Brilliant NHS

[MrJonno]

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?

Or to get to a more basic level why do you have a right to exist?

[mistermack]

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?

I think it's totally a question of ethics, as you put the question.
You have to answer the question to yourself, ''what do I mean by having a right, or not having a right?''
I don't think you're talking about a legal right. The only other kind that I know of is a moral right. Or an ethical right.

I'm arguing that these things don't exist, except as our own opinions, or as the overall opinion of the majority.
In other words, when you ask ''what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?'' The answer is they have given themselves the right, and if you don't like it, you can either stand for election, or try to organise a coup, or get out while you can.There's nothing more to it than that.

If you're looking for a moral right, independent of human opinions, I'm saying that it doesn't exist. Unless you believe that there is a god, dictating what's right and wrong, of course.

[Pappa]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

[Azathoth]

It isn't even ethics it is just basic common sense not to have a starving dying underclass bubbling with hate in your country. That is how revolutions happen

[Pappa]

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?

Or to get to a more basic level why do you have a right to exist?

I don't, but that's not really relevant.

[Seth]

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?

Or to get to a more basic level why do you have a right to exist?

Because I have the ability to exist. That's what a right is. It's a freedom of action that can be defended against interference by others.

That's why rights are not granted by government, they exist as a natural part of our existence as living creatures. They are not "given" by anyone or anything, including God, rights exist because we exist and because we exist we seek to continue to exist and we assert our right to do so, and our right to seek out and put to our exclusive use those resources necessary for survival, and our right to defend those resources against appropriation by others, and our right to procreate, and our right to defend our lives and the lives of our progeny.

Rights exist because they have evolved right along with life itself.

[Seth]

I don't think it's got anything to do with ethics in that sense at all. It can be summed up easily. Why does a government have a right to compel you to do anything? Or put another way, what right do the majority have to tell the minority what to do?

Or to get to a more basic level why do you have a right to exist?

I don't, but that's not really relevant.

I certainly do, and I'll defend that right to the death...mine or someone elses.

[Seth]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

That's a utilitarian argument. Government can do so, but should it do so?

[mistermack]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

In a way, yes. The only way I differ from you, is that I don't think rights exist. You seem to be saying that they exist, but the government hasn't got them.
If that's the case, I'd be interested to know what you think a right actually is.

[Pappa]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

That's a utilitarian argument. Government can do so, but should it do so?

Personally, I think not. While I'm an advocate of democratic socialism, for me it's a second choice. My values and ideals are anarchistic, but I accept that the vast majority don't share my views. Plus, I don't think anarchism would flourish among our current social values and norms, though I feel it would if our cultural values were a little different. I understand there's an ambiguity in me accepting socialist democracy in lieu of anarchism, but the alternative is me having no political voice at all (for all practical purposes).

[Pappa]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

In a way, yes. The only way I differ from you, is that I don't think rights exist. You seem to be saying that they exist, but the government hasn't got them.
If that's the case, I'd be interested to know what you think a right actually is.

No, I don't think rights exist. They're a human construct like "justice" or "beauty".

[mistermack]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

In a way, yes. The only way I differ from you, is that I don't think rights exist. You seem to be saying that they exist, but the government hasn't got them.
If that's the case, I'd be interested to know what you think a right actually is.

No, I don't think rights exist. They're a human construct like "justice" or "beauty".

I think we're basically of the same opinion then. I think they are a blend of construct, and genetic evolution.

[Seth]

You're basically making my point for me. The government has no right, yet they have the power and will to act anyway.

In a way, yes. The only way I differ from you, is that I don't think rights exist. You seem to be saying that they exist, but the government hasn't got them.
If that's the case, I'd be interested to know what you think a right actually is.

No, I don't think rights exist. They're a human construct like "justice" or "beauty".

Rights exist, but the sophisticated adjudication and management of the exercise of rights we use is definitely a human construct.

However, the basic adjudicatory mechanism for the resolution of conflicts over competing exercises of rights is the law of the jungle: survival of the fittest.

Everything else is a social construct created to substitute for the law of the jungle. And not all social constructs for the adjudication of rights are created by humans. We see such social constructs in many species. But all organisms have a few essential and fundamental needs and behaviors and the pursuit of those needs is an exercise of rights. Rights exist because organisms claim them, not because some other competing organism grants them.

[Beatsong]

How do you justify enslaving even a single person who objects to laboring on your behalf?

Nobody's being enslaved. People who don't want to work at the jobs they have are free to leave those jobs and find another one, or not to have a job at all. A slave is not free to do that.

Your utilitarian argument that spreading the cost over all of society using coercive force works well for the majority is just a rationalization to avoid addressing the fundamental question at the bar, which is "what moral and ethical justification exists for forcing others to labor against their will in order to provide for your medical needs?"

Nobody is being forced to labor against their will. If they don't want to labor, they can stop (see above).

It'd be nice if just one of you leftists would take an honest stab at addressing that core issue.

There you go mate. Your statements are nonsensical ones about slavery and force that don't exist.

[mistermack]

Rights exist because organisms claim them, not because some other competing organism grants them.

And those kinds of rights can be completely different, depending on where you are. In the USA, the state has a right to execute you for certain crimes. In Britain, it doesn't.
So when you say rights exist, yes they do as human constructs, but they are not fixed. They just reflect the consensus in your area.