I see the discussion veering to one side i.e what if natural rights do not exist and corollaries thereof. But in my understanding, Bill3's original post looked at the other extreme side of it. If natural rights exist then this means everyone has a right to life and liberty. Which in turn leads to right to food and medical assistance. Because without these one cannot live. How do convince someone new to the libertarian philosophy that rights to food and medical assistance do not exist while the rights to life and liberty do. Because often during arguments people get emotional and ask if we should let people die from hunger or disease. And there is no emotionally appealing way to counter this except that you don't violate one persons right to defend another's no matter the cost. I would like help on this from u guys.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This sit