der Trihs condemning this evil Christian, motivated as he is by virulent hatred for all mankind, for this blatant attempt to force his religious beliefs down the throat of a secular society.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure that any spin is necessary beyond “he’s wrong”.
Although he isn’t.
Sure. But now the economically right Catholics have something working against them. Funny.
Sure. It’s going more to allowing it than not. I was talking about increasing social justice.
What kind of atoms are rights made of? How much space do they take up? As I say, they are an artifact of our culture. They have no existence without it. A tiger cornering you in a forest has no concept of your right to life. To the extent it exists, it needs to be enforced.
Of course it would be created. You, as a stone-age hunter would have no right to liberty. Anyone stronger than you could take it away and enslave you.
If he had a right to do it, he could have done it. He was fighting to enshrine that right into our culture so he could enjoy it.
A totalitarian alien race takes over Earth in a day. You are required to check in to a featureless black orb in your home every day where your memories are read and anti-alien thoughts are recorded and punished. If you don’t show up for a reading you are killed by a poison that is running through your system and is transmuted into a benign form by the orb.
Every human on Earth lives like this. Where is their right to liberty? Where is it? It doesn’t exist. Now a group can get together and topple the alien government and establish a right to liberty. And good on them. But until you can enforce it, it does’t exist. People want liberty. Just like people want sex and food. The want isn’t the right. The protected force behind it is what gives it meaning.
As I say, we want freedom for everyone because we’re a social species. The desire for it is in our genes. The desire becomes something meaningful when there is a punishment for denying it to others.
Not everyone has to agree. For instance many apparently don’t agree that you have the right not to be virtually strip searched at the airport.
It depends on what the laws in place say. If most people decided they didn’t want the right to firearms, we’d still have it until someone legislated it away.