Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
If you don't have it defined... how can you defend it?

It does not take a government to define rights. It may take one to defend them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

One could argue that the denial of healthcare is an aggressive act.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

OF THE THREE.

So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?

Strange position coming from you.

No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.

 Manchu wrote:
Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil. The justification of evil is also evil.

 whembly wrote:
If its a true inalienable rights, the government needs to be empowered to enforce it. In practical terms, how do you do that?

It can and has been done in many ways. I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest.

That position is not the same thing as "government is denying" you food.

I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms.

I need government to recognize my right to free speech, religion, 2nd amendment, etc...

As an affluent nation, we "the people" instructed our government to manage welfare for those who need it. That's fine and I approve .

I guess, I'm having a hard time articulating that we shouldn't rely on our government for everything. We need to rely on ourselves, family and community.

Beside... the government don't know what I like to eat!

Maybe its because we have such abundance of food that it's "moot" now? (hence, why we are the phatest folks on the planet).

 Manchu wrote:
Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil.

But there is no human right to food, we have institutional structures that exist to deny such an idea. Most of us do not consider it a right, and it is therefore not a right...

 Manchu wrote:

The justification of evil is also evil.

...but that doesn't mean one cannot consider himself righteous, or justified in his action.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If you don't have it defined... how can you defend it?

It does not take a government to define rights. It may take one to defend them.

True... wasn't saying that gov't defines the rights.

 whembly wrote:
I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms

Can I ask, which ones?

 dogma wrote:
Most of us do not consider it a right, and it is therefore not a right...

As must be clear, I don't agree with a positivist approach to rights.

dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

The justification of evil is also evil.

...but that doesn't mean one cannot consider himself righteous, or justified in his action.

So is the point of this thread now to show who gives a gak about their fellow human beings and who doesn't?

Posts are making me sad.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
So is the point of this thread now to show who gives a gak about their fellow human beings and who doesn't?

Nope, try to keep up. As I just explained to you last page (EDIT: Sorry, two pages ago), a lot of this discussion has been about whether Mitt Romney's politics respect human rights and that has led to discussion about what various posters think human rights are. What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights. Well, I should revise that a bit -- I think the difference is more a matter of dignity. I think both parties would agree that rights proceed from dignity but that for Democrats dignity is an inalienable characteristic of human beings whereas for Republicans dignity is a characteristic that must be earned/cultivated and has a lot in common with the characteristic of material wealth.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

OF THE THREE.

So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?

Strange position coming from you.

No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.

Highlighted where you are wrong for you.

What do you mean he "took" the vote? Did people go to the polls wanting to vote for somebody else but then were strong armed to vote for Perot?

Did Bush take votes from Clinton? Did Clinton take votes from Bush? Do you think that only these two parties should be allowed to get votes?

Those 20% of the votes are not votes that Perot "took" from anybody. Those 20% are votes that Bush and Clinton didn't earn.

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
So is the point of this thread now to show who gives a gak about their fellow human beings and who doesn't?

Nope, try to keep up. As I just explained to you last page (EDIT: Sorry, two pages ago), a lot of this discussion has been about whether Mitt Romney's politics respect human rights and that has led to discussion about what various posters think human rights are. What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights. Well, I should revise that a bit -- I think the difference is more a matter of dignity. I think both parties would agree that rights proceed from dignity but that for Democrats dignity is an inalienable characteristic of human beings whereas for Republicans dignity is a characteristic that must be earned/cultivated and has a lot in common with the characteristic of material wealth.

hrmp... good points.

Still "chewing" in this...


EDIT:
Interesting discussion on this (in a tangental way):
http://www.thenation.com/article/163390/who-says-food-human-right

That's quite a good article. What do you think of it?

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

One could argue that the denial of healthcare is an aggressive act.

I don't see anyone involved denying healthcare.

Not giving something to someone is not the same as denying them from having it.


A government without a public healthcare option isn't denying healthcare to anyone. The government shutting down all healthcare providers would be denying people healthcare.

I think the thoughts of "negative" rights and "positive" rights is something that is worth focusing on.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

OF THE THREE.

So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?

Strange position coming from you.

No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.

Highlighted where you are wrong for you.

What do you mean he "took" the vote? Did people go to the polls wanting to vote for somebody else but then were strong armed to vote for Perot?

Did Bush take votes from Clinton? Did Clinton take votes from Bush? Do you think that only these two parties should be allowed to get votes?

Those 20% of the votes are not votes that Perot "took" from anybody. Those 20% are votes that Bush and Clinton didn't earn.

True, although if people are given 3 options and 2 are similer one could say that one is taking away from the other.


There are 2 blocks of voters. Conservative and Liberal, each individual voter will be in one of these 2 blocks with varying degrees of intensity.

Normally, we also have 2 candidates. One liberal and one conservative.

If a third candidate shows up on the scene his voters will need to come from somewhere. This candidate will also come from one of the 2 spectrums.

The truth is, the Candidate will draw voters from which ever spectrum he comes from.

If one section is divided between 2 candidates then both candidates will obviously have smaller sections of the pie then they normally would.


If America had 3 mainstream political parties then we could honestly say nobody is "stealing" votes from the other. But when you have 2 partys and 3 candidates, obviously the party with 2 candidates is going to lose the election.

 Manchu wrote:
That's quite a good article. What do you think of it?

It's an interesting read... that's why I posted it.

I'm with Manchu on this, albeit from the different religious perspective. What we call human rights are inalienable and inherent. That's what makes them rights, as opposed to priviliges.

You can deny someone their rights, but that's an injustice. To deny them a privilege they haven't earned is perfectly fine, because privileges must be earned.

For example, I don't have the right to drive a car on a public road, where I can potentially endanger and kill people if I'm incompetent at it. But I can earn that privilege by fulfilling the requirements to get a driver's license.

As described by our founding fathers, people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and (broadly speaking) to deny a person those rights is to commit an injustice and potentially a crime against them. Some rights are explicitly spelled out in our Constution and Bill of Rights, but it does not necessarily follow that only those rights enumerated exist.

The right to food and shelter exists, and we as modern societies have enacted laws to ensure that they are provided to those who cannot provide for themselves, because we believe that human beings have worth, and the right to life, and we choose as a society to minize the number of our fellow citizens whom we let die in the streets because they're destitute.

Similar conditions apply to healthcare. Western countries in general have also decided that human beings have the right to healthcare, and that it is unjust and illegal to deny them access to lifesaving care. Even here in the United States, laws exist which are designed to prevent hospitals from denying care to people in need. Healthcare, too, is a right, as it's one of the fundamental things humans generally need to survive, just below food and shelter.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Western countries in general have also decided that human beings have the right to healthcare,

The only qualification I would make is that the existence of human rights is not a matter of decision for any nation. Human rights are as old as humans. Their articulation and enactment is comparatively novel, of course.

whembly wrote:I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms.

I need government to recognize my right to free speech, religion, 2nd amendment, etc...

But you believe in your right to live, yes?

So here's a good test:

I'll get all the food, and you can have all the jesus, and we'll see who continues to live.


Unless you think that the right to live is not an inalienable human right, or you believe that you can live without tangible sustenance.




@D-USA: What Frazzled is trying to get at is that if Perot hadn't run, then Bush Sr would have beat Clinton. And he is wrong, because Bush Sr was going to get trounced in that election even without Perot. However, the objective argument is sound: it's the same argument as saying that Nader cost Gore the presidency and led to Bush Jr to win the presidency.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms.

I need government to recognize my right to free speech, religion, 2nd amendment, etc...

But you believe in your right to live, yes?

So here's a good test:

I'll get all the food, and you can have all the jesus, and we'll see who continues to live.

Okay... I'll go hunting and fishing... (on a cave man diet anyways!)

Unless you think that the right to live is not an inalienable human right, or you believe that you can live without tangible sustenance.

Where you going with this?

Just so that you know, I believe in helping who needs it. But, that doesn't mean it's an inalienable right.

Then why do you believe in it?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Then why do you believe in it?

Huh? Helping those in need?

EDIT: Re-read the post...

*I* believe in helping people who are need. Usually I donate food/clothing/whatever to local charities.

What I "don't like" is government (or big charities) wanting money from me because THEY know better... just rubs me the wrong way...

Case in point.

I KNOW that the United Way foundation does some good things...

But, it's so huge, that the overhead cost gotta be huge (realistically, they're one of the best in keeping it low)...

Their president and the upper management makes more that the Prez of the Ol' US of A....

My employer "nudge, wink, coerce" that I should donate out of my paycheck to United... ugh... just rubs me the wrong way.

So, we have numerous charites locally...

Food bank...

Thanksgiving/Xmas dinner...

Jacket/Coats drive the the winter...

and so on...

*shrugs*

I'm complicated I guess...

@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.

As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.

 youbedead wrote:
@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.

As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.

Thanks for help... yup, I agree.

Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

How is it not the same thing? It's moral to do because it's their right not to starve to death. We don't want them to die, and we respect their right to life.

What I "don't like" is government (or big charities) wanting money from me because THEY know better... just rubs me the wrong way...

Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.

Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.

So then the question becomes is there a difference between the duty of a government and the rights of it's citizcens

whembly wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.

As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.

Thanks for help... yup, I agree.

Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, whats the problem here?

People should stop being so dependent on the government giving out handouts, on the taxpayer's dollar no less.

Welfare is supposed a temporary thing. Way too many people abuse the system and just stay in their apartment drinking beer doing nothing.


Romney could have worded it a little better. he's not the best speech giver, but thats not whats important when running the country.

Welfare doesn't have to be that way. That's only when the government goes overboard with it.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.

As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.

Thanks for help... yup, I agree.

Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.

Helping an old woman cross the street is a moral thing to do, it is not an inalienable right for her to be helped across the street though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
How is it not the same thing? It's moral to do because it's their right not to starve to death. We don't want them to die, and we respect their right to life.

Right... but it's not the same thing.

What I "don't like" is government (or big charities) wanting money from me because THEY know better... just rubs me the wrong way...

Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.

Government ARE "they".

Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.

Oh... so you think Healthcare is right? Okay.