so what do *you* consider a *right*?

[Jenny in Atl]

I've always wondered at this idea that we, the descendants, should reimburse those screwed (for lack of a better term) by our ancestors.

 

I don't think you really can. But, the conditions most Native Americans live in is beyond the pale. Again, it's a moral issue... but many here will say, they just need to pick themselves up by their boot straps, and become productive citizens; no matter their lack of access to a good education, heath care, jobs, transportation, etc. It's always the other person's fault.

[lionfamily1999]

I don't think you really can. But, the conditions most Native Americans live in is beyond the pale. Again, it's a moral issue... but many here will say, they just need to pick themselves up by their boot straps, and become productive citizens; no matter their lack of access to a good education, heath care, jobs, transportation, etc. It's always the other person's fault.

Here's where, imo, the delicate balance between freedoms and government intervention come into play. It's also a spot where, I believe, choice is paramount.

 

If one should choose to live an area, because of familial ties or roots, and one finds that the situation is not to their liking they have four options (there's more, but for the sake of simplicity, four). They can take the responsibility upon themself to raise the standards of the area, thereby preserving their freedom from government oversight. They can ask/demand the government come in and fix the problem, thereby surrendering many of their rights (the gov is not going to raise standards without increasing the standards that must individually be met). They can move and change nothing. They can stay and change nothing.

 

I do not like government intervention. I prefer personal responsibility. One preserves freedom, the other infringes upon it.

 

As nice as it would be if the government would just give us everything we could ever want or need without demanding any reimbursement, that is simply not possible. It must be paid for and will, either with freedom or cash. From what I understand many of the tribes today are unwilling to surrender any more of their rights (and good for them! imo), but that does put the responsibility on their shoulders.

[PiCO]

Supporting, yes... fighting for... well... I'm starting to say there isn't much at all worth fighting for, if fighting means death, war, maiming, etc.

 

If there aren't any rights you feel are worth fighting (and possibly dying for), is there anything in your life worth fighting for?

[lionfamily1999]

If there aren't any rights you feel are worth fighting (and possibly dying for), is there anything in your life worth fighting for?

I'm torn in this, because I do not believe that fighting or doing an evil to anyone, is right, ever. I go back to "do not resist having evil done to you" and as Joseph (of the many colored coat) said, "what was meant for evil God meant for good." I don't believe I know or understand the big picture. In the greater scheme of things, trust in God always results in 'good' even if, when it happens, it appears not to be a blessing.

 

Fighting for something and dying for something are, imo, two very different things. There are things I would die for, but I am not sure that there is anything worth killing for.

 

This is where I am right now. :shrug: I'm not saying that I'm right, lol! I don't fully understand my own position ;) I don't believe we are meant to fight, or kill. I don't believe that is why we are here and I don't believe they're the best means to any end.

 

Upon further thought, why must things be fought for? Does it always end up that fighting is the only way, or isn't it possible that there is always an alternative.

 

ETA, when I put death in reference to fighting, I did not mean my own, but the deaths of others.

[Murphy101]

I've always wondered at this idea that we, the descendants, should reimburse those screwed (for lack of a better term) by our ancestors.

 

Me too.

I think Julie answered well.

 

And there's also the presumption that every ancestor had s say in what their europen leaders did when the truth is most did not.

 

My ancestors were almost entirely peasants stock as far as we can research. On a good generation.

[Renee in NC]

I'm confused. :confused:

 

First the assertion is made that the white Europeans swept in and took all the Native Americans' "stuff".

 

Then you say that the Native Americans had the ideal of sharing their belongings.

 

In the context of this discussion (re: rights), how is it then so "wrong" that their stuff was "taken", if they didn't really "own" it in the first place according to their own traditions?

 

Could their rights have been trampled if they never claimed to have those rights in the first place?

 

Or, in a more general sense, can a right be taken away from anyone if that person doesn't claim that right?

 

If it were shared, then they could have feasibly gone back and taken it back when they needed it.

 

Once taken by the Europeans, they owned it and would kill to protect their property.

 

Big difference between that and sharing!

[lionfamily1999]

Me too.

I think Julie answered well.

 

And there's also the presumption that every ancestor had s say in what their europen leaders did when the truth is most did not.

 

My ancestors were almost entirely peasants stock as far as we can research. On a good generation.

Thank you, and I agree. There is a tendency to dump all of a certain race together to take the blame, when, in reality, it's nearly always the powerful of any given race that get to lord it over the the rest. IOW, most of nearly any race are as much victims of their own race as those others their race acted upon....... Does that make any sense :lol:

If it were shared, then they could have feasibly gone back and taken it back when they needed it.

 

Once taken by the Europeans, they owned it and would kill to protect their property.

 

Big difference between that and sharing!

That's why I don't share. Not really, but... devil's advocate says, 'so the sharing was only their belief as long as the sharing was good? In other words, it was not simply we do not own, but we don't own as long as no one else owns either?'

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm confused. :confused:

 

First the assertion is made that the white Europeans swept in and took all the Native Americans' "stuff".

 

Then you say that the Native Americans had the ideal of sharing their belongings.

 

In the context of this discussion (re: rights), how is it then so "wrong" that their stuff was "taken", if they didn't really "own" it in the first place according to their own traditions?

 

Could their rights have been trampled if they never claimed to have those rights in the first place?

 

Or, in a more general sense, can a right be taken away from anyone if that person doesn't claim that right?

 

What a convenient way of looking at things. Finders keepers... yes? And no, not all Europeans were evil (stole from those already here), but we (white European) descendants have profited off the actions of a few. If they had not killed off most who lived here already, do you really think our peasant forefathers would have been able to get land as easily as they did? But then isn't that what so many are afraid of with those from other lands who are still coming to the US? They are coming to take what is mine!!!

[Meriwether]

My family came to the United States in the early to mid 1700's. They were passive, not involved in government. They did not fight in the Revolution on either side, they did not own slaves (but neither did they fight to free the slaves), most of them did not even vote. They came to this country for the RIGHT to worship as they chose.

 

I have strong feelings on basic human rights, but what caught my interest in the thread was the idea of reparations. Should I feel guilt because my ancestors lived in a country while it allowed slavery? Should I be made to pay? My ancestors would NEVER have owned a slave, but they had a nonresistant religious belief. While I don't share that particular belief, they had a right to it. They wouldn't have fought if they had been enslaved themselves.

 

My ancestors were persecuted in Switzerland. They had family burned at the stake or drowned because they did not baptize their infants. They left everything behind, abandoned their homes and property, to emigrate. Does Switzerland now owe them compensation? Another group of my "people", although not my ancestors, had been living in Russia. During an uprising (without looking it up, I would guess the Bolshevic Revolution with an emphasis on the word guess) they were given a chance to leave Russia with nothing but the clothes on their backs. While in Russia, they had developed a strain of wheat. They came to Kansas with nothing but Turkey Red Wheat sewn into the hems of their clothes and helped make the Midwest the breadbasket it is. Does Russia owe these people anything? Another group went to Brazil instead of the USofA. The Brazilian government gave them a nasty bit of ground to live on (I consider that generous actually because Brazil didn't have to invite them in and give them anything) and they turned it into lovely homes and farms. What does Russia owe them? Or are people groups only owed something if they don't adapt?

 

A people who have been mistreated can be bitter or they can move on, but I feel only those who did the mistreating should be punished. The remaining Jews of Germany should have been given reparations by the German government. Plantation owners should have given the slaves reparations. But, really, should the Normans give England back to the Saxons?

 

ETA: People have been displaced since the earliest of times. While individual actions (and even some movements of people) could certainly be labeled as wrong, the coming of Europeans to America was certainly not an exception to general history, it just happened more recently than some others. Just one example: Muslims controlled southern Spain for longer than the United States has been a country. Neither the Muslim takeover or their expulsion by the Spaniards was peaceful. So who should live in southern Spain? The Spanish, who lived there before and after the Muslims or the Muslims who lived there for hundreds of years. Were the Muslims wrong to want to live there? Were the Spanish wrong to want the land back?

Edited January 4, 2010 by Meriwether

[Murphy101]

:iagree::hurray::hurray::patriot:

 

well said meriweather!!

[medcalf]

A person living alone in the woods has no need of rights. In fact, the very concept of rights is alien to solitary life: one does what one can and will, and does not do what one cannot or does not wish. Fundamentally, a person seeks first security (including physical safety, sufficient food to not be hungry today, and a place of refuge), then prosperity (more than what you need to last out the day) and finally ever-increasing freedom of action. There are no limits on what such a one can gain of all three, except for their own abilities and time and the characteristics of the world around them.

 

Why, then, are people social creatures? What in our nature causes us to choose almost universally to live in groups? After all, we have to give up some of our freedom of action to live in a group: we cannot, for example, kill others with impunity because we want their stuff. We have to give up some of our prosperity to support others today, who in turn give up some of their prosperity tomorrow to support us. We even have to potentially give up security, if called upon to defend the group, or to fight for the group's gain. And it doesn't matter whether the group is the family, a tribe, or a multi-continental empire: the dynamic is the same. So why would we give up these things?

 

I think that the answer is that we wish to have more of them. Let me just take the example of prosperity. In a sense, we give up prosperity to join a social group, because we each have to contribute some of our time, some of our goods, or both to the maintenance of the group. Yet we also gain a lot more prosperity than we lose. To take a simple example, my speciality is computer systems architecture. I am very, very good at it. And the reason that I am very, very good at it is because I do not have to spend my time or thought on raising or hunting my own food, or on building my own shelter, or defending against the French coming to take your knife and book. In turn, the people who grow my food, build my shelter and defend against the French can do so with as much focus as they like, to at least the degree that they do not need to worry about having working computers to make their job easier, because I do that better than they ever could — and certainly better than they ever could while also trying to be good farmers, builders or soldiers. The same dynamic of political economy works for security (I might some day have to fight to defend my society, in exchange for which my society gets to continue existing and providing its protections to my family and friends) and for freedom of choice (I gain options from the overall wealth of society, though in exchange I don't get to just take what I want).

 

When people start living in groups, there are four tools that are available to the society to govern human behavior, to ensure that the largest number of people get the largest amount of security, prosperity and liberty (another name for freedom of choice): rights, privileges, duties and prohibitions. Again, this is as true of the family as it is of the multi-continental empire. A right is what one may neither be prevented from doing nor compelled to do; a privilege is what one may do without sanction; a duty is what one must do or face sanction; and a prohibition is what one may not do without sanction. I'll consider them in reverse order.

 

A prohibition is what one may not do without sanction. This is what we normally think of as the law: if you speed, you may get a fine or even lose your privilege to drive; if you kill another unlawfully, you may yourself be killed; if you steal, you might forfeit your property, your liberty or even your life; if you operate a business in contravention of the society's legal codes, you may be stripped of your goods and your ability to earn a living. There are social prohibitions as well, where the sanctions include shunning and the like. Essentially, prohibitions are those things which are considered so detrimental to society and its good order that they cannot be allowed, or the society is compromised.

 

The inverse of a prohibition is a duty, what one must do or face sanction. Some duties are self-imposed, such as a duty keep your lawn looking nice so that the neighborhood in general looks nice; the worst sanction (barring a neighborhood association) likely being the disapproval of your neighbors. Some are legally imposed, such as the drafting of soldiers or the requirement to serve on a jury. Some fall into both categories, such as (generally) the duty to care for one's family. Some duties are created by law, like fiduciary duties to a corporation, but most are personal.

 

A privilege is what one may do without sanction. Privileges come from three sources: rights (which we'll discuss in a moment), government or other organizational rule, and the doctrine that what is not forbidden is allowed. Privileges created by government tend to fall into two classes, depending on whether they would otherwise be a violation of existing rules. Privileges which do not violate existing rules, but allow, say, the use of a government-owned resource (such as flying, driving, or bringing suit in court of law) are commonly thought of as government services or civil rights. Privileges which allow behavior that would otherwise violate laws or regulations, such as allowing a person to speed on the way to the hospital, or allowing the rich and powerful to escape punishment of their crimes, tend to be either social accommodations to exceptional cases, or corruption, or ways of easing social interactions.

 

A right, a fairly recent concept (arising in its modern form in the 1600s), is what one may be neither compelled to do nor forbidden from doing. It differs from a privilege in many ways. First, the exercise of a right cannot deprive another of their exercise of the same right; otherwise, they would be prohibited from the exercise of their rights. My right to enjoy the use of my home without the French taking my books and knives in no way keeps the French from enjoying their own home without anyone else taking their books and knives. Second, the exercise of a right may not deprive another of their enjoyment of a different right. My right to seek health care for my family may not deprive the doctor of his right to the fruits of his labor. My right to freedom of speech may not be so used as to deprive a neighbor of the privacy of his property. My right to worship or not as I choose may not be used to compel others to publicly support my worship (or lack of it). Third, a right is not subject to government approval. The government may not condition my right of self defense by regulating weaponry, any more than it may condition my right to free speech by regulating the topics I can discourse on in public. (Though, to be fair, this limitation is more observed in the breach in most governments, including the US to an ever-increasing degree.) Fourth, a right is not granted by government, though it may be protected by the government. My right to defend myself is superior to the government's power to regulate it in any way, even if that regulation is to force me to keep a weapon in my house (as in Switzerland). A right may thus be violated, while a privilege cannot, as the abrogation of a privilege is the removal of a grant that government created or allowed in the first place.

 

Most civil rights are not rights, but privileges. Human rights tend to divide between true rights and privileges, with the sillier recent attempts at expanding everything politically favored into a right largely falling into the class of privilege. Health care is an excellent example. While Obama last year proclaimed health care to be a right, in a debate with McCain, it is clear that he does not believe it to be so. Current health insurance reforms violate current rights to property (which is a class of the right to the fruit of one's own labor), by compelling people to purchase insurance and compelling doctors to provide care at below-market rates. Essentially, the government is claiming the power to compel people to labor not for their own purposes, but for the government's. How this differs from slavery (in the Roman form at least) I do not know. (Aside: medical licensing is the grant of a privilege to practice medicine, which should be a right, and simultaneously a violation of the right to earn a living by the fruit of one's labor, if one does not choose to get licensed. It is also the creation of a cartel, because it is doctors who decide who can be doctors in the future.)

[medcalf]

Moreover should I, the descendent of people who never owned slaves, be forced to pay "reparations" to the descendants of people who were not slaves? If not, then how are you going to work out all the genealogy required to determine who are the descendants of slaves and who the descendants of slave owners? Should Barack Obama or Tiger Woods get compensated by our poor relatives in Alabama? What about people whose ancestry is mixed, with some slave ancestors and some slave-owning ancestors?

 

And that's just with one relatively recent issue in one country. If we try doing this on a worldwide scale, our best and fervent hope is that it doesn't work out any worse than WWII, which was a similar attempt at redress by the Germans at the very least.

[Haiku]

Moreover should I, the descendent of people who never owned slaves, be forced to pay "reparations" to the descendants of people who were not slaves? If not, then how are you going to work out all the genealogy required to determine who are the descendants of slaves and who the descendants of slave owners? Should Barack Obama or Tiger Woods get compensated by our poor relatives in Alabama? What about people whose ancestry is mixed, with some slave ancestors and some slave-owning ancestors?

 

Just for clarification, and not to indicate my stance on the issue, the idea of reparations is not that individuals get compensated individually. It's that money is invested in minority neighborhoods, businesses, scholarship funds, etc., out of recognition that black Americans have not benefited from the generational transfer of wealth and wealth-providing opportunities that much of white American society has due to the years of slavery and the denial of ownership of property. I'm sure there is someone here who can explain that better than I can or provide links. I'm going on the memory of something I read about this years ago.

 

Tara

[medcalf]

Just for clarification, and not to indicate my stance on the issue, the idea of reparations is not that individuals get compensated individually. It's that money is invested in minority neighborhoods, businesses, scholarship funds, etc., out of recognition that black Americans have not benefited from the generational transfer of wealth and wealth-providing opportunities that much of white American society has due to the years of slavery and the denial of ownership of property. I'm sure there is someone here who can explain that better than I can or provide links. I'm going on the memory of something I read about this years ago.

 

Tara

 

OK, but that amounts to the same thing. The money that is invested in minority neighborhoods and the like comes from where? It must come from taxes, fees and the like, because that's the way the government gets revenue. And if the intent is that it only comes from non-minorities, then that means that some of those people who are taxed to provide these payments would be people whose ancestors never owned slaves, and who themselves didn't get to take advantage of the generational wealth transfer. (New immigrants from Europe come to mind, in that regard.) And all of that is skipping over the violations of the due process and equal treatment under law clauses of the fourteenth amendment.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Dang, that was mean.

 

 

a

 

No, I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to make a point. The type of communal sharing you are discussing can typically only work (if one is to believe that it works at all) in small groups with shared values. Even if the members of the group view items as communal property or ownerless they still don't want someone from outside the community to try to claim the same privileges or rights to share in the group-held items. Were we to attempt to have this sort of group living on a huge, planetary scale it wouldn't work. Human nature certainly plays a part in shared property as well. While The Gods Must Be Crazy was intended as a comedy film, the lesson of what one little coke bottle can do to a community that has always shared its possessions may only be funny because it is not so far from the truth.

 

The choice of France as the outside country/culture/community in my example was strictly arbitrary. Use the outside culture of your choice.

[IsabelC]

A person living alone in the woods has no need of rights. [.....] It is also the creation of a cartel, because it is doctors who decide who can be doctors in the future.)

Thank you for this clear summary of these concepts.

I think that a difficulty with rights is that many people are only aware of infringing on the rights of others if those others are in close proximity.

[Haiku]

And if the intent is that it only comes from non-minorities

 

That's not the intent. The money would come from everyone. The idea is not that some are rewarded and some are punished.

 

Tara

[lgm]

Just for clarification, and not to indicate my stance on the issue, the idea of reparations is not that individuals get compensated individually. It's that money is invested in minority neighborhoods, businesses, scholarship funds, etc., out of recognition that black Americans have not benefited from the generational transfer of wealth and wealth-providing opportunities that much of white American society has due to the years of slavery and the denial of ownership of property. I'm sure there is someone here who can explain that better than I can or provide links. I'm going on the memory of something I read about this years ago.

 

Tara

 

Do you have some statistics and a source on how much wealth survived reconstruction and what portion of white Americans controlled this wealth?I'm not seeing from my family's history that the majority of whites in the deep south had it much better than the blacks. Matter of fact, most of those in gov't housing in the area in the early 70s had it better than those deemed not 'disadvantaged'..they stayed in their pine shacks far longer with no running water and maybe electric while the 'disadvantaged' had nice taxpayer supplied apts with electric and running water as well as a check in the mail.

Edited January 4, 2010 by lgm

[lgm]

Medcalf, thank you. I appreciate your post and the time it took to write it out.

 

Could you recommend a good source for a teen to read that would expand upon your summary?

[Haiku]

Matter of fact, most of those in gov't housing in the area had it better than those deemed not 'disadvantaged'..they stayed in their pine shacks far longer with no running water and maybe electric while the 'disadvantaged' had nice taxpayer supplied apts with electric and running water as well as a check in the mail.

 

I wondered how long it would be before someone turned it into "those lazy good-for-nothings who live off the government dole." :glare:

 

No, I don't have the statistics, nor am I going to look for them. As I stated, I read something about this many moons ago and I was merely trying to point out that reparations aren't intended to be "Since my family owned slaves and your family were slaves, here's some of my money to compensate you directly."

 

Tara

[lgm]

I wondered how long it would be before someone turned it into "those lazy good-for-nothings who live off the government dole." :glare:

 

No, I don't have the statistics, nor am I going to look for them. As I stated, I read something about this many moons ago and I was merely trying to point out that reparations aren't intended to be "Since my family owned slaves and your family were slaves, here's some of my money to compensate you directly."

 

Tara

 

Please don't twist words and please use facts. I am giving an accurate snapshot of a place in the deep south at a certain period of time. I have no data on whether jobs were available and refused. I do have data that conditions were much better for some of those on the dole than those not. I suggest you visit Appalachia now..what Diane Sawyer is showing on TV is much better than most folks had it post-Reconstruction and post-Depression, even well into the time that electricity came into the rual areas. Compare Appalachia to gov't housing in your area - factually.

 

It is not helpful to assume that the only folks affected economically are those of a certain color or a certain origin. Everyone needs an education, and everyone needs opportunity. We need to put our efforts into expanding the pie, not rationing it to the favored subgroup of the day.

[Mom-ninja.]

I do consider medical services a right. Life is a right, and in my mind, that means medical care to keep that life healthy. It is horrid in my mind that a child could be saved or helped by medical care, yet is not for lack of money.

[PineFarmMom]

 

ETA: People have been displaced since the earliest of times. While individual actions (and even some movements of people) could certainly be labeled as wrong, the coming of Europeans to America was certainly not an exception to general history, it just happened more recently than some others. Just one example: Muslims controlled southern Spain for longer than the United States has been a country. Neither the Muslim takeover or their expulsion by the Spaniards was peaceful. So who should live in southern Spain? The Spanish, who lived there before and after the Muslims or the Muslims who lived there for hundreds of years. Were the Muslims wrong to want to live there? Were the Spanish wrong to want the land back?

 

Great post!! This is what I always go back to when hearing how reparations should be paid and who all "we" owe. If we owe, then so do a large number of others in this world. Why would the fact that it was more recent make it any worse than what has been done throughout history?

 

Your entire post was excellent. I doubt strongly that many will be able to argue with much of any of it, nor will they try...your points are too valid. :)

[medcalf]

Medcalf, thank you. I appreciate your post and the time it took to write it out.

 

Could you recommend a good source for a teen to read that would expand upon your summary?

 

Actually, that's something that I need to find for my own kids. The economic aspects are pretty well taken care of by Uncle Eric's "What Ever Happened to Penny Candy?" but I'm not sure of a good introductory reader on human nature, psychology and rights theory. A good work on this, very readable but with high expectations of its audience, is "The Road to Serfdom," which covers the subject quite well.

[medcalf]

I do consider medical services a right. Life is a right, and in my mind, that means medical care to keep that life healthy. It is horrid in my mind that a child could be saved or helped by medical care, yet is not for lack of money.

 

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

[LisaNY]

Actually, I spent a great deal of my life in SW native american communities.

 

 

Like I said, goggles.

 

 

a

 

When you lived there, did people enter into the homes of others and take whatever they needed?

[Murphy101]

I agree. As someone who can't get an OB - I agree.

 

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

 

 

I do not see it as slavery since doctors and other health care professionals can choose not to be doctors IMHO. Hospital emergency rooms cannot turn away patients. As a nurse, I could not refuse to care for patients under my care. I believe that healthcare is a right in the sense that affordable, good health insurance/care should be available to all persons. IMO I truly believe that can best be served by single payer, Medicare for all system. As far as paying for it, we already are paying out the nose for it so to speak. I know that many disagree, but what are we to do, let millions of people fall through cracks and perhaps even die? Are we to say, "Oh well too bad, you just have to do without,"? (Please excuse any punctuation errors since I am having a brain attack.;))

 

I would think that in this great country we should be able to provide peace of mind and security when it comes to healthcare. IMHO the present system is not working. Many people who work hard are losing everything because of our current health care system and to me that is a disgrace.

[asta]

When you lived there, did people enter into the homes of others and take whatever they needed?

 

I didn't say I lived there. I said I spent a great deal of my life there, and I did. My mother worked for the Indian Health service.

 

I find it difficult to answer this query without sounding completely insulting. This is the same problem that Western Nations are currently facing in dealing with non-Western Nations: Western Nations are trying to interpret the customs and social mores of non-Western Nations through *Western* customs and social mores.

 

So it is with non Native Americans trying to apply non-Native customs and mores to Native societies.

 

It isn't a matter of "take whatever they needed" or even "enter into the homes of others". Did you know that, in Hopi, there are no third person pronouns? There is no way to say "her red house". There is only "red house". So how does one "enter into her house" when there is only "house"? How does one "take her food" when there is only "food"?

 

When times are good, and there is enough for all, no one goes wanting. When times are bad, yes, there is a hierarchy. Elders are respected - they are the institutional knowledge of the tribe. Children are protected - they are the future. Those who are healthy and who can work are first to be attended to. There are limited resources, and everyone acknowledges this fact.

 

There aren't "food fights". It is understood that this is the way of the world: the strong survive to perpetuate the tribe, the weak do not. And when you live on a plateau at 7500 feet, or at the bottom of the grand canyon where even helicopters can't go... you adjust.

 

Not really what you asked for, but what was in my head.

 

 

a

[lionfamily1999]

I do consider medical services a right. Life is a right, and in my mind, that means medical care to keep that life healthy. It is horrid in my mind that a child could be saved or helped by medical care, yet is not for lack of money.

I only disagree, in that there seems to be a need to define medical care, and once that definition is made it hamstrings those that may disagree. If, for instance, you saw medical care as pharmaceuticals (sorry for that spelling catastrophe), then the "right" to those would also imply that they are a necessity, a responsibility. Then, someone who does not see pharmacuticals (oh, another spelling breach) as medical care either must conform to your definition (thereby not giving what they percieve as true medical care) or else your definition must come to include theirs (thereby becoming a non-definition since it would be definitive in nothing, except that people must be able to be healthy, or else must be healthy, in which case most of the population is in trouble).

 

This is my problem with medical care as a right. If it is decided that we must all have the "right" to medical care, then we all have the responsibility to get that medical care as defined by the those that bestowed upon us that right. Now, that's not even going to cover what many people consider to be medical care, unless you include homeopathic, holistic, mystical, et al into the definition. In which case, the face of those very bodies would change drastically, as they would have to start following regulations. As much as they're considered medical care, a large part of what draws people to them is the fact that they have very little government intervention. However, unless they are added, those that use them suddenly become in the wrong, because they are not availing themselves of the "medical care" which has suddenly become a "right."

 

Yes, I do think we have a right to care for ourselves medically, however we see fit. That does not mean that I have the entitlement to free health care, or medicines out of China that are illegal in this country, or any sort of health care remedy available elsewhere in the world or outside of my budget.

 

Can you see what I mean at all? We're reading Alice in Wonderland and I'm afraid I'm starting to sound like Alice.

[Margaret in GA]

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

 

I am all for a tax overhaul in this country. But, really, let's not equate paying taxes to slavery. I don't feel I need to feed and clothe and pay for health care for everyone. But, I do feel that this great country has afforded me the opportunity to make money and it is my obligation to send a little back. Some folks *are* lazy, but many, many (through no fault of their own) cannot pay for expensive medicines and treatment. Should I let them die because they were too stupid in school to get into college or too ugly to get a good paying job at Walmart?

[lionfamily1999]

I am all for a tax overhaul in this country. But, really, let's not equate paying taxes to slavery. I don't feel I need to feed and clothe and pay for health care for everyone. But, I do feel that this great country has afforded me the opportunity to make money and it is my obligation to send a little back. Some folks *are* lazy, but many, many (through no fault of their own) cannot pay for expensive medicines and treatment. Should I let them die because they were too stupid in school to get into college or too ugly to get a good paying job at Walmart?

Frankly, I'd rather be called lazy than either stupid or ugly. Thank you.

 

What a backhanded thing to write.

[medcalf]

I do not see it as slavery since doctors and other health care professionals can choose not to be doctors IMHO.

 

So it's not slavery, then, because they could quit the profession that they have spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire the skill to pursue? Should the government have the right to force others to labor on your behalf? More to the point, let's say that doctors do start leaving the profession in droves. (This is hardly a hypothetical, as Massachusetts' experience shows.) Should government then force those doctors to continue practicing medicine, on the grounds that it's a right? If not, how will the right be exercised?

 

I believe that healthcare is a right in the sense that affordable, good health insurance/care should be available to all persons.

 

Well, health insurance and health care are two different things. Which do you think should be available as a right? And what does "affordable" mean in either case? I know people who have 3 cars, a big screen TV and no health insurance because they "can't afford" it. I also know people who have no health insurance because they pay cash for all their health care. If "affordable health insurance" is mandated, then what happens when someone cannot afford it? Moreover, how do you justify taking my money to pay for, say, the guy with more cars and better electronics than me who "can't afford it" - never mind to pay for someone who just chooses not to get it? And in what way is it a "right" if I'm forced to take affirmative action (providing money in this case) in order for someone else to exercise it?

[Mama Lynx]

I am all for a tax overhaul in this country. But, really, let's not equate paying taxes to slavery. I don't feel I need to feed and clothe and pay for health care for everyone. But, I do feel that this great country has afforded me the opportunity to make money and it is my obligation to send a little back. Some folks *are* lazy, but many, many (through no fault of their own) cannot pay for expensive medicines and treatment. Should I let them die because they were too stupid in school to get into college or too ugly to get a good paying job at Walmart?

 

I'd be happy to voluntarily give of my money to fund those portions of government that I thought were worthy of funding.

 

But what *do* you call it when I work, and the money I make is forcibly taken from me to do things I have no real say in?

 

Some folks just plain would rather spend the money on more clothes, or on cable premium channels. Do they have the right to do this? If so, do they have the right to take my money because they make those choices?

[medcalf]

I am all for a tax overhaul in this country. But, really, let's not equate paying taxes to slavery. I don't feel I need to feed and clothe and pay for health care for everyone. But, I do feel that this great country has afforded me the opportunity to make money and it is my obligation to send a little back. Some folks *are* lazy, but many, many (through no fault of their own) cannot pay for expensive medicines and treatment. Should I let them die because they were too stupid in school to get into college or too ugly to get a good paying job at Walmart?

 

It's not just about paying taxes. It's about what is and is not a right. If I have to pay taxes to support it, it cannot be a right. You do not have the right to be defended by me, even indirectly. You do have the right to defend yourself. You are extended the privilege by our society (and all others that wish to survive long term do the same) of being defended by others, and so do I, and we both pay for the privilege. (Well, assuming neither of us is in the nearly 50% who do not pay income taxes.)

 

Same with health care. If it's a right, it's absolute, and the government cannot pick and choose which health care you may or may not get, just as the government cannot define what opinions you can offer as part of your free speech rights. (Well, it cannot do so Constitutionally; we can ignore McCain-Feingold as it's off topic.) So at the point that it's a privilege, that's a very different discussion, and we can make all kinds of utilitarian arguments about whether and to what degree health insurance or health care or whatever should be provided and how and for what purposes. If it's a right, then there's no discussion to be had, and all healthcare requested would have to be provided with essentially no questions asked. And someone has to provide that care, and someone has to pay for it, and those people must labor either to provide the care or pay for it, and labor without choice is slavery.

[Margaret in GA]

Frankly, I'd rather be called lazy than either stupid or ugly. Thank you.

 

What a backhanded thing to write.

 

I agree that I worded it poorly, but what I wrote is not so much a response to this thread, but a response to the people that tell me that anyone can be anything you want to in this country and it's just not true. I worked at Walmart in high school and attractive people ran the registers and the less attractive people worked the stock room. You think they moved up and became management? Never. I had a girl wait on me one time at Chik Fil A. I handed her a $100 bill. She didn't know what to do. The register was telling her what change to give me and she could not count the change. I'm guessing that was an undiagnosed learning disability. Whatever the case, this girl had no shot at moving up in the company. She could probably never make more than minimum wage any where. And you cannot live on minimum wage. You cannot afford expensive medicine. There is no reason why I should be afforded more rights than her. More extras? Sure. But not basic access to doctors and medicine.

[Mama Lynx]

I agree that I worded it poorly, but what I wrote is not so much a response to this thread, but a response to the people that tell me that anyone can be anything you want to in this country and it's just not true. I worked at Walmart in high school and attractive people ran the registers and the less attractive people worked the stock room. You think they moved up and became management? Never. I had a girl wait on me one time at Chik Fil A. I handed her a $100 bill. She didn't know what to do. The register was telling her what change to give me and she could not count the change. I'm guessing that was an undiagnosed learning disability. Whatever the case, this girl had no shot at moving up in the company. She could probably never make more than minimum wage any where. And you cannot live on minimum wage. You cannot afford expensive medicine. There is no reason why I should be afforded more rights than her. More extras? Sure. But not basic access to doctors and medicine.

 

You're making a whole lot of assumptions here, but not much else. An ugly person has never been in management? Anyone who can't count change at the register is learning disabled and doomed to a sub-life of minimum wage and no medical care?

:001_huh:

[Margaret in GA]

You're making a whole lot of assumptions here, but not much else. An ugly person has never been in management? Anyone who can't count change at the register is learning disabled and doomed to a sub-life of minimum wage and no medical care?

:001_huh:

 

I'm sorry, but can you come up with something that poor girl could do to support herself without government assistance? Manufacturing used to be the place that a person like her could expect to make a living. We no longer have that.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've always wondered at this idea that we, the descendants, should reimburse those screwed (for lack of a better term) by our ancestors.

 

There is a huge difference between "reimbursing" a group and following through on government treaties, contracts and guarantees to a group. This is a common misunderstanding of Native American tribes and what they may or may not receive.

 

Kinsa said:

First the assertion is made that the white Europeans swept in and took all the Native Americans' "stuff".

 

Then you say that the Native Americans had the ideal of sharing their belongings.

 

Have you ever read first-hand Native American *or* European accounts of early contact?

 

You cannot compare the modern Navajo or Hopi beliefs to the tribes of the Eastern Woodlands at the time of early European settlement. Geographically and timeline-wise, you're trying to make the huns and Charlemagne the same thing.

 

Generally speaking, Native American tribes believed in sharing among a community. They grew communal crops and shared in part of the effort in producing those crops. They gave a lot to early European settlers who were starving and didn't know how to produce crops. However, the same Europeans also did a lot of stealing and taking. One big taboo that they broke was taking corn and such from graves.

 

The US Constitution claims rights as "self-evident" and God-given. They do not need to be claimed, they are inalienable. Kinsa's post is as far as I've read in the thread, time for school!

[lionfamily1999]

I'm sorry, but can you come up with something that poor girl could do to support herself without government assistance? Manufacturing used to be the place that a person like her could expect to make a living. We no longer have that.

Yes, she can take responsibility for herself and self-educate, as many do. Or, here's a total shocker, she could just be happy with what she has.

 

Again, one person's definition of medical care is different from anothers. I'd rather maintain the freedom I have now, of choosing what medical care I get as well as what I percieve medical care to be, than have insurance and have to conform to another person's definition of medical care.

 

Isn't it funny, but the elitist angle of this never really occurred to me until I starting responding to your post. I mean, how arrogant is it to assume that this "ugly" person wants to be management or this "stupid" girl wants to be able to count. Maybe they don't care. Maybe that is just not important to them. Maybe the ugly person prefers the store room, because the pay to responsibility ratio is something they're happy with. And maybe, just maybe, some folks without insurance, some people that do not avail themselves of what many people call "health care" choose not to, because they do not see it as such. Maybe, they prefer home remedies, or homeopathic remedies, or mystical remedies. Maybe, they even believe those alternative health care choices to be superior. Maybe *gasp* they think the general public has health care all wrong and is, instead, feeding into a broken system that does little except create pill and diagnosis addicts. Maybe those little people see themselves as superior to all those bleeding hearts so intent on helping them. :lol:

 

Can't you see how implementing the "right" to health care is really just a seemingly "kind" way to bring the populus into lock step with the majority?

[asta]

Yes, she can take responsibility for herself and self-educate, as many do. Or, here's a total shocker, she could just be happy with what she has.

 

Isn't it funny, but the elitist angle of this never really occurred to me until I starting responding to your post. I mean, how arrogant is it to assume that this "ugly" person wants to be management or this "stupid" girl wants to be able to count. Maybe they don't care. Maybe that is just not important to them.

 

I knew a guy when I was in the Army who was brilliant, but was doing a menial job. I couldn't understand it. He was eligible for any of the high falutin' jobs with all of the great bonuses, etc. One day I just asked him why he was doing what was perceived such a crappy job; something so obviously "beneath" his intellect. His answer forever changed my view of the world (I was quite young). He said:

 

"I could have taken a high level job, and the stress that came along with it. I could have worked 12, 14, 16 hours a day, deployed non-stop, and never have seen my wife and child. My job could have consumed my very being. Instead, I do this, from 6 am until 4 pm. I go home to my wife and child, and I completely forget this place exists. And in exchange for my time, I am given a decent paycheck, healthcare for me and my family, and a safe place to live. I have a great life. I can do whatever I want with my free time."

 

This was during the cold war. He honestly *could* do whatever he wanted. He liked to read. He took classes.

 

Not everyone wants to take over the world, no matter what their IQ is.

 

 

a

[Margaret in GA]

Yes, she can take responsibility for herself and self-educate, as many do. Or, here's a total shocker, she could just be happy with what she has.

 

Again, one person's definition of medical care is different from anothers. I'd rather maintain the freedom I have now, of choosing what medical care I get as well as what I percieve medical care to be, than have insurance and have to conform to another person's definition of medical care.

 

Isn't it funny, but the elitist angle of this never really occurred to me until I starting responding to your post. I mean, how arrogant is it to assume that this "ugly" person wants to be management or this "stupid" girl wants to be able to count. Maybe they don't care. Maybe that is just not important to them. Maybe the ugly person prefers the store room, because the pay to responsibility ratio is something they're happy with. And maybe, just maybe, some folks without insurance, some people that do not avail themselves of what many people call "health care" choose not to, because they do not see it as such. Maybe, they prefer home remedies, or homeopathic remedies, or mystical remedies. Maybe, they even believe those alternative health care choices to be superior. Maybe *gasp* they think the general public has health care all wrong and is, instead, feeding into a broken system that does little except create pill and diagnosis addicts. Maybe those little people see themselves as superior to all those bleeding hearts so intent on helping them. :lol:

 

Can't you see how implementing the "right" to health care is really just a seemingly "kind" way to bring the populus into lock step with the majority?

I am sure that many, many people would rather not have a management job, but I'm saying that working for minimum wage will not even pay for rent and food, say nothing of mammograms and cholesterol-lowering medication. You can't pay these people next to nothing and wonder why they need help paying for groceries and medical care. I'm not a bleeding heart, it's simple math.

 

 

Margaret

[Margaret in GA]

I knew a guy when I was in the Army who was brilliant, but was doing a menial job. I couldn't understand it. He was eligible for any of the high falutin' jobs with all of the great bonuses, etc. One day I just asked him why he was doing what was perceived such a crappy job; something so obviously "beneath" his intellect. His answer forever changed my view of the world (I was quite young). He said:

 

"I could have taken a high level job, and the stress that came along with it. I could have worked 12, 14, 16 hours a day, deployed non-stop, and never have seen my wife and child. My job could have consumed my very being. Instead, I do this, from 6 am until 4 pm. I go home to my wife and child, and I completely forget this place exists. And in exchange for my time, I am given a decent paycheck, healthcare for me and my family, and a safe place to live. I have a great life. I can do whatever I want with my free time."

 

This was during the cold war. He honestly *could* do whatever he wanted. He liked to read. He took classes.

 

Not everyone wants to take over the world, no matter what their IQ is.

 

 

a

 

Exactly. His life is ideal. He has health care, a retirement, and a decent wage. I'm just saying that working the line at a fast food restaurant does not pay the bills.

 

Margaret

[lionfamily1999]

Exactly. His life is ideal. He has health care, a retirement, and a decent wage. I'm just saying that working the line at a fast food restaurant does not pay the bills.

 

Margaret

You completely miss the point. His life is ideal for him. Not for everyone, for him.

I am sure that many, many people would rather not have a management job, but I'm saying that working for minimum wage will not even pay for rent and food, say nothing of mammograms and cholesterol-lowering medication. You can't pay these people next to nothing and wonder why they need help paying for groceries and medical care. I'm not a bleeding heart, it's simple math.

 

 

Margaret

Actually you can pay them next to nothing. They are paid next to nothing. They don't have to work for next to nothing. If no one was willing to work for next to nothing, they you would not be able to pay them next to nothing, but people are willing to work for next to nothing.

 

Here's my problem, though. You're assuming that they want what you consider to be health care. You're assuming that they are lacking in true necessities, because those are thing you percieve to be necessities.

 

Once you start pushing those definitions (medical care and now necessity) onto other people, then you limit their rights. They have a right to NOT have medical care, to NOT take advantage of medical care, to NOT seek medical care. However, once mc becomes a "necessity" then they are being negligent (instead of simply free).

 

Then what do you do? If medical care is a necessity (on par with food, clothing) then someone choosing not to make use of it is sick. I mean, people that refuse to wear clothing either move to a place where nudity is allowed or they're sent to jail, either way many will question their mental balance. Someone that refuses to eat is "sick" and if it is percieved that their life is in danger they are institutionalized, to protect them from themselves. Now, with mc being a necessity on par with food and clothing, do we jail someone that eschews it? Do we consider them sick (oh the IRONY) and send them off to a hospital?

 

There are far greater ramifications for freedom in creating a right of medical care and I simply do not see how the pros could possibly overshadow the cons.

[krisperry]

To the original question, what do I consider "rights"?

 

Freedom -

meaning personal freedom

freedom of speech

freedom of religion

freedom to marry whom I chose not restricted by gender, or race

Basic access to -

Education

Food

Water

Shelter

Healthcare

[asta]

Exactly. His life is ideal. He has health care, a retirement, and a decent wage. I'm just saying that working the line at a fast food restaurant does not pay the bills.

 

Margaret

 

You completely missed my point.

 

His intellectual contemporaries did not view his life as ideal at. all. They viewed him as a complete, utter loser and wanted nothing to do with him. He was the Hester Prynne of his environment.

 

The point is that not everyone wants the same things, aspires to the same things, nor, honestly, gives a rats @ss about the same things.

 

 

a

[Impish]

I do consider medical services a right. Life is a right, and in my mind, that means medical care to keep that life healthy. It is horrid in my mind that a child could be saved or helped by medical care, yet is not for lack of money.

:iagree:

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

Uh, I'm Canadian. Health care, free healthcare, as in no insurance payments, bills, copays, etc is a right here. I've worked in health care, and was nowhere near a slave. Nor are any other of our drs, nurses, etc.

 

I think that everyone, regardless of income, is equal, and their lives all equally valuable. Nobody should die because they can't afford medical care.

[Mrs Mungo]

Originally Posted by medcalf

OK, but let's unpack this a little. If medical care is a right, you cannot be denied medical care.

 

If you cannot be denied medical care, it must be provided to you by someone.

 

Whomever is obligated to provide it to you may not refuse to provide you that care, regardless of, say, your ability to pay for it or their own will in the matter.

 

Therefore that person must work on your behalf, either directly (providing medical care) or indirectly (paying for someone else to provide medical care).

 

Therefore, you are claiming the right to enslave someone else, at least part time, for you to have medical care.

 

What you are claiming is akin to claiming that others have an obligation to feed, clothe and house you, which are even more fundamentally necessary to your survival than medical care, most of the time.

 

So, right now, you are enslaving people (albeit, part-time) in order to pay for roads, hospitals, libraries and other things that you cannot pay for on your own?

[Hedgehogs4]

Many of the rights listed in our Constitution are, in my view, the rights of a free people and you neglected one of the most important ot these. A right that is enshrined in our Constitution.

 

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It is this right that protects the others from "fallible" institutions. It is also this right that is constantly under attack and, in many nations, (obvsiously those without our Constitution) has been eliminated (though there are a fair number in this land who would see it eliminated here too). It is also this right that was one of the first eliminated by the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Mao and a gallery of rogues.

 

I view the right to protect myself and my family from threat as a basic right of a free people.

 

do forgive the oversight. it was unintentional, and i do agree. :iagree:

[medcalf]

So, right now, you are enslaving people (albeit, part-time) in order to pay for roads, hospitals, libraries and other things that you cannot pay for on your own?

[/i][/i]

 

Fundamentally, yes, to an extent. I don't like it, but how do I register than I don't consent to be so governed? I could move somewhere else, but there's nowhere better so far as I can tell (and I've lived in a lot of places around the world), on top of which I'd still be paying US taxes for 10 years after I renounced my citizenship, if I ever wanted to come back to visit without being thrown in jail. I could pick up a gun and start shooting government agents, but that's pointless and premature. I could refuse to vote, but that is seen as consent rather than non-consent, because we only require a plurality of voters, not of citizens, for an election to be valid; there's no "none of the above" choice.

 

I am not saying that there are no things which government should do. However, were government limited to those things it should do, or even those things that are Constitutionally permitted, given the plain meaning of the words at the time that they were written, direct taxation would not be necessary. If only indirect taxes were allowed, as was originally the case, then people could avoid those taxes whose uses they disapproved, though it might require extraordinary effort to do so. But that's not the case in the US today; income taxes are unavoidable unless you become a ward of the state.