Anonymous #1 8w

Furthermore, healthcare being a concrete human right (justifying again, your natural rights) would suggest one has a right to another’s talent and labor and time (an impossibility given that natural rights are not legitimate when they take away like and just advantage from another. There simply is no “right” to healthcare. It is both a “privilege” and an “ideal”, but hardly a “right”

-3

Nothing you have asserted follows. To begin with, my definition does not require any “universal acceptance” (appeal to majority), nor have you disproved in. Furthermore natural rights do not “depend” upon social duties, but are reinforced by (married to) them outside of the state of nature. You have no demonstrated why anyone would have a right to healthcare when not healthy (which would imply a right to health). The right to life includes preservation insofar as it is within your power

-1

That does not demonstrate that it is a right with substance, nor did I deny universal character

-1

This does not logically follow as an entailment. If “P” then “Q” (Material Implication). “Healthcare” beyond the power or faculties of an individual is not a natural right, as it is not proper to their being. The possession of rights and their exercise are also distinct. Nothing you have claimed follows logically from anything else you have claimed

-1

Civil liberties and natural rights and ideals are distinct concepts. Freedom of speech is a right held within nature as logos for rational creatures is a faculty proper to their being. Reinforcement of a posses right and possession of said right are once again distinct. Nothing you have said follows logically

-1

Natural rights are not dependent upon social cooperation in of themselves. They are secured by said political cooperation once an individual has left the “state of nature” (state of life outside of organized political society). Nothing has been redefined. Future more, preservation and possession are once again distinct. The right to life does not entail its preservation beyond the merit of any one individual This does not follow from anything else

1

You aren’t consistent nor did you understand my argument. My argument hinges essentially on the distinction between human and natural rights, something you seem incapable of grasping. Furthermore, a natural right must be proper to one’s being, can you explain to me how healthcare fits this qualification? Yes social duties are married to rights “in political society”. Natural rights are not born of “political society”, there is no contradiction

1

Hardly, natural rights must be reinforced by the instituted civil rights, otherwise the civil rights could not possibly be accepted by the political body. This much is commonsensical. Entering a political union for the purpose of better securing rights already in your possession, does not imply those rights only exist due to this association

1

Proper to ones being has only one definition

1

What does this have to do with healthcare amounting merely to ideals? Rights have 3 aspects, Substance (via natural rights), Force (Civil Liberty) Opinion/Ideal (Human Rights). Healthcare is neither 1). Proper to being nor 2). “Property” in possession via one’s merit. Nothing provides substance to “healthcare” as a human right beyond mere idealism

1

A human being can do collectively also what is proper to being. It is not the case that, say, murder is proper to being despite the fact it may be done alone. You simply misunderstand me

1

Sociability is a property natural to one’s person, when did I ever deny this? This still does not entail a “right” or intrinsic claim to another’s faculties. Aquinas, Aristotle, Spinoza, Locke, and many other moral and political philosophers correctly assert rationality and human association as properties proper to being. The first line of the politics echos as much. This does not attack my position

1

That would imply an intrinsic claim to the facilities of another, someone you are not “owed” in any sense. How is it proper to your being to lay claim to another’s faculties?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Something*

1

Social intercourse is proper to being, it is not the case that every potential outgrowth or outcome of that intercourse is. Healthcare is not a right (defined of course as access to medical facilities and professionals) as one is not entitled to such faculties. Collectivizing for the sake of mass slaughter similarly is not a right

1

Speech requires no listener, justice is both social and yet has a personal component (giving to others their due, including yourself), property can be property of faculties (speech, etc) which require respect only to enforce, not to posses. Your examples do not hold. Furthermore, yes for healthcare to be proper to one’s being, they are owed it, and as such have a claim upon the faculty of another

1

Which once again, does not provide justification or substance for healthcare existing as a “right”. I am not obligated to surrender my capital by way of taxes to pay for your healthcare. A doctor owes you no care by virtue of an intrinsic claim you possess. Obviously natural collectivization is ordered towards preservation, this does not mandate “X” form of preservation or “Y”. One can argue mass slaughter preserves life at the exclusion of another’s life

1

You have already moved away from the notion of possession of a proper faculty, and the exercise or protection of said faculty. Your argument does actually address anything I said. All you have done is fall upon civil recognition and completely abandon the natural rights aspect

1

I am not morally obligated to preserve the life of another through taxes. There is no discussion of implementation here, the moral basis is non-existent. You have yet to show how the moral claim specifically to healthcare in anyway is justified by the political nature of a human being

1

It hardly does, because slaughter can be enacted to preserve the life of the many. Furthermore I fail to understand why you squeezed dignity in there.

1

You are attempting to argue it can conceivably be morally justified to offer healthcare, a rather distinct argument from whether a natural right to such a thing exists. A natural right to life exists as it is proper to being to persist in that state yes, just as it is proper to enter political association for the sake of sufficiency and preservation yes. This does not provide substance to the specific institution of healthcare. Healthcare qua healthcare is not a “natural right”

1

And how does this justify substance for the institution of healthcare qua healthcare as a natural right?

1

Furthermore, this moral duty is only extant within political associations, not within the state of nature. Such a duty arises from social intercourse, not the absence of political organization

1

An “end”? Define your usage of the term. Things may be ordered to an end (preservation or sufficiency) but how does said end justify a right? Furthermore, you have yet to answer my question of the institution of healthcare in of itself, which is where the contention lies

1

And why must one finance the healthcare of another at their own detriment?

1

Teleology then

1

That did not answer my question.

1

Natural in the sense of “the end of the coming-to-be of a thing” as a Aristotle posits, I know

1

That is a detriment, direct taxation in principle is a violation of natural rights (which is why the founders preferred indirect methods and soundly rejected direct taxation). The mandatory, forced, and punishable surrender or theft of one’s property is indeed a detriment

1

This once again fails to answer my question. You are positing an end that does not leave like advantage for others. I see no reason to agree to such an institution or manifestation

1

Furthermore, the persistence of welfare deprives individuals of the requisite character required for republican society. That’s a rather large social detriment.

1

They consent to surrender some of their rights, their personal merit and property was not given up. Collective society has only the aim of securing a safe framework in which all can exercise their faculties, or providing such means. That is a gross perversion of natural rights and their telos

1

That does Infact disadvantage individuals, which is why the nation (constructed upon natural rights) disavowed it with such force. The collective is under no obligation to offer you more than a protection of the natural rights (its purpose), which is to say a framework in which you can exercise your faculties. That is the aim looked at by all natural rights philosophers, not the state handing you what you have not merited

1

“A heavy tax for the support of the poor…[yet]there is no country in the world in which are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent” A statement that rings true today. Time itself has disproved your very statement, one only needs to look at American society.

1

The preservation of life does not require state welfare, community assistance, church assistance, non-profit assistance. State welfare existing as the sole or even ideal end of “preservation” is nonsensical at best

1

Welfare breed dependency, in case you have yet to notice.

1

I responded to your justification of state run healthcare, which is hardly an ideal manifestation of anything. These “poor laws” you speak of are heavy taxation and state welfare, that is to say the very institution of healthcare we are discussing.

1

No human, once again, has any natural claim to one’s labor or talent, which is why consent is required for political association. Once entering into an association, protection of faculties is granted, coercion or force to supplement the faculties of another is not

1

Which is the point of contention. When one claims “healthcare is a right” they are claiming they have an intrinsic claim to state intervention when they do not. Nor are other forms of assistance ever considered in modern politics

1

There is no “natural right” to any one manifestation of self preservation (which in this circumstance is no longer “self”)

1

To be just, one must be due this state assistance, and another must owe them this due. Neither is the case in state run welfare, why are you avoiding this

1

No one consented to income taxes that is alive, nor did the founders of the association consent to that either. The collective self-preservation does not justify an involuntary surrender of property. Consent implies voluntary surrender, which is hardly the case.

1

Equal protection is grunted by virtue of existing in a collective that shares common morals and that can band together for protection. That does not make “healthcare”, “just” giving each their due implies what they are owed. No one is owed another’s labor, nor are they owed another’s capital beyond what is reasonable to maintain political society. State welfare is not reasonable to sustain political society. Mandatory healthcare insurance is not, trillions in welfare is not

1

You are Infact aware that indirect taxation exists yes? Nor does this address the notion of the insufficiency, an unnecessary nature of state welfare

1

If it does not imply the last two, then healthcare as an institution as it currently exists should not and cannot exist. Furthermore, one can “provide” healthcare (like a hospital), they need not provide the payment for it as well. Society can set up institutions without also paying for its access for everyone, this is hardly necessary nor is it even possible

1

It can serve its function without ANY state funding. I’ll just ask this question; do you agree with the current condition of the welfare state in the USA under your framework? (The very same one that bankrupts hardworking individuals, utterly eradicates the required republican work ethic, and bankrupts the very same political collective that is supposed not only protect its current members but secure posterity)

1

The current system, by bankrupting itself and diluting public virtue (with no mind to alternative support measures) fails to protect the majority of its constituents, failing its most basic duty. I’m sure that you can agree with this framing?

1

I am willing to concede then, the notion of self-preservation being an aim of political association (as it is), and of course (as our forefathers would agree) there is a need for a “minimal degree” of welfare for those truly disaffected (and who have no recourse to any other form of support). My main contention was centered with modern American welfare (including healthcare) in mind, trepidation arising from “rights” being used to justifying unlimited state assistance (as it so often is).

3

If that is all, have a blessed day

4