Is health care a right or a privelege?

Of course you are.

 

By which you mean: We (might) control you (makes right).

 

No, that's not what I mean.

 

But you DO mean that some people have a legitimate right to initiate violence against otherwise peaceful people? And their ability to do this is because they CAN, which is to say might makes right.

 

Out of context?
That argument can be used for any market.
Let the government take all of the middle men away. We'll save a bundle.
Of course all the middle men and all of their employees will save a bundle in gas, as they won't have jobs to travel to. And the gov can save a bundle by not counting all of that tax revenue that is lost when those jobs go. And all of the businesses that count on the spending that these now unemployed individuals used to do can save a bundle by laying off their employees too.

 

I'm sorry but those people have to find other jobs, or transfer to a new job in the same company. That WEALTH from these redundant insurance jobs will transfer somewhere else. Your argument is also backwards in that it can be used to argue against new technologies, like more automation. It's the same argument used against industrialization which ended up creating more jobs. Yes, some jobs are made redundant, but more wealth is placed in the system, so that costs go down, and also new jobs in other industries are created. So again, this is not an argument.

Also, I'm only talking about the middle men for this specific industry because healthcare is a system to protect US citizens. Some things cannot be allowed to be under the whims of for profit systems like someones life in an emergency. The same thing applies to the prison system, but that is another topic.

 

1. In a single payer system, the govt becomes the middle man. Insurance doesnt go away, you just have zero competition in the market, which will drive UP costs. Just like when the govt makes money easier and easier for college, the costs go up.

2. There is most certainly a profit motive in a single payer. It would need to run about a 10% profit just to cover the cost of fraud. And fraud will increase as the bureaucracy increases.

3. Govt does everything more expensively than the private sector. This joke we hear about medicare being more efficient is a myth. The 3% number fails to take into account almost all of the administrative costs that are counted for a private sector company.

 

You're "cavilling" (to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections).

 

I'm just curious about the phrase you continually use: "Natural Right of Property of the Person," and about the odd capitalization. You said it was in Locke, but I don't see it there.

I'll assume it means "property rights".

 

Locke states exactly the opposite and, in fact, that's a primary point. Because man can no longer secure directly from nature that which they require for survival (support and comfort) but instead is forced to engage in commerce, which requires them to work for others (i.e. direct employment or self-employment), the protection of their right of survival (support and comfort) must be statutory.

 

It's obvious that you haven't studied the entire Second Treatise of Civil Government because it's the authoritative essay on "natural rights" of the person. Get back to me after you've finished studying the Second Treatise of Civil Government because then you'll understand the difference between the "Natural Right of Property" that's based upon the "Right to Possess" and our "statutory laws of property" that allow possession without the right to possess.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean a person has a "right" related to what the law allows and, in fact, many our or laws allow the violations of the unalienable (natural) rights of the person.

Effectively you're expressing opinions without the knowledge necessary to support your arguments so until you take the time to understand the "natural rights of the person" your opinions are fundamentally worthless because they allow the violations of the unalienable (natural) rights of the person.

 

"This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.

Sec. 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it. So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed."

 

Please provide a reference to the authoritative source for this claim.

Locke does not establish a "right to own" but instead establishes a "right to possess" based exclusively upon the "use of the land" by the person for their support and comfort. They could not establish a "right to possess" more land than was necessary for their personal use for their support and comfort (survival).

Locke's arguments are that the "Title" is the "recognition of the right to possess" while our "laws of property" establish that "Title" grants "ownership with or without the right to possess" the land.

If no one was in possession of more land that was necessary for their personal use for survival (support and comfort) then there is "enough, and as good as" land left for all other people.

 

As is often the case quotations taken out of context without any understanding of what's being said is presented as argument.

The first paragraph is a condemnation of "government" laws of property that creates inequality by "partage" (Fr. part, portion, share) based upon placing "values" (not associated with usage as commodities) on gold and silver that is used as money. In nature there is no money and the right of property is not determined by the law but instead is based upon the natural right of possession. This is a key statement to what Locke is opposing in Chapter V. He's opposing the statutory ownership of property that allows "possession without the natural right of possession" in Chapter V.

The second paragraph quoted refers to the fact that the possession of property is limited to what a person can use in their lifetime. Individuals like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, George Soros, Mitt Romney, and the Waltons (Walmart family) clearly "possess" more wealth than they could even remotely use for their personal support and comfort in their lifetimes and that excess wealth is both useless (they will die without ever using the wealth) and dishonestly acquired (taken by theft from the rest of mankind) and they have no right to it. Our right of property is limited (bounded) by what we can use and we cannot establish a right to possess more than what we can use.

 

Is the individual obligated to deliver the caliber and quantity of work commiserate with this level of comfort and support, or is just showing up as an unskilled, half literate piece of human feces to flip a burger in slow motion from 9 to 5 adequate?

Locke lived in a period where men would toil long grueling hours, every day of their lives to secure their survival from nature. He was not arguing for 9 to 5 brain dead, inskilled cake work in exchange for full comfort and support

Ridiculous

 

If a person manages to acquire more than they can use then they don't have a right to possess the excess property and must give it away.

Joe isn't "giving" anything to Bob. Joe is purchasing Bob's time and labor.

Joe is obligated to compensate Bob for performing tasks that Joe chooses not to do. Both Bob and Joe have a right of survival (support and comfort) based upon their time & labor and Joe must ensure Bob's survival (support and comfort) when he chooses to use Bob's labor to replace his own labor.

Because Joe is determining how Bob's time will be spent, and what tasks Bob's labor will be used for, Joe has the responsibility of ensuring that the time spent and the labor used provides for Bob's support and comfort (survival). Bob's responsibility is limited to providing his time and labor to Bob. If Bob's time and labor will not provide for his "support and comfort" then Joe should be spending his time and labor, not Bob's, on performing the tasks.

If cleaning Joe's toilet doesn't provide for the support and comfort of Bob then Joe needs to be cleaning his own damn toilet as opposed to having Bob do it.

 

No, it doesn't. It says the amount of land one may homestead is limited to that which he can use. It's about how much one may homestead. It's not about how much property one may possess.

This is why you're so confused about Locke. You are taking his principles of homesteading and applying them generally.

 

Says who?

Joe is giving Bob money on condition that Bob perform an agreed-upon task or tasks.

Joe is not responsible for Bob's survival. Joe is responsible only for giving Bob the agree-upon amount.

Nope. Bob, not Joe, is determining how Bob spends his time. If he chooses to spend his time performing the tasks Joe asks him to do, that's his choice and his choice alone.

If Bob doesn't want to clean Joe's toilet, he doesn't have to. However, if he agrees to clean Joe's toilet on condition that Joe pay him, he should be perfectly free to do so.

 

The individual hiring the person to perform tasks for them is obligated to ensure that the tasks performed provide for the support and comfort of the person that they will employ to perform the tasks. The employee doesn't define the work (tasks) to be done, the employer defines the work (tasks) to be done. The employee's obligation is to perform the tasks assigned.

Everyone has a right to survive that includes both "support and comfort" and while the support is equal for everyone the comfort is a variable. A warmer coat in winter provides superior comfort over a coat that doesn't provide as much warmth but everyone in a cold climate requires a coat to keep from freezing to death. Everyone needs shelter but the level of comfort of the shelter can vary. Everyone needs food, energy, transportation, and yes, health care, but the types of food can vary, the amount of energy can be more for some when compared to others, the types of transportation can be different, and even the health care can be different but there's a bottom line for all of these and below that no one should be forced to exist.

I always laugh at those that refer to the "burger-flipper" as being an "unskilled, half literate piece of human feces to flip a burger" considering the fact that the burger-flipper must be highly knowledgeable about food handling and preparation because if they're not then the customers are going to die from food poisoning on a regular basis.

Additionally the term "unskilled" is nefariously disparaging term because it takes considerable intelligence and physical ability just to flip a burger. The dolphin is second only to man in intelligence and a dolphin can't flip burgers. It may have the mental capacity but it lacks the physical ability to flip burgers. How many people are aware of the fact that no one could ride a bicycle if they had to rely on their conscious mind (intelligence) to accomplish it?

It's also interesting that the ditch digger that provides the trench for plumbing of a house generally receives far more compensation than the burger flipper and digging a ditch requires less knowledge than what the burger flipper must have to keep from killing people with food poisoning.

"Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut."​

That's almost correct. When Locke was alive people in Europe did toil long and grueling hours, every day of their lives to be able to survive but that was not in the natural state. That was under the feudal systems of Europe and the laws of property that existed. Locke argued against those laws and systems of government and in doing so he refers to the Native-Americans that did live in a natural state and that did not "toil long and grueling hours every day of their lives just to survive."

Native-Americans didn't work a 9 to 5 job and they weren't perfect but they had a far greater understanding of nature and natural rights than the Europeans that Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government addressed. The Native-Americans didn't "own" anything but they had possessions. They certainly didn't own the land, the air, and the water that belong in common to all people. They didn't take from nature more than they needed for their use and did not destroy or spoil nature because they understood that they were a part of nature and knew that they would be destroying themselves.

Locke was addressing the Western European culture in his Second Treatise of Civil Government and many of his arguments are pragmatic. It takes far more land for the nomad that's a generalist securing all they require to survive directly from nature than it does for the settler that specializes in their labor and engages in commerce for other things they require for their survival. Both the generalist and the specialists can survive but there's a fundamental difference. Ten generalists can only produce what's required for ten households and require vast tracts of land to accomplish that. Ten specialists can produce more than enough for ten households, using less land, so that each of the ten households have more "comfort" than what the generalist can obtain directly from nature. The generalist may require more than a day to secure meat for the table (or may only require an hour in the morning) so their time of labor varies greatly. The specialist can reduce the time required to the minimum amount and may only require four hours everyday to provide meat for their table.

The specialist and commerce made the "8 hour day" the standard work day that we have today because in 8 hours they could produce far more than what they needed even for trade to provide all of what they required for their support and enhanced comfort.

The proof of what Locke stated is clearly evidenced in our American economy today. The combined labor of the People of America today produces over four-times more than what all of the people require for their basic support and comfort. The "division of wealth" being created by the people must ensure that 1/4th of what's being produced is distributed so that all of the people have enough for their "basic support and comfort" and then the other 3/4ths, about $15 trillion annually, can be distributed based upon the additional merits of the people contributing more to the creation of that wealth either as "owners" or as "highly skilled workers" in our society.

What is unacceptable is that someone contributing to the creation of the wealth, wealth that is far in excess of what any person actually needs, should not receive enough compensation for their basic support and comfort. We cannot live in a "cannibalistic" society where some have far more than they need because they deny others even enough for their basic needs.

It is for this reason that I repeatedly quote FDR, a person that I find many political faults with, because he made one very accurate statement of fact.

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

No person or enterprise has a "right" to profit if they don't provide enough compensation to their employees so that the employees can afford what is required for their basic support and comfort. That compensation includes wages and benefits that address the lifetime of the employee that only has a limited working lifespan.

As a former race horse owner I address this in a simple context as a capitalist. I had to support the foal before it was able to race and earn income for me. When it was racing I profited from the horse. When the horse became to old to race and to earn an income for me then I put it out to pasture and took care of it. At all times I provided it with health care, shelter, food, energy, and other comforts above and beyond just the barest minimum food. It was expected of me by society that I provide for that horse throughout it's lifetime and that I treat it well (which I did by choice anyway).

I'm amazed that there are people that would rightfully condemn me if I'd "mistreated" the horse by not having the vet provide annual check-ups or if I'd ignored the horse when it became sick but that will sit here and say that a person doesn't have a right to health care that requires annual check-ups and treatment when the person is sick.

If a horse has a right to medical treatment then certainly a person also has a right to medical treatment.

 

Natural law prohibits possession of anything that the person will never and can never use because it takes that possession away from someone that can use it.

Joe isn't giving Bob anything because it's a trade and not a present (BTW remove me from your Christmas gift list because I don't want any obligation if you "give" me a present).

If Bob refuses to spend his time performing the tasks that Joe assigns to the best of his ability in the time allocated then Joe doesn't owe Bob anything.

Bob must work to survive and cannot refuse employment. Employment is involuntary in our society based exclusively upon commerce. Only the independently wealthy, that have already acquired though commerce all they can use in their lifetime, can afford to say no to employment and tell Joe to clean his own damn toilet.

Please stop with the BS.

You continue to argue for the "statutory license" to violate the unalienable (natural) rights of the person. Rationalizing tyranny (i.e. the license to violate the unalienable rights of the person established by Natural Law) is an invalid argument.

Once again, read and understand ALL of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government so that you will begin to understand Natural Laws and Natural Rights of the Person because then you'll understand that advocacy for tyranny is a rationalization and not a valid argument. In the meantime the continuing illogical rationalizations for tyranny does nothing but suck the oxygen out of the room.

 

Says who?

I didn't say it was a present. I said that he gives Bob money, which he does. It's his money, and he gives it to Bob, whereupon it becomes Bob's money.

Of course. Bob is free to not enter into any agreements with Joe.

What right, specifically?

 

I'm sorry but I'm not here to teach reading comprehension. (The second paragraph refers to "how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of nature" and doesn't refer to land at all).

 

It refers to how much of any natural resource, including land, one may homestead. Locke argued that by taking an as yet unused resource and applying labor to it, one could establish a legitimate title to that thing.

However, you are taking his theory of homesteading and applying it generally to everything. This is the source of your confusion.

 

ranks right up their with tying your shoes and perhaps quantum physics.

 

Says who?