Snickers: A basic human right
Submitted by xntryk1 on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 10:06
in
October 3rd, 2009
Snickers: A basic human right
by Larken Rose
Most people don’t think in distinct, specific concepts. They “think” (if it can be called that) in vague blobs of mush. They can’t follow simple trains of logic, and have a complete lack of what I call “clarity of thought.” For example, my wife just showed me an online poll, asking people whether they thought “healthcare” should be considered a “basic human right.” What a fine example of meaningless mush.
Most people answered “yes,” no doubt feeling very compassionate for having done so. Trouble is, none of those “compassionate” people have any idea what a “human right” is. They haven’t bothered to think about it, because merely feeling good is enough for them. Had they thought about it, they might have realized how stupid the question is.
What most people probably interpreted the question to mean is something like this: “Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone got the healthcare they needed?” Well, duh, of course it would. But that wasn’t the question. The question is whether the thing called “healthcare” is a basic “human right”–whatever that is. The implication is that if someone doesn’t get the healthcare they need, someone’s “rights” are being violated.
Let’s consider the following question: Are Snickers (the candy bar) a basic human right? If so, everyone who lived prior to 1930 (when Snickers came into being) must have had their human rights violated. Poor them. Furthermore, it would also mean that every time someone craves a Snickers, but doesn’t get one, his “human rights” are also apparently being violated. (By whom, I’m not really sure; the Snickers-makers, I guess.)
Think that example is silly? Yes, it is, but no more silly than asking if healthcare is a “basic human right.” If you hit a deer with your car, out on a country road at night, and careen into a ditch, there’s a good chance that you’ll be wanting some healthcare. So WHO, exactly, would be violating your “basic human right” to such healthcare when you don’t get any? (Try suing the deer.) And who has an obligation to supply you with the alleged “basic human right” of healthcare, when no one even knows you’re in need of any?
Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious, but you can’t violate someone’s “rights” unless you DO something to them. If you torture them, rob them, assault them, or murder them, you may very well be violating their “rights.” In other words, a “right” is a purely NEGATIVE concept: something that should NOT be forcibly interfered with by anyone else. “Rights” aren’t a bunch of goodies that someone has to provide for you; they’re the things that no one should STOP you from doing yourself.
And yes, A snickers is a
And yes, A snickers is a right for me! You can keep the healthcare! Escpecially the free kind :)
"The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance"- Thomas Jefferson
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than it is to vote for what you don't want and get it." --Eugene V. Debs
Detention Question During Martial Law
Could someone please tell me the logic in putting a healthy (or sick) person (who refuses to be vaccinated against Swine Flu) into detention with others that may already be infected?
Does this make any sense at all to anyone?
If you are transported to some holding place with others, where is the benefit to any of the people? The Martial Law mandate of incarceration or vaccination is supposed to be for the public good. Which public? Me? Those vaccinated? Those not vaccinated? I fail to see the logic in any of these scenarios.
Me? Whether vaccinated or not - it would not be good for me. It would stop me from helping myself. It would take away my liberty. It would cause me (and all the rest) great anguish and stress which would only put me at greater risk (and my pets at home left to fend for themselves), as well as make getting the flu or any other disease more probable.
Those Vaccinated? I thought the vaccination was supposed to keep you from getting it by killing the virus and boosting your immune system. So why would others be a threat to those vaccinated?
Not Vaccinated? If only those not vaccinated are at risk - why then put them all together? Would it not be better to self-shield at home until the danger (real or perceived) has passed? What of the ramifications of loss of work or other obligations that will affect millions of vaccinated and non-vaccinated people?
How is detention of any benefit to any of these people? Where is this logic from and why is it supposed to be for the common good? I personally cannot see any common good for this insanity.
The idea is to put away
The idea is to put away Disenters and people not conforming
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."- Thomas Jefferson
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than it is to vote for what you don't want and get it." --Eugene V. Debs
And don't forget...
mass depopulation. How are healthy non vaccinated people that are detained in camps going to get Vitamin D-3 and C? They aren't.
Xntryk: I agree with your sentiment
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Front
page.
Apologize
In the same way that you think "feeling good" is enough for some people, I think feeling angry is enough for you. Rather than truly stepping back and taking a moment to consider this issue, you've decided to rant angrily and insult others.
Simply because of their belief that health care is a human right (and without even linking us to this supposed poll), you claim that these people can barely think and cannot follow simple trains of logic. Ironically, this only shows your readers that you yourself refuse to investigate certain trains of logic, or are unable to comprehend them.
Let's suppose for a moment that, as you say, it is a well-known principle of civics that human rights may only be negative (though I don't think it is). Let us further say that there are hundreds of well-known books on the subject that claim this, and agree with you. If that is your proof, sir or madam, that you are correct, then I claim to you that you should disagree with most of what Ron Paul believes in.
After all, any college class on economics will indoctrinate you with Keynesian beliefs, and any popular economist or politician will tout the same principals. Popular movies, documentaries, and books claim that capitalism and free markets caused the recession.
But, as you may know, just because there is a large pool of academia making one claim does not mean it is a universal truth. In the same way that I believe the Keynesians are mistaken, the people who took that poll believe you are mistaken.
Could they not be correct? Perhaps they think of it in the following manner: it is a fundamental right of a person to be in good health--nobody should be able to have their health taken away; therefore, it is also a fundamental right of each individual to be provided with the means to maintain that health, or, in another sense, it should be considered a violation of rights for a private individual or company to deny a person any form of health care they need.
I have to say, I *do* agree with you that human rights should be negative, and that health care is *not* a human right. However, I object to your dismissive tone when discussing this issue. As I hope I've shown you, there is at least room for civilized, healthy discussion (excuse the pun) on any topic of disagreement.
Furthermore, I hope you are at least slightly ashamed of this blog post, and especially ashamed of its proximity to Ron Paul's name. Ron Paul would *never* berate an entire group of people like this. It is his belief (and the belief of his true supporters) that the right side will win because it is right, and that the way to gain support is by engaging others in a positive way. For you to publish a post like this on a web site called DailyPaul.com takes us all back a step. You should apologize to Ron Paul, to the community, and, most importantly, to those you insulted (though anonymous they may be).
It's obvious to us all that you're an intellectual person and that you care about what you believe in, and that is great. I just hope you can see my reasoning and step back on the side of friendly disagreement from the side of hateful punditry. I also hope you can see that I don't mean to insult you, and in fact want to engage you with my side of the story.
Finally, thanks for being a blogger :D
-Andrew Peace
nonsense
sorry, but that's utter nonsense.
nowhere is defined that a right can't be a positive.
you may be of the opinion that health care isn't a right, because it violates the rights of others (-> doctors who have to perform the service), but this is not a fact or something that can be proven wrong by his comparison to food. it's your opinion.
in fact, the UN and many other organisations define adequate food as a right. almost the whole world has ratified this. the US is among a handful of countries who didn't, but I think some US states did.
the same is true for healthcare.
Health care, like food,
Health care, like food, water, cars, houses, education, etc., ad nauseum are examples of market goods that can and should be delivered via a free market system and not one based on violence, coercion, and threats.
If you believe that somebody is entitled to food, then the state would have to provide them whatever amount of food is deemed "adequate". The state would have to compel another party to provide the food from one party to another, more politically-favored party. Not only is this a clear and obvious example of a property rights violation, but quality spirals downward and the cost skyrockets.
puh-leaaaaaaaase
I bet you think the Constitution, like the UN, gives you your rights huh? That the Bill of Rights is directed at you......well let me square you up. The government does not GIVE you any rights. Your right to privacy, your right to worship as you wish, your right to speak your mind, your right to not be tortured or held without a trial indefinitely.............those RIGHTS are yours because you are an individual born into this world. They are inherent in the nature of just existing. Governments are put in place to PROTECT those RIGHTS.
Rights, by their very nature, cannot be positive. You do NOT have a right to someone else's labor, period. You do NOT have a right to elect others to steal someone else's labor on your behalf because elected representatives are only people as well, with no more *right* to steal than you.
Not to toot the Philosophy of Liberties horn too much but here, toot toot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
You do NOT own other's lives. The notion of *positive* rights stands in direct opposition to that statement. I am NOT your slave so quit trying to make me one by pushing the notion that you have the *right* to healthcare or any other goodie you think you are entitled to.
see my answers below for
see my answers below for more details on my comment.
if you think I argued for socialized health care in my comment you misunderstood it.
see my posts below your post
see my posts below your post below. By law, if you didn't snitch out jews or harbored them in the third reich you were found guilty and possibly subject to the same fate as those you protected. Did that make it moral or just because the state said it was so? No. The same thing with your example. If you see someone getting robbed and you don't step in and physically try to stop the individual does NOT mean that you have committed a crime.
positive rights
Please give an example of a positive right that you support and then defend your position.
I don't think you can.
yes I can. you have the
yes I can.
you have the right to assistance by everyone who happens to nearby in the case of an accident.
failure to render assistance is a punishable by law, which violates the freedom of that person to some extent, but the right of an injured person to get assistance outweigh his rights.
that's a positive right. one which I don't think you can defend not having.
negative rights don't exist
You're weighing the rights of two people based on necessity. If one person needs something more than another, then the other is forced to provide it?
That's complete nonsense.
You say in order to maintain a right for someone who needs assistance, my right not to give you that assistance must be violated?
I will do a Jan Helfeld. Do I have a right to your property? If your answer is NO, then can I delegate that right to my brother?
"It is not because man have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws." -Bastiat The Law
Incorrect
The scenario you just outlined is totally incompatible with a free society. If Joe gets into a single car-accident (his own fault), and Jane happens to drive by shortly thereafter or even witnesses the accident, Jane *should NOT* be compelled to assist Joe. Jane has property of her self and her time. She is in no way obligated to assist Joe even though it might be the right thing to do from a moral or "good Samaritan" paradigm.
Your example suggests that because of Joe's malfeasance or misfeasance, he is somehow entitled to Jane's time. Put more simply, should the state use force to compel Jane to help Joe?
The obvious answer in a free society is "no".
only negative rights exist
Why stop there. Using your logic, one can state that the right of a hungry person outweighs the right of a well-fed person to be free from theft and thereby justify welfare. Using your train of thought, you could justify any socialist program.
The only right which exists is the right of yourself and your property to be free from aggression, or threat of aggression.
See Non-aggression axiom
btw, there are jurisdictions
btw, there are jurisdictions that require you to give someone who needs it access to tap water.
I'm not saying I'm for that as I don't see that it's relevant today, in the case I know that exists for historical reasons, but it shows you that rights are never absolute.
as a libertarian I am for the maximum amount of freedom, but seeing an accident, and walking away without calling anyone because you never liked the dying person anyway is a right I willingly surrender. and if not only I do that but a whole society agrees to do that, that creates a positive right.
which you and the author claimed can't exist.
only negative rights exist
No, it shows you that there are laws which violate the non-aggression axiom.
You're not surrendering your right when you help someone in an accident because it's your free choice to do so. You're not being forced to do it.
If a whole society agrees to it, it creates a law via democracy which is tyranny of the majority and has nothing to do with freedom.
"Law's" can be Mistaken
"as a libertarian I am for the maximum amount of freedom, but seeing an accident, and walking away without calling anyone because you never liked the dying person anyway is a right I willingly surrender. and if not only I do that but a whole society agrees to do that, that creates a positive right.
which you and the author claimed can't exist."- You
-----
On the one hand you are a "libertarian" for the maximum amount of freedom, but when you don't like the behavior or actions of an individual that is not trampling on anyone's rights, you suddenly become totalitarian? I have a right to choose if I want to help you or not, and I'm not willing to surrender that right! Mr. "libertarian" helping someone in an accident is the moral thing to do, walking away from a person in need of help could be consider the immoral thing to do, but I have the right to choose if I want to be unmoral.
I think you *half* get it.
If you see an accident and want to lend assistance, you should. The state should *NOT* compel you to provide it since you own your time (your time is your property). I have offered assistance to motorists that were obviously having car trouble. Not because the state compels me, but because I wanted to.
It doesn't matter if "a whole society agrees to that" either. This is what they call "democracy" and why the Founding Fathers dreaded it. It's just tyranny of the majority. But I digress.
then let me ask you
then let me ask you something:
do you have the right to be protected from foreign invasion?
ron paul thinks you do.
that's a positive right.
although it is an aggression, being protected from that aggression by other citizens is a positive right.
The government has a duty to protect my rights from...
foreign invasions, because governments are instituted to protect my individual rights.
"If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have a right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense."-Bastiat The Law
calm down, it's ok to be confused.
first, according the question of jurisdiction, so you are justifying your stance because the current state of affair is as it is? what about the bush years, if things were going the way they were in the bush years and someone were to have an argument with you, you would say all things are fine? seems to me like a classic example of a lack of core belief. the laws are legislated under many circumstances and often by ignorant congress members. to justify your belief because the language of couple rules on the book states something that happen to reinforce your belief is quite pathetic. in your logic, perhaps no laws should ever be repealed once they are made, because someone like you might use that in an argument, and if the whole society process their logic based on the rules on the book, wouldn't it be chaotic if the rules were repealed? great, let's just all encourage the congress to extend the unconstitutional laws from the bush era. what utterly retarded argument.
second, you're confusing rights with desire. you can say what you want, your definition of "right" is just bizarre. you're like a guy with your own set of slightly different and often expanded definitions on some of the most cliche words used in the society. i'm not interested in arguing in rhetoric, so let's define things more clearly. if you want water, you have a right to want water, the government whether federal or state has no authority to punish you for that thought. now you need to act to get water. if you pull out a gun and force somebody to give you water, that's the use of violence and since the government has the responsibility to protect life, you will be put in jail. now if you can't use force to make someone to give you water, then neither can the government use force to help you at the sacrifice of another person's safety. i don't know what backward law you're citing, but if you want to justify your belief based on that, please justify the law first. if you wish to always use existing laws to justify your argument, you can do that by arguing there are no laws anywhere today, state or federal, that violates the constitution. good luck winning that argument.
third, "right to be protected?" here you go with the "rights" again, i don't mean to do any personal attacks but is your vocabulary really that limited? it seems that every time there is a blank in your thought and you're unable to iterates an argument based on facts, or at least with an educated explanation of what formed your logic, you fill that blank with the word "rights". i'm not really interested in an intellectually juvenile debate so i'll just provide the following facts: the federal government does have the authority and the responsibility to maintain an army for self defense purposes. as little as you seem to know about our constitution, it is a contract between the government and the people, and if people honor the constitution, the government has the responsibility to repeal foreign attacks if a war were to take place. now if by some unlikely scenario a war is to take place on our soil, and a chinese soldier happens to be patrolling several miles where you live, and for some bizarre reason (maybe not so bizarre in your books) you decide to test your "rights" to be "protected" by driving near the chinese platoon's tank squad, and you die, does the government violate your "rights" by not being able to help? that's not really a question, please don't answer.. sorry it just seemed to me you would actually be confused into answering that. i'm sorry the world doesn't exist between two buttons "rights" or "no rights". the "authorities" of the government are different from federal to state or local, and the people delegate only certain power to those governments and give up a very limited amount of liberty at the same time. the amount of liberty given up is already defined in the constitution, nothing more and nothing less. the rest all belongs to freedom. let's add a few words in that dictionary.
that was an astonishly long
that was an astonishly long text considering the fact that you added exactly nothing to the discussion.
if you're really interested, yes, my vocabulary is limited since I'm not a native english speaker.
that doesn't mean I used the word "right" when I didn't mean to.
I didn't justify my belief by the status quo. read my comments again.
your third point is just bizarre.
this discussion was a theoretical one because some people here believe that rights are absolute and can never be constrained.
that is clearly false if you think you have the right to extort someone else's property to have your national defense.
that this is written in the constitution is totally besides the point. if you think in order to have a right for health care (which I'm not in favor of) requires changing the constitution, fine.
but others here argued that a right to health care can't even exist, no matter what, because it's a positive one. that I was argueing against.
that you can't argue constructively with someone who doesn't speak your language perfectly isn't my fault.
Your nonsense is astonishing
What is write in the constitution is this; Section 8. The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Impost and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
---
The way this section has been usurp by today's standers should be noted by you.
---
"if you think in order to have a right for health care (which I'm not in favor of) requires changing the constitution, fine."
You still don't get it. The constitution does not give anyone any (RIGHTS) if the constitution is amended to give the right of health care it can then take it away, all the amendments from 1 to 10 are all "shall not" and no the right to health care cannot exist, because you must take away the right of those providing that services the ability to say NO, and you don't have a right to someone else labor.
No, you do not have the
No, you do not have the right to other people dying on your behalf to repel invasion. It would be in everyone's best interest if we bonded together to fight against a common invader, however, nobody has the right to force you to go give your life. Therefore, no, positive rights do NOT exist. Period.
read exactly. I said extort
read exactly.
I said extort someone else's property [to pay for] your national defense. not forcing someone to give his life.
something you probably support.
Yes. I believe the state
Yes. I believe the state exists to repel foreign invasion (which is totally not what are armed forces are being used for now), suppress internal insurrections and to establish some court system to enforce contracts and to arrest and prosecute those who have violated others' property rights.
That's about it. Everything else should be delivered through "the invisible hand" of the free market. Including health care since the objective her is to *lower* costs and to *increase* quality and availability.
so we agree that positive
so we agree that positive rights do exist, and you only claim they don't if you are against that right anyway, positive or not?
sorry that was a bit sarcastic, it was good discussion, but you didn't really answer the (intent of the) question.
No. I freely accept the
No. I freely accept the cost of the protection provided. However, if I choose not to participate in the United States (and not be afforded police/military protection) than I should be able to freely leave.
I don't really subscribe to the whole positive/negative right dichotomy, although I tend to think that only "negative" seem to hold any validity (e.g. list of things that the state "can't" do to you).
Positive ones tend to require the state threaten some group of people to give something to some other group of people (e.g. health care). Which is a total violation of property rights. ;)
so is forcing you to pay for
so is forcing you to pay for military, even for the indended use of the military.
that you're free to leave the country isn't really an argument.
so the conclusion is that rights are never absolute and can be outweighed by other rights, and a society, even a free one, must have a democratic discussion and process for that. (I do understand the shortcomings of democracy as expressed by some founders)
as long as this is an honest discussion and doesn't result in demands like "I want my free health care because free is better than paying for it" there is nothing wrong with it.
and although I'm not for socialized health care, health care is a field that demands some state regulation, because you are impaired in your ability to make free decisions and fight for your rights if violated (e.g. by insurance companies) in many health situations.
I don't want to hijack this
I don't want to hijack this any further, but yes, people and states should be able to withdraw their consent from the republic. There's nothing closer to freedom than that of association.
Anyway, the discussion of health care is an interesting one, and of course we need a divergence of opinion in order to formulate an effective delivery mechanism that also respects individual liberty.
I find it rather peculiar though why a self-described 'libertarian' is advocating state-sponsored interference in health care, "health care is a field that demands some state regulation". Can you give an example why the state needs to be involved (you hinted to this but you didn't cite a specific example). I would support the opposite: a health care schema that's totally devoid of any thing from the state except in cases of contract enforcement, etc.
wrong
you may understand the shortcomings, other people who reject your system may also understand it, but it doesn't mean they agree with your acceptance of the system.
1. the "rights" indirectly given to the people through not being specifically given up through the delegation of certain authorities as defined in the constitution, are absolute to the extent that the government has no business in interfering with them whether those "rights" directly or indirectly lead to a positive or negative outcome in an individual's life. as long as the constitution is not amended. so again, in terms of law--not rhetoric-- what is written and agreed is absolute, unless you change it. so yes if he disagrees and leaves, that is significant, and rarely do events occur in singularity. there will be people who follow, and that usually leads to reconsideration of legislation. yes there will very much be an argument.
2. the health care system right now is virtually no market, 55% government and around 50% health insurance companies, which lobby the government and therefore it can be argued that they possess certain governmental authorities indirectly, and that isn't free market. so what you're really arguing is that there should be some protection against an entity that is really government sponsored. to that point.. well.. ya.. that's why the there should be amendments forcing the congress to regulate itself so that it can no longer create these rules such as not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines--which essentially create a mini world of monopoly within each state's insurance industries. to that point, your argument is pretty confusing. you seem to imply there should be some regulation on the market, yet the examples you bring up were all created or exacerbated by government interference in the first place. i don't think you understand the free market very well. btw i've only been in the states for a few years. on that note of you not being a native speaker, we're equal.
that again, is your opinion,
that again, is your opinion, and not a fact as the author of this piece tries to claim.
failure to render assistance is a crime in many jurisdictions, including US jurisdictions.
Not all laws are just. I'd
Not all laws are just. I'd argue that the great majority of them are not just.
While failure to render assistance is in fact a crime in many jurisdictions, it shouldn't be. Who owns your time? YOU? Somebody else? The state?
if it is just wasn't really
if it is just wasn't really the point.
the author argued that even asking the question if something is a right is ridiculous, because positive rights can't exist.
well, many positive rights do exist, if you like it or not.
would he have written an article about it if someone asked "do you think someone should be required to render assistance in the case of an accident?"?
no, he wouldn't. he is (ab)using libertarian ideology to support his cause of being against socialized health care, not writing an honest article.
The author did come across a
The author did come across a little harsh, but I understand his premise. We should be asking questions as a free society. That's how we can come up with ideas to solve our problems without resorting to violence and coercion from the state.
Socialized anything is totally incompatible if we believe in freedom (IHMO).
What are some examples of positive rights that exist in a free society?
didn't read the article, but based on what's cited
like i mentioned earlier, there is a gap between "rights", which is essentially just an idea, and the actual outcome. the constitution protects only the intents of an individual, it doesn't guarantee the outcome. it also prohibits certain methods to be used that will jeopardize another person's life, liberty, or property if that person did not willingly give them up. you can invest and try to become rich, but the government doesn't help you if you lose all your investment. and if you steal or rob to try to accomplish your goals, the government has the authority to stop you. so in a sense there's nothing wrong with the argument. "rights" have nothing to do with a positive outcome.
a "right" is just something that's left over which was not agreed upon to be given up to the government by the contract signed between the people and the government--the constitution. it just means the government, paid by the tax payer to enforce laws, cannot infringe upon what it is not authorized to do. there are plenty of potentially undesirable events that can still occur outside the contract, so a "right" can very much be violated in a variety of ways that the government just can't do anything about.. such as someone being too stupid and not know the constitution, and he takes a test on the constitution and fails. the government can't do anything about that to grant you happiness.
"you can invest and try to
"you can invest and try to become rich, but the government doesn't help you if you lose all your investment"
Unless of course you're Goldman Sachs, American International, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, Chrysler, etc.
:(
exactly
It was a crime punishable by law in Nazi germany to not rat out jews or to harbor them. Just because a government says it is so, doesn't make it good.
When you allow people to have their individual liberties respected you get woodstock. When you let the state do what it wants, you get things like Auschwitz.
basic principles
I like the way he explained the differences between positive and negative rights.
If only more people understood that basic concept as well as Hazlitt's lesson:
From Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:
Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today are the result of ignoring this lesson. Those fallacies all stem from one of two central fallacies, or both: that of looking only at the immediate consequences of an act or proposal, and that of looking at the consequences only for a particular group to the neglect of other groups.