# What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561 "2013-01-17T23:21:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 159
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3162 "2014-11-11T23:20:59Z")
Looks like Joe Wilson was right: Obama lied: > **[Under Obama program, illegals get driver's license, credit cards, Obamacare](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/under-obama-program-illegals-get-drivers-license-credit-cards-obamacare)** > > President Obama’s 2012 program to defer deportation of young illegal immigrants greatly eased their ability to get jobs, credit cards, bank accounts, driver’s licenses and even Obamacare despite their undocumented status, according to a new Harvard... Illegals can actually get ACA benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3163 "2014-11-11T23:29:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a difference of opinion we have as a country. But we should be able to agree that the choice should be honestly presented to the public, and the public should be able to decide which path they want to take by picking the party that will take them down that path. Sure. And the GOP is the party of magical thinking. Of course if some party lies about how via Laffer Magic they can cut taxes and buy everything we need, that’s going to gain traction. It’s shitty that people still buy that nonsense to the extent that they do. > [@](#): > > I’d argue that this is false, because the party has found it very necessary since FDR to appoint the “right” justices, and not necessarily to protect women’s rights. That’s what gets the publicity, but when they get down to the nuts and bolts of things, it’s really about the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Democrats want those interpreted to allow virtually anything. They are also arguing for a much more restrictive interpretation of a variety of 1st amendment rights, from religion to political speech, and I’m sure hate speech laws are coming like in other countries if they can move the ball down the field far enough. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about campaign finance laws. And as for appointing the “right” justices, you might note that the Conservative Wing of the SCOTUS is as far from non-ideological. > [@](#): > > In Britain, Parliament can indeed pass such a law. They can pass any law they want. There are no limits on Parliament’s powers. And we can change the constitution. It’s just harder. I guess that’s a limit, but the gingers better watch out. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3164 "2014-11-11T23:36:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Sure. And the GOP is the party of magical thinking. Of course if some party lies about how via Laffer Magic they can cut taxes and buy everything we need, that’s going to gain traction. THe Republicans are the only ones even engaging the public in the debate over entitlements. Democrats should also be communicating with the public about the entitlement challenge and their ideas for fixing it. > [@](#): > > There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about campaign finance laws. Campaign finance laws are not inherently unconstitutional, just so long as you don’t get into the actual act of censorship as a means of enforcing them, or try to limit money for the sake of limiting money, even when no corruption is possible, such as self-funded candidates. Democrats are nearly united now in actually wanting to censor political speech, which would be fine if they recognized that because of our 1st amendment, it can’t be done. Instead, they are going to resort to court packing again, and they want to go a lot further than merely overturning Citizens United. Even the dissenters in that decision affirmed constitutional limits that Democrats want to breach, such as corporate personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3165 "2014-11-11T23:37:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’re right and people who disagree are wrong. Because you say so - Got it. So you’re not interested in supporting your claim. Revealing. Please actually listen to what I’m saying. I understand that you feel viscerally that you need to defend the concept of natural rights. But you’re falling back on how a religious person argues for the existence of God here. \*\*Let’s be clear what’s happening here: \*\* **Lobohan:** Natural rights don’t exist apart from what cultures enforce. **Bone:** People think that they do exist. **Lobohan:** So what? People think lots of things. **Bone:** So prove they don’t exist! **Lobohan:** My evidence they don’t exist apart from what cultures enforce, is that no one can state how these “natural rights” have any real existence aside from what a culture enforces. You’re asserting that the burden of proving they don’t exist is on me. I’m asserting that they do absolutely nothing and the universe wouldn’t be at all different if they did or didn’t exist. I’ve more than supported my side of this. All you have to do is prove to me that your “natural right” to whatever has any real existence aside from what cultures or governments enforce. I’ve never said that I’m right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. I’m saying that the people who disagree have no evidence at all and are only gratuitously asserting these “natural rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3166 "2014-11-11T23:41:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not every right secured by government is a natural right, but they do exist. For example, the first two amendments to our Constitution are natural rights. Freedom of thought exists whether a government wants it to or not. The right to self defense also exists whether government wants it to or not. What government does is expand these rights to give them more power and to insure greater individual liberty. Please prove these things exist aside from what the government enforces. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a serious argument with those who think natural rights don’t exist, because it’s a philosophical question. I only take issue with it if it’s an argument used to either take away rights, or to make newly thought up rights equivalent, such as “the right to health care”. Since the right to health care cannot possibly be a natural right, given that it simply can’t exist at all without a government to force people to provide it, those who support the idea have an incentive to denigrate rights that actually do exist in nature in some form. The “right to health care” to the extent that it exists, stems from the same thing as your right to life and liberty. It’s enforced by the government. > [@](#): > > It should be noted that even property rights exist in nature. Animals establish territory and that territory is often respected if the animal has the ability to enforce its claim. Exactly. Enforcing the claim is what makes a right exist. You can bitch about your right to liberty, but that right isn’t real until something defends it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3167 "2014-11-11T23:48:49Z")
Even if I concede your argument, a right is something more than something the government in its benevolence gives you. A right is something you are entitled to, and when the government infringes on it it is at best a necessary evil, at worst an atrocity. In other words, we can’t just repeal the 1st amendment because we believe society would be better off without it. Even if you could prove that free speech is bad for society somehow, we would still have the right to free speech and any government that took it away would be regarded as tyrannical and worthy of forcible overthrow. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3168 "2014-11-11T23:52:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Looks like Joe Wilson was right: Obama lied: > > [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-illegal-immigrants-easily-get-drivers-license-credit-cards-even-obamacare/article/2556011?custom\_click=rss](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-illegal-immigrants-easily-get-drivers-license-credit-cards-even-obamacare/article/2556011?custom_click=rss) > > Illegals can actually get ACA benefits. Wrong. There’s [nothing](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/) in the ACA that applies funding for illegal immigrants to get health care. If some illegal immigrants illegally obtained identification and obtained benefits, that doesn’t mean that Obama lied. Further, your article doesn’t even say that the illegal immigrants utilized the ACA – it just says “And although the Affordable Care Act does not guarantee health insurance to DACA recipients, a significant share of our respondents have reported obtaining health care since receiving their DACA paperwork”. They ‘obtain[ed] health care’ – not ‘obtained health care by utilizing the ACA’. Did you really think that you wouldn’t be challenged on this? Did you even read your own article? Tsk tsk tsk, **adaher**. Lazy, lazy posting. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3169 "2014-11-11T23:54:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Wrong. There’s [nothing](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/) in the ACA that applies funding for illegal immigrants to get health care. > > If some illegal immigrants illegally obtained identification and obtained benefits, that doesn’t mean that Obama lied. Further, your article doesn’t even say that the illegal immigrants utilized the ACA – it just says “And although the Affordable Care Act does not guarantee health insurance to DACA recipients, a significant share of our respondents have reported obtaining health care since receiving their DACA paperwork”. They ‘obtain[ed] health care’ – not ‘obtained health care by utilizing the ACA’. > > Did you really think that you wouldn’t be challenged on this? Did you even read your own article? Tsk tsk tsk, **adaher**. Lazy, lazy posting. I’m aware that ACA doesn’t allow illegals to get benefits. Illegals can’t get jobs either. The question is whether the administration will actually enforce the law. But you did make a good find there. The study does not actually show that they received subsidies, which is the illegal part. So yeah, I muffed that one. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3170 "2014-11-11T23:56:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > THe Republicans are the only ones even engaging the public in the debate over entitlements. Democrats should also be communicating with the public about the entitlement challenge and their ideas for fixing it. The Democrats have extended Medicare’s lifespan. Social security is stable for the next thirty-some years. And after that, it can be stable indefinitely if we cut the payouts to 75%. There is room to work on it, but making Medicare into a voucher system is asinine. You talk about death panels, shifting the elderly to private insurance is a lot closer to that than Obamacare. > [@](#): > > Campaign finance laws are not inherently unconstitutional, just so long as you don’t get into the actual act of censorship as a means of enforcing them, or try to limit money for the sake of limiting money, even when no corruption is possible, such as self-funded candidates. > > Democrats are nearly united now in actually wanting to censor political speech, which would be fine if they recognized that because of our 1st amendment, it can’t be done. Instead, they are going to resort to court packing again, and they want to go a lot further than merely overturning Citizens United. Even the dissenters in that decision affirmed constitutional limits that Democrats want to breach, such as corporate personhood. Any speech can be censored. You are currently unable to yell fire in a crowded theater. Are you allowed to incite the overthrow of the US govt? The question is, does allowing unfettered money in politics rise to the level of needing to be dealt with. It’s not that one of us is un-American, it’s that we disagree on how serious the concept is. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3171 "2014-11-12T00:03:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Please actually listen to what I’m saying. I understand that you feel viscerally that you need to defend the concept of natural rights. On the contrary - I’m challenging your assertion. You said, _“Rights come from the state.”_ and _“Rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do.”_ You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. This is independent of the concept of natural rights. Feel free to ignore completely the concept of natural rights if their introduction makes it difficult for you to support your assertion. If I had said, “Natural rights exist independent of what society says” then it would be appropriate to challenge that assertion. Fortunately I have not made that assertion - you have in the same form with a different meaning. So I ask again, cite that _rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do?_ > [@](#): > > I’ve more than supported my side of this. All you have to do is prove to me that your “natural right” to whatever has any real existence aside from what cultures or governments enforce. > > I’ve never said that I’m right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. I’m saying that the people who disagree have no evidence at all and are only gratuitously asserting these “natural rights.” You’ve failed to support your assertion and seem to be clinging dogmatically to it for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3172 "2014-11-12T00:05:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The Democrats have extended Medicare’s lifespan. Social security is stable for the next thirty-some years. And after that, it can be stable indefinitely if we cut the payouts to 75%. There is room to work on it, but making Medicare into a voucher system is asinine. You talk about death panels, shifting the elderly to private insurance is a lot closer to that than Obamacare. I agree that the voucher system is asinine. One thing Republicans need to evolve on is that some things government actually does do better. If only because simplicity is your friend and sometimes partial privatization just introduces more complexity into the mix. It’s one reason I actually prefer single payer to ACA, although that’s just a lesser level of hate. But single payer does have the virtue of being a hell of a lot simpler, and thus less likely to have any of its moving parts fail. But to get back to the actual point, Republicans have actively sold their proposals to the public. The public didn’t like them. Fine, that’s democracy. The Democrats sold nothing. They just made changes and then denied that benefits would be impacted in any way. That’s not an honest look at the tradeoffs of fiscal policy, that’s promising voters that there’s a free lunch. And the only reason Democrats even discussed the issue with voters at all is because they had to rebut Republican attacks on their program. If the GOP had gone flaccid during that period, Democrats would have made all these changes with no public comment desired. > [@](#): > > Any speech can be censored. You are currently unable to yell fire in a crowded theater. Are you allowed to incite the overthrow of the US govt? That’s not totally accurate. Speech can only be limited when the government can prove a compelling interest in limiting it. And the standard of proof is very high. If your speech is very likely to directly get people killed, hell yeah that’s prosecutable. But if it just offends or damages their self-esteem, no dice. With campaign finance, the standard has historically been that the laws must be tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Which is why in 1976, limits on self-funded candidates were struck down by a pretty liberal court. Making elections “fair” is not a compelling government interest. > [@](#): > > The question is, does allowing unfettered money in politics rise to the level of needing to be dealt with. It’s not that one of us is un-American, it’s that we disagree on how serious the concept is. The issue is that it needs to actually be proven that this money is corrupting our politics. Democrats don’t want to have to defend that standard. They just want to be able to pass whatever campaign finance laws they see fit and that’s that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3173 "2014-11-12T00:05:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Even if I concede your argument, a right is something more than something the government in its benevolence gives you. A right is something you are entitled to, and when the government infringes on it it is at best a necessary evil, at worst an atrocity. In other words, we can’t just repeal the 1st amendment because we believe society would be better off without it. Even if you could prove that free speech is bad for society somehow, we would still have the right to free speech and any government that took it away would be regarded as tyrannical and worthy of forcible overthrow. The government, ultimately, is people. And people decide how they want it to work. It’s people respecting the right to free speech that makes it unthinkable for congress to gut it. At least until gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics and unlimited money set us up into an oligarchical lock that can’t be broken short of revolution. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3174 "2014-11-12T00:08:27Z")
That’s a big difference in our system though, we don’t believe the majority can infringe on the individual rights of the minority. Even on an issue like campaign finance reform where something like 80-90% of the public agrees with you over me, changing things by amendment will be a bitch. That’s by design. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3175 "2014-11-12T00:13:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > On the contrary - I’m challenging your assertion. You said, _“Rights come from the state.”_ and _“Rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do.”_ You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. This is independent of the concept of natural rights. Feel free to ignore completely the concept of natural rights if their introduction makes it difficult for you to support your assertion. > > If I had said, “Natural rights exist independent of what society says” then it would be appropriate to challenge that assertion. Fortunately I have not made that assertion - you have in the same form with a different meaning. So I ask again, cite that _rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do?_ > > You’ve failed to support your assertion and seem to be clinging dogmatically to it for some reason. I don’t think you understand how arguments go. Lobohan: I assert that vampires don’t exist. Bone: People believe in vampires! Lobohan: So? Bone: Support your assertion! How exactly do I support the assertion that something doesn’t exist? Can I show you a molecule by molecule scan in realtime of the Earth and nearby solar system? I can show you that no one has ever demonstrated its existence. All natural rights are bald assertions. Since there is no evidence for their existence, aside from those assertions, they can be dismissed. The way to counter the assertion that something doesn’t exist, is to provide evidence that it does. So please, go out natural rights hunting and let me know how that turns out. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3176 "2014-11-12T00:18:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Of course not. That’s the primary role of government, to protect the weak from the strong, so that EVERYONE has the rights of the strong. But the rights do pre-exist government. So, for billions of years of evolution, property rights existed, subject to the Law of the Jungle, until government came along? Are you making this up as you go along? There are no natural rights without government. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3177 "2014-11-12T00:31:30Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think you understand how arguments go. > > Lobohan: I assert that vampires don’t exist. > Bone: People believe in vampires! > Lobohan: So? > Bone: Support your assertion! > > How exactly do I support the assertion that something doesn’t exist? Can I show you a molecule by molecule scan in realtime of the Earth and nearby solar system? This would be interesting, except this isn’t how this exchange took place. Your characterization of the conversation is false. Let’s see: Post [3140](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17891985&postcount=3140): > [@Lobohan](#): > > Rights come from the state. This is your assertion. It wasn’t a negative assertion as your false example attempts to portray. The discussion is more like: **Lobohan** : \* Rights come from the state.\* **Bone** : _Cite?_ **Lobohan** : _No._ **Bone** : _Please?_ **Lobohan** : _Monkeys and Bananas!_\* > [@Lobohan](#): > > What rights do you enjoy that aren’t enforced by the state? Because it seems to me, that if you aren’t protected by law, someone can waltz over and do whatever they want to you. So for the person that is the victim in your scenario, did they have a right to not be victimized (I’m not clear on your “do whatever they want to you” involves, but I imagine for the sake of example it’s violent or unwanted)? Were their rights removed, or violated, or something else? \*I stretched that last part, but only just so. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3178 "2014-11-12T00:58:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This would be interesting, except this isn’t how this exchange took place. Your characterization of the conversation is false. Let’s see: > > Post [3140](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17891985&postcount=3140): > This is your assertion. It wasn’t a negative assertion as your false example attempts to portray. You’re the one who brought in “natural rights.” > [@](#): > > The discussion is more like: > > **Lobohan** : \* Rights come from the state.\* > **Bone** : _Cite?_ > **Lobohan** : _No._ > **Bone** : _Please?_ > **Lobohan** : _Monkeys and Bananas!_\* Again, I think the problem here is that you simply don’t understand how arguing goes. I am saying that rights come from the state. I am also saying (after you brought it up) that natural rights don’t exist. Rights come from the state, or more simply cultures if you’re living in a tribe and don’t have a state to speak of because that’s how they’re enforced. You can sit on your duff and assert the right to blowjobs by '80s pornstar Chrsty Canyon all you like. But until society enforces that right, it’s just monkeyshines. I assert that “natural rights” don’t exist, because as far as I know, no one on Earth has demonstrated how a natural right is different from not having a natural right. > [@](#): > > So for the person that is the victim in your scenario, did they have a right to not be victimized (I’m not clear on your “do whatever they want to you” involves, but I imagine for the sake of example it’s violent or unwanted)? Were their rights removed, or violated, or something else? Rights are a social construct. They’re something we agree each other has. If your culture doesn’t think you have the right to your property, guess what? Anyone can take it, if they can take it. Again, go into the jungle and ask a puma about your right to life. You’ll see that he doesn’t feel obligated to respect that right. > [@](#): > > \*I stretched that last part, but only just so. Again, you’re just like a creationist demanding that I prove God doesn’t exist. I can’t prove He doesn’t exist, but I can show that no can prove that He does. I’ve supported my side, the only time rights mean anything at all, is when society says they do. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3179 "2014-11-12T01:40:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Again, I think the problem here is that you simply don’t understand how arguing goes. Let’s see if I can summarize your argument: _no u._ > [@](#): > > Rights come from the state, or more simply cultures if you’re living in a tribe and don’t have a state to speak of because that’s how they’re enforced. You can sit on your duff and assert the right to blowjobs by '80s pornstar Chrsty Canyon all you like. But until society enforces that right, it’s just monkeyshines. If two people are on an island sans government are you saying that one can kill the other with impunity, rape, torture, etc. without violating the other person’s rights, as long as they are strong enough to do so? I think you believe this. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3180 "2014-11-12T01:55:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Let’s see if I can summarize your argument: _no u._ > If two people are on an island sans government are you saying that one can kill the other with impunity, rape, torture, etc. without violating the other person’s rights, as long as they are strong enough to do so? I think you believe this. I don’t. Ah, I see your problem, you think \*rights \*and _shit I’d prefer_ are the same thing. Of course you shouldn’t kill and torture other people. What does that have to do with rights? Your impulse to not kill others is based on our evolution as a social species. Not some fantastical Right of Life that predated the universe. Of course it’s shitty to rape, murder and steal. But how is that person’s “natural right” to not be raped, murdered or stolen from, meaningful in the least? No one is enforcing that right, so it means exactly nothing. Please answer this: In what way is the universe any different on that island if those rights exist or not? If the bigger rapist, murderer guy decides to obey them, great, they live on the island in peace. If not, what do these mystic natural rights do? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/3181 "2014-11-12T16:21:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course you shouldn’t kill and torture other people. What do you base this on? > [@](#): > > Of course it’s shitty to rape, murder and steal. What do you base this on? > [@](#): > > Please answer this: In what way is the universe any different on that island if those rights exist or not? If the bigger rapist, murderer guy decides to obey them, great, they live on the island in peace. If not, what do these mystic natural rights do? They provide guidance on objective moral behavior. Ultimately I think this is a philisophical question and my objection to your characterization rests on your dogmatic approach to a belief set that has no empirical basis. I accept you think the way you’ve stated, and that it has no greater certainty than what I have espoused. Though our current (U.S) government is founded on principles that are consistent with the concept of natural rights so it’s not like the concept is not mainstream. I would say the belief that rights are only derived from what the state grants is more foreign to the U.S. system of government than the opposite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=158) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=160)