Brilliant NHS

[Beatsong]

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.

So if the government successfully killed you, that would indicate that you DIDN'T have the ability to defend your action of existing against interference by others. Therefore you had no right to exist. Therefore they infringed no right in killing you.

Similarly, if the government are successful in taking away your money in tax to pay for the healthcare of others, that proves that you DON'T have the ability to defend your money against them. Therefore you don't have any right to keep that money and they are doing nothing wrong in taking it from you.

All fair enough by me. In fact it's really very simple when you put it this way.

[Seth]

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.

Pettifogging sophistry. Call it "mugged and robbed" if you like, the point remains. How do you justify using the jackbooted thugs of government to do the dirty work of stealing my property for your benefit?

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).

Pettifogging sophistry.

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.

Evasive pettifogging sophistry.

Pretty typical though.

[Seth]

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.

So if the government successfully killed you, that would indicate that you DIDN'T have the ability to defend your action of existing against interference by others. Therefore you had no right to exist. Therefore they infringed no right in killing you.

Similarly, if the government are successful in taking away your money in tax to pay for the healthcare of others, that proves that you DON'T have the ability to defend your money against them. Therefore you don't have any right to keep that money and they are doing nothing wrong in taking it from you.

All fair enough by me. In fact it's really very simple when you put it this way.

Not quite, though I congratulate you on your critical thinking. You see, I said "can be defended" I didn't say "is successfully defended."

The right exists notwithstanding the individual organism's inability to prevail in the conflict over the competing exercise of rights.

The right is not vitiated by defeat in any particular instance, it continues to exist as a function of the behavior and claim of the organism.

[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.

Pettifogging sophistry.

Whoa! Love it. You're losing your touch - I thought you'd at least string us along a few more pages before diving for that one.

Call it "mugged and robbed" if you like, the point remains. How do you justify using the jackbooted thugs of government to do the dirty work of stealing my property for your benefit?

You mean, "answer the question again, now I've rephrased it meaning exactly the same thing in more emotive language".

I'm not the one who justified it; you are. According to your conception of "right", outlined by yourself above, your right to the property exists because of your ability to defend it. If I steal it, then you clearly DON'T HAVE the ability to defend it. So you have no right over it, and I'm doing nothing wrong. You didn't mention any bye-law about how all this was OK as long as I wasn't wearing jackboots at the time.

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

Pettifogging sophistry.

Another one!

You chose the words dude.

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

Evasive pettifogging sophistry.

Beatsong 3!

Pretty good haul for one post, if I do say so myself.

[Beatsong]

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.

So if the government successfully killed you, that would indicate that you DIDN'T have the ability to defend your action of existing against interference by others. Therefore you had no right to exist. Therefore they infringed no right in killing you.

Similarly, if the government are successful in taking away your money in tax to pay for the healthcare of others, that proves that you DON'T have the ability to defend your money against them. Therefore you don't have any right to keep that money and they are doing nothing wrong in taking it from you.

All fair enough by me. In fact it's really very simple when you put it this way.

Not quite, though I congratulate you on your critical thinking. You see, I said "can be defended" I didn't say "is successfully defended."

The right exists notwithstanding the individual organism's inability to prevail in the conflict over the competing exercise of rights.

The right is not vitiated by defeat in any particular instance, it continues to exist as a function of the behavior and claim of the organism.

Oh. So both you, and the other organisms working via government, have the right over it all the time, regardless of which of you happens to win at any one moment. And you're each infringing the rights of the other, each time you take it from each other.

OK.

[MrJonno]

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.

I have the ability to do a lot of things many extremely illegal does not equal a right to do so

[Seth]

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.

I have the ability to do a lot of things many extremely illegal does not equal a right to do so

Wrong. You have a right to do anything of which you are capable. That doesn't mean that when you participate in a society that your exercise of any particular right may not be constrained in order to balance your desire for liberty with the equal desire for liberty of others. That's what civilization is, you see...it's a mechanism for balancing and adjudicating the exercises of rights.

But absent the presence of another with whom your actions conflict, you are absolutely free to do absolutely anything of which you are capable. That's your right.

Doesn't mean your rights automatically supersede or overrule the rights of others.

[Seth]

I'm not the one who justified it; you are. According to your conception of "right", outlined by yourself above, your right to the property exists because of your ability to defend it. If I steal it, then you clearly DON'T HAVE the ability to defend it. So you have no right over it, and I'm doing nothing wrong. You didn't mention any bye-law about how all this was OK as long as I wasn't wearing jackboots at the time.

Not exactly. A right is a freedom of action that can be defended against interference by others. The fact that one may not have the present actual physical ability to vindicate that right does not change the nature of the right, it just means that one has failed to successfully exercise that right. Actual physical "ability" in the meaning you use it is not part of the definition.

My right to freedom of speech exists because I can defend my freedom to take that action against interference. This does not mean that force used by other may not prevent me from succeeding in speaking freely, but neither does it mean that my right ceases to exist merely because I am physically unable to speak.

"Can be defended" is a theoretical metric, not a measure of present ability.

Do I have a right not to be rained upon? No, because while I can defend my freedom of action not to be rained on, natural forces like the weather are not "others."