one doesn't allow a right--it is exists independent of any regime or action. One can only infringe upon a right. If it requires the assistance of other people to exist, it isn't a right. Healthcare isn't a right, it's a service.
here are the actual human rights:
Speech and Thought.
Property.
Bodily autonomy.
Assembly.
everything else requires participation of others and to demand their cooperation would infringe on their own rights to implement.
Have you noticed that they've been working on taking away all four of those rights from us for the past 70 years? I'm in my 30s. My parent's generation dropped the ball.
It started in the 20's, honestly, with Hoover. It accelerated with FDR, got bad with kennedy and has been going full steam ahead since. The European countries started earlier.
Rights do not exist. Rights are a faery tale. The only rights you can artificially and temporarily force into existence are those you use immediate and overwhelming violence to defend.
no, they clearly exist insofar as it is immediately clear when they are being infringed because violence is necessary to infringe upon them. In the absence of violence, as a threat or as an application, people behave in a natural way. They assemble property, associate and assemble, think and speak and decide how to dispense with their bodies. It requires intercession for these things to be changed, ergo rights are a description of the natural state of human behavior.
Ah, but see there, your willingness to use violence to enact your liberties gives pause to others who might infringe upon you. You might also identify such a mindset in your fellows. So in all interactions a subtle measure of risk/reward plays out, and if the risk outweighs the reward, then your right is granted.
"Should I grant this stranger a measure of personal space even though I don't know him or know if he's ready to die for such a right he might not care about? Am I prepared to fight to the death over it? If I were to deny him this thing he hasn't asked for, what are the odds he might defend it with his life? How much do I value that space around his body?" Such thoughts are not beyond engagement, regardless of how extreme it all sounds to a civilized man. These are the things that make the foundations of civility - it's merely that today's civil man has forgotten the foundations laid by his forefathers.
Things would be simpler if we were all a little more barbaric. But I still aim for peace and comfort even if my blood must spill on the way.
Well remember, it is HUMAN rights. Those who are not on their side are literally dehumanized in their eyes so it makes total sense they wouldn't get HUMAN rights [assuming healthcare providers were a human right].
one doesn't allow a right--it is exists independent of any regime or action. One can only infringe upon a right. If it requires the assistance of other people to exist, it isn't a right. Healthcare isn't a right, it's a service.
here are the actual human rights:
everything else requires participation of others and to demand their cooperation would infringe on their own rights to implement.
Have you noticed that they've been working on taking away all four of those rights from us for the past 70 years? I'm in my 30s. My parent's generation dropped the ball.
It started in the 20's, honestly, with Hoover. It accelerated with FDR, got bad with kennedy and has been going full steam ahead since. The European countries started earlier.
I always ask these people why we don’t have a right to food and home heating. They seem more important than healthcare.
Ask them what constitutes healthcare first. They never agree on that one.
Rights do not exist. Rights are a faery tale. The only rights you can artificially and temporarily force into existence are those you use immediate and overwhelming violence to defend.
no, they clearly exist insofar as it is immediately clear when they are being infringed because violence is necessary to infringe upon them. In the absence of violence, as a threat or as an application, people behave in a natural way. They assemble property, associate and assemble, think and speak and decide how to dispense with their bodies. It requires intercession for these things to be changed, ergo rights are a description of the natural state of human behavior.
Ah, but see there, your willingness to use violence to enact your liberties gives pause to others who might infringe upon you. You might also identify such a mindset in your fellows. So in all interactions a subtle measure of risk/reward plays out, and if the risk outweighs the reward, then your right is granted.
"Should I grant this stranger a measure of personal space even though I don't know him or know if he's ready to die for such a right he might not care about? Am I prepared to fight to the death over it? If I were to deny him this thing he hasn't asked for, what are the odds he might defend it with his life? How much do I value that space around his body?" Such thoughts are not beyond engagement, regardless of how extreme it all sounds to a civilized man. These are the things that make the foundations of civility - it's merely that today's civil man has forgotten the foundations laid by his forefathers.
Things would be simpler if we were all a little more barbaric. But I still aim for peace and comfort even if my blood must spill on the way.
Freedom of association. (which is not the same as freedom of assembly)
Association and Assembly end up being the saying thing, in the end.
Well remember, it is HUMAN rights. Those who are not on their side are literally dehumanized in their eyes so it makes total sense they wouldn't get HUMAN rights [assuming healthcare providers were a human right].
Yeah but when we compare it to their claims in 2011, THAT'S what makes it hypocritical!