I have been to Canada. Thats all. I read a lot!!
:-()

That quote was funny when Mark Twain's emmissary did a reading on TV years ago.

Don't try to guess the type of person I am

Hi Ishadylady,

I wasn't trying to guess the type of person you are. If I were id guess a nice and caring person. Because your posts appear that way.

I was merely commenting on your post regarding the UK and Canada having less freedoms than the US. I'd disagree with that!

That's all.

What is H1N1?

There are some very clever people in this world, and now that the emphasis is on health care, why can't they think of something better? None of our plans are perfect, but why ditch the whole thing. How many people in the US get good health care? Most of the population. The obesity and heart disease is something else entirely. We eat too much and that is our own responsibility. There is more education and research needed on that subject.

H1N1 is what might be known over there as swine flu. Yes everyone in the capitalist economies eats too much, it goes with having money and opportunity. What we forget is we came from places where food was scarce and maybe they didn't eat every day. The problem is we have accepted processed foods instead of real food. Now if we put McDonald's and KFC out of business and Coke along with them we might see a reversal of the trend. Everything we eat is loaded with sugar and no amount of education and research will stop someone eating a hamburger with a coke

And if YOU believe that there are 40 million US citizens without health care I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/health_care_insurance/000529.html)
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Coverage (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)
Hard Times And Health Insurance: How Many Americans Will Be Uninsured By 2010? -- Gilmer and Kronick 28 (4): w573 -- Health Affairs (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.28.4.w573)
FactCheck.org: How many of the uninsured are U.S. citizens? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_of_the_uninsured_are_us.html)

I wonder if the 65% of Americans that voted for Mr. Obama will think when he can tell you which doctor you can go to. Or the younger of them who may lose a grandparent, because they were to old to be worth helping under the new health care system. This is ridiculous people. He has already in 6 months, 6 MONTHS!! TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. OH BUT HAIL OBAMA...

The problem is we have accepted processed foods instead of real food. Now if we put McDonald's and KFC out of business and Coke along with them we might see a reversal of the trend. Everything we eat is loaded with sugar and no amount of education and research will stop someone eating a hamburger with a coke

I can live without the burger and coke . But they will pry my hot dog out of my cold dead fingers!!
Hot dog lawsuit launched against Nathan's and others (http://www.examiner.com/x-17253-NY-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m7d23-Hot-dog-lawsuit-launched-against-Nathans-and-others)

Paraclete,

A few points.


On the subject of health care I would just like those on the other side of the big pond to consider this. We can see a doctor in most cases within 24 hours although it may take longer to see a doctor of our choice.

We can see the doctor of our choice, usually within just a few hours.



Emergency room waits weren't longer than an hour until H1N1 hit now because of panic they are longer.

That's a problem. Because when there is an epidemic or a pandemic is when the poorest need access to the ER the most. Those with insurance can see their private physicians and avoid the ER entirely. At least they can here in the USA. I don't know how things work where you are. I'm not quite sure WHERE you are.

If you are experiencing a slowdown during an "emergency" caused by a pandemic, that is a systemic problem with your access to care that can have VERY adverse effects during a pandemic situation. If people who may be infected with a deadly disease (and H1N1 is NOT that deadly yet... though H5N1, aka "bird flu" is quite a killer) are sitting around for hours coughing on each other in an ER, then this slowdown in access to care is likely to result in disease spreading.


Specialists of course always have a waiting list.

Ours don't. We can usually see a specialist within 24 hours, most often same day. This again seems to me to be a problem with accessability of services that we in the USA don't experience very often.


This costs a 1.5% tax impost for the uninsured and about$AUD200 a month a family for insurance. The benefit of insurance is to reduce the waiting time for elective surgery and bypass the public hospital system.

So what you are saying is that your system is a two tier system... one tier for the poor, who have to wait for certain services, and another for those who can afford the extra fees who can bypass those lines.

I actually have no problem with that. You should get what you pay for, and pay based on what you earn. I'm good with a multi-tier system.

But there are quite a few on the left in the USA who would see that as elitism and an inequality that should be eliminated from the system. Which, of course, would result in EVERYONE having to wait on lines for certain services.


Pharmueticals are regulated by the government which keeps costs within reason.

But it also keeps pharmaceutical breakthroughs at a minimum. When you keep the cost of drugs low, you are keeping profitability low. Without profitability, there is no incentive for innovation, because innovation in pharmacology is EXPENSIVE.

For every one new drug created by a pharmaceutical company, there are thousands of failures. Each new drug costs roughly $2.5 billion dollars to develop. These costs include:

Animal screening in rats - 1-2 years @ $500,000 per year.
In monkeys - 2-5 years at $2 million per year
Phase I toxicology in humans - 2 years @ $10-20 million per year
Phase II effictiveness testing in humans- 10 years @ $100+ million per year
Phase III dosage and side effects testing in humans - 10 years @ $100+ million per year.

A prospective new drug can fail at any point in these trials, and the money spent trying to develop it is GONE. And there are thousands of failures for each successful drug. Which means that the drug company only recoups the losses on the failed drugs when a new drug goes on the market. The cost of the overhead for all those failures has to be accounted for in the price of the new drug.

That is why new drugs are so expensive. They have to be in order for the drug company to continue producing new drugs.

But if the government fixes the prices of the drugs, even if it is enough to cover the cost of development of THIS DRUG, there is no way for the drug company to recoup the losses of all the other drugs that didn't make the cut. Which means they can't afford to experiment on new drugs.

The reason that something like 85-90% of all new drugs are developed in the USA is because we don't have price fixing on new drugs. Drug companies are free to charge whatever they need in order to make a profit so that they can recoup those losses from all the failures.

If we suddenly have price fixing of drugs in the USA, the number of new drugs developed in the entire world will drop by roughly 90%. Because it will no longer be financially feasible for drug companies to develop them. We will continue to have what we have. But nothing new will be developed. Or rather, very little. There is SOME development outside the USA... usually by individuals with a personal mission or a few altruists who don't care about financial losses. But it is minimal compared to development in the USA. Eliminate the financial incentive, and you eliminate most of the development.


Your president may be trying to help your people in a similar way remember you can't get it without paying for it somewhere, but our system hasn't destroyed enterprise in the medical profession, just put a cap on the costs. Like many countries we struggle to train enough doctors to meet the demand

Actually, as I have pointed out above, it has destroyed enterprise in the medical field. There is no innovation taking place in government-run health care systems because there is no financial incentive to do so, and plenty of disincentives. THAT, in my opinion, is the definition of destroying enterprise in the medical field.

There's also this question... do your doctors have quotas of patients that must be seen in a particular time? Or perhaps a number of hours they must work?

If so, what happens to their patients AFTER they have completed their quota? In some European systems, doctors have been known to go on real or "virtual" vacations after they meet their quotas, leaving patients stranded. They get paid the same whether they see the extra patient or not, so why bother. Whereas in the USA's fee-for-service system, the more patients the doctor sees, the more he gets paid, so there is an incentive to see the extra patient, even if its after the posted hours.

Any system that caps costs and fees automatically destroys incentive to work harder, to develop the new drug, the new tool, the new technique or to see the extra patient.

Elliot

What is H1N1?


Swine flu.

It is mostly good. There is some bad.

That's a step for you, thanks.


The survey is an opinion survey

Is it that obvious?


it's not 40 million people without health insurance or going bankrupt due to medical costs.

Absolutely, positively, irrelevant to my point.


You can't seem to make that difference.

Apparently I can.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/health_care_insurance/000529.html)
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Coverage (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)
Hard Times And Health Insurance: How Many Americans Will Be Uninsured By 2010? -- Gilmer and Kronick 28 (4): w573 -- Health Affairs (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.28.4.w573)
FactCheck.org: How many of the uninsured are U.S. citizens? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_of_the_uninsured_are_us.html)

NK,

From your own citations, 21% of that 47 million figure are illegal immigrants. That's roughly 10 million.

Of the rest, 10-15 million are people who work and can afford insurance, BUT HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PURCHASE IT. You may dislike their decision, but it is their decision to make. And I should not have to pay for people who CHOOSE not to pay for themselves.

That leaves roughly 22-27 million involuntarily uninsured Americans.

The Kaiser Foundation found, however, that the vast majority of these (60% or so) were uninsured only for a short period (less than 6 months) before becoming insured again. Almost 80% were back on insurance within 1 year. But let's go with the 60% figure for the point of these calculations.

That leaves 10.8 million uninsured Americans who remain uninsured for longer than 6 months against their will.

If the government were to pay the cost of private health insurance for these people, at the very exaggerated cost of $1500 per person (the actual cost is $1500 for FOUR people), the cost would be $194.4 billion annually.

$194 billion vs $2.3 TRILLION annually.

Even if we decided to pay the cost of every one of those 47 million uninsured, whether they are here legally or not, whether they have chosen to be uninsured or not (though I don't know why we should), the total cost annually would be $846 billion.

$846 billion vs. $2.3 Trillion annually.

And we get to still keep our system as it is.

Keeping our current system is 63% CHEAPER than dismantling it in favor of a new nationalized health care system.

So if the cost of insurance is the main concern of the Obama Administration, then he's going about this all wrong. If the main concern is to cover the uninsured, he's going about it all wrong.

But if his main goal is to socialize the country... well, he's right on target there with his actions.

Elliot

Absolutely, positively, irrelevant to my point.
Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?

Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?

The point is there are problems with Canadian health care - you finally acknowledged it. Only a little more than than half of COVERED Canadians believe they receive quality care and less than half of COVERED Canadians think it's going to get better and more than half of COVERED Canadians believe private insurance would improve timely access and quality of care.

Being covered means NOTHING if you can't get the timely, quality care you need.

Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?

More ranting of an uneducated foreigner to the ways of our country!
The homosexual mayor of Portland has his house in foreclosure because he has not made a house payment since January. Believe that he does not have health insurance? Simply because you have a job does not automatically insulate you from financial problems.
What you refuse to accept is that our health care system works. The numbers that Nobama spews out are skewed and even the Government will admit it if cornered. It would be far cheaper to simply pay for the health care of those individuals that are for what ever reason uninsured than to make everyone cow tow to a universal health care system that is/has failed in more places of the world that we can count. Except to make more people beholding to the government, thereby securing the democratic parity's place in history as the part that changed our form of government from what we have known and enjoyed for over 200 years to a socialist state that has never in the history of the world enjoyed a life that long.
If you really want to get on a band wagon, why don't you go out and fight to get basic health care in countries like Africa, India, where a child would be very lucky to see a doctor once or twice in their life time. Which by the way is far shorter than here in OUR poorly run health care system.

Hello:

The problem is that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about...

The debate is NOT a debate. It's one set of fantasy's v another set of fantasy's. Are we ever going to figure it out?? Nahhh, because the jerks in congress who are going to pass or defeat the bill aren't going to read it - they're going to vote based on THEIR own set of fantasy's.

Can we trust the pundits who are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff? Nahhh. They TOO have their own set of fantasy's.

Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

excon

Hello:


Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

excon

Here Here! Two terms, one in office one in JAIL!

Here Here! Two terms, one in office one in JAIL!Why don't you man-up and just kill him?

Why don't you man-up and just kill him?

I can't believe that even you would be so stupid as to advocate murdering a head of state!

Well if he's not a citizen and is the antichrist plus you have your 2nd amendment that allows you to protect yourself against a leader you hate so much...

Hello:

The problem is that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about......

The debate is NOT a debate. It's one set of fantasy's v another set of fantasy's. Are we ever gonna figure it out???? Nahhh, because the jerks in congress who are gonna pass or defeat the bill aren't going to read it - they're going to vote based on THEIR own set of fantasy's.

Can we trust the pundits who are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff? Nahhh. They TOO have their own set of fantasy's.

Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

excon

I gree with this much... there are very few people, if any, who have read the full bill.

Yet Obama wants it passed immediately, even though nobody has read it.

Nevertheless, there have been parts of the bill that have been read by a lot of people, and those parts seem to contradict what Obama has said about the bill. The stuff about being able to keep your own insurance and your own doctors if you like them is clearly contradicted by the parts of the bill that say that if you leave your current employer, you cannot move to another private insurance, but must immediately join the government plan (pages 425-430 of the bill, if my memory serves).

So there are certainly parts of the bill that should be questioned by those who have read it.

Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office HAS read the entire bill and has put out their own analysis based on what is written in the bill. THEY are not working based on fantasy, but rather based on the bill itself. And they are putting out some pretty dire warnings.

So your argument that everybody is working based on fantasy and nobody has read the bill is not exactly true, is it? Not everybody is doing that.

It's not a fantasy, excon. It's a nightmare.

Elliot

t's not a fantasy, excon. It's a nightmare.

And Obama can't decide who the monster in this nightmare is. He's spent the past two years telling us it was the evil insurance companies and at his presser it was those greedy doctors that might dare recommend a tonsillectomy or prescribe the blue pill.

He has repeatedly told us he wants patients and doctors making decisions together, but when you factor in his advisory board that will determine what treatments are allowed, who will be allowed to have them and how he feels about greedy doctors - it sure sounds like he doesn't want patients and doctors involved in the decision making process at all.

Well if he's not a citizen and is the antichrist plus you have your 2nd amendment that allows you to protect yourself against a leader you hate so much....

Is that the logic you use? No wonder you always come off looking so foolish.

You really think that the second amendment is there to allow us to assassinate Presidents we don't like?

First of all, Obama may be a Marxist, but he is obeying the law. He has not violated the Constitution (although the appointment of "Czars" may be cutting it a bit close). He has not attempted to use the military to gain power or authtority that is not rightfully his as President. He is merely someone we dislike politically. Being wrong, politically or about anything else, is not an excuse for assassination. (Otherwise, you'd have been dead a long time ago.)

Secondly, there are political means by which to stop Obama's Marxist policies. They are clearly working... the health care thing is pretty much dead until the fall, and after that, I doubt it will have much support. By then people will have read the bill, or at least heard about it, and given the tendencies of Americans, they will hate Obama's proposals. And the health care bill will be dead in the water, just like Hillarycare. So there are political means by which to stop him.

Third, there is one major reason that nobody in their right mind would assassinate Obama. One thing that people fear even more than having a Marxist in office.

Biden. The walking, talking gaff machine.

'nuff said.

Elliot

You really think that the second amendment is there to allow us to assasinate Presidents we don't like?I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.

I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.

No you weren't, because those threads said nothing of the sort.

If you will look back VERY CLOSELY at those other threads, we talk about armed insurrection in the face of a government power grab using the MILITARY to enforce unconstitutional change. We talk about fighting the military IF THE MILITARY TURNS ON US. That, in fact, was the very reason that the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place.

Nobody at any point ever (that I know of) has talked about armed insurrection against a legitimate President using his legitimate powers in a legitimate manner to push his agenda, no matter how much we dislike that agenda.

That's just your fantasy at work. Don't try to push your ideas off on us.

Elliot

I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.Hello again, Need:

Whatdya know about that? The ONE time you believe what they said, and then another of 'em comes along and tells you, nahhhhh - we were just kidding about that.

But, don't, for a second, believe this nicey nice the Wolverine is playing. He thinks the military overthrow of an elected president is the Constitution in action. He thinks Obama is a Dictator and a Marxist.

Uhhhh... I can add 2 + 2.

excon

I think NK and Ex are missing a point.

As long as any would-be dictator KNOWS there are millions of firearms in private homes, armed insurrection is not likely to be NEEDED.

Does that clarify it?

So by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to be a dictator in the US.

As long as any would-be dictator KNOWS there are millions of firearms in private homes, armed insurrection is not likely to be NEEDED.

Does that clarify it?Hello again, gal:

Yup. Perfectly. But if it IS needed, you and the Wolverine'll be right there...

By the way, what would cause you think it's NEEDED? Socialism, perhaps? Marxism, and the destruction of the American economy for his own agenda? He's been accused of all those things and even worse by your side. The birthers (your side), think's he's an illegal alien. Isn't having an illegal alien with unknown loyalties reason enough for armed insurrection??

excon

So by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to be a dictator in the US.

Only as long as there is a well-armed civilian population.

Oh... it's possible for someone to TRY. But as long as the population is well armed and outnumbers the military, any attempt at a MILITARY dictatorship would be doomed to failure.

However, once the government takes away the right to bear arms, all bets are off.

Remember, the first of the Nuremberg laws (the laws that Hitler put in place to make it impossible for civillians to overthrow him) was the elimination of the right to own a weapon. From that point on, it became impossible for anyone to overthrow Hitler because he controlled the military... he had all the guns.

This same pattern is played out throughout history.

In Japan, only the Samurai were allowed to carry weapons, and the Samurai ruled like dictators. In Okinawa, the Japanese forbid anyone to be armed except members of the Japanese military, and they ruled Okinawa like dictators. Ditto for China. In the Soviet Union, only members of the military or the Politburo were allowed to be armed. The first thing that Castro did upon taking over Cuba was the confiscation of weapons from the public. From that point on, he was able to rule with an iron fist and no fear of being overthrown.

An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.

Hello again, gal:

Yup. Perfectly. But if it IS needed, you and the Wolverine'll be right there....

By the way, what would cause you think it's NEEDED? Socialism, perhaps? Marxism, and the destruction of the American economy for his own agenda? He's been accused of all those things and even worse by your side. The birthers (your side), think's he's an illegal alien. Isn't having an illegal alien with unknown loyalties reason enough for armed insurrection???

excon

I know you would love to marginalize us, excon. You can't beat us in an argument, and that ticks you off. So the best you can come up with is some sort of fantasy about plotting Obama's assassination out of fear of him becoming a dictator. It would be so EASY for you if we really thought that way, wouldn't it? But we don't. That's YOUR fantasy, not ours. Ours is to stop Obama politically. And so far it seems to be working.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it. You can't beat us, and you can't marginalize us.

Elliot

An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.Hello again:

On THIS point we agree. It's just that I thought the dufus was edging towards tyranny with HIS assault on the Constitution, and the Wolverine is worried about Obama.

Go figure.

excon

He thinks the military overthrow of an elected president is the Constitution in action. He thinks Obama is a Dictator and a Marxist.

Ok, excon Goebbels. You keep repeating this lie in hopes that everyone will believe it. It was NOT a "military overthrow" in Honduras. The military was enforcing a lawful order by their Supreme Court against an unlawful attempt at a power grab. You apparently support the wannabe dictator instead of the Honduran constitution and rule of law.

An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.We're unarmed here in Canada and do not have that fear at all. I wonder what the difference is.

We're unarmed here in Canada and do not have that fear at all. I wonder what the difference is.

The difference is your national history. YOU didn't overthrow a tyrannical ruler in order to create your nation. You didn't have to defeat the most powerful Army in the world (at that time) in order to gain your national and personal freedoms. You didn't see the effect of NOT being armed when we needed to act to overthrow Britain. We did.

We were British citizens who were brough under tyranical rule by our government, the Parliament of England and the King of England. We experienced what can happen if a government really does decide to put it's boot down on your head. That fact became the historical background under which our nation was formed. And world history both before and since then makes the point ever more clear to us. So the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution specifically because they feared it happening again, only this time from a government based on THIS side of the pond.

Elliot

So the best you can come up with is some sort of fantasy about plotting Obama's assassination out of fear of him becoming a dictator. It would be so EASY for you if we really thought that way, wouldn't it? But we don't.

You can't beat us, and you can't marginalize us.Hello again, El:

Let me see. You named this thread WHAT?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

I don't have to marginalize you. You do a pretty good job of it yourself.

excon

The persecution complex is strong with you my dear elliot.

Hello again, El:

Lemme see. You named this thread WHAT???? Bwa, ha ha ha.

I don't have to marginalize you. You do a pretty good job of it yourself.

excon

When I named the thread, excon, I was referring to those who said that BUSH was a dictator, and wondering why the people who made that complaint didn't find Obama's actions equally dictatorial or worse.

You'd know that if you had read the OP.

But as usual, you skip what you don't like and try to change the subject.

Elliot

The persecution complex is strong with you my dear elliot.

No. Historical FACT is strong with me. That's why you have no leg to stand on when you argue these issue with me.

Elliot

We're unarmed here in Canada and do not have that fear at all. I wonder what the difference is.

Maybe it has something to do with the French heritage.

Maybe it has something to do with the French heritage.

No need to be insulting!!

Let me see.

It must have been 3 or 4 years ago when a news article appeard about the following: (No, at this late date I can't remember the source.)

However, a printing company in Canada turned down a job from some homosexuals bucause they didn't want to do that kind of work. Well, the results were that the gays took the printer to court. The printer had to pay a judgment to the gays and give a public apology.

That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Maybe the reason NK feels comfortable in his position is that he has never attempted to exercise his God-given rights and run afoul of a bureaucrat-------YET!

... God-given rights ...There is no god so these "rights" don't exist.

There is no god so these "rights" don't exist.

It's your opinion that there is no God, but we can call it something besides "god-given" rights. Call it natural rights if it makes you feel better.

There is no god so these "rights" don't exist.

I don't know about Canada, but in OUR founding papers, God is recognized as being the giver of "inaleinable rights".

So there!!

It's your opinion that there is no God, but we can call it something besides "god-given" rights. Call it natural rights if it makes you feel better.


I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a definition. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights".

This brings me to my next query. What exactly is it that makes ANY right meaningful? Here in Australia I enjoy certain rights, such as property, privacy, etc. These rights serve me very well. They protect me, and enable me to live in a certain amount of peace. However if I were living in, let's say Sierra Leone, I am highly dubious as to whether these rights would have any meaning at all. Is this because I would not have them in that country? Or simply that they would be no reason for others to respect them? Is there a meaningful difference?

These questions are rhetorical for the most part I must admit, I do have my own answers for them. However I would be intersted in hearing other opinions on the subject, which I feel shows great potential for reasoned a debate/disscussion.

It is a very complex discussion but I'll give a very simple answer. You may want to check out the writings of philosopher John Locke ,who identified universal natural rights not subject to surrender in the social contract or the sovereign .

Included among these were "life, liberty, and estate (property)" . It would not matter where on earth you live .The social contract could not deny the individual these rights and the individual has a right to defend them against tyranny.

These natual rights formed the basis for the English Bill of Rights,the American Declaration of Independence ,the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen ,and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers of the United States were diverse in religious denominations, but all had a distinct grounding in a universal power of goodness in the cosmos from which mankind was endowed with inalienable rights.

In the end you are correct in saying that any right is dependent on your ability to keep them. What the enlightenment philosophers were saying is that the 'Prince' had no inherent right to deny you your natual rights.All laws are to be judged as to their adherence to natural rights ,and any law that violates natural law is no law at all.

Boo? Obama is a Dictatorial President?

And if YOU believe that there are 40 million US citizens without health care I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!
When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?

No one is turned away without treatment. There are ways to set up payment plans with hospitals. I know from working in several.[ They pay also by being degraded for having to do such a thing but that doesn't hurt your credit]. If a kid has cancer and needs treatment, it can be found. There are many foundations, start asking and get the info if it is a concern you. It is hard and stressful. Don't give up because of what an insurance company says.

The same is true with middleage people. A way can be found to take care of it. You might have to change your standard of living but you can do that in order to live or help a loved one to live. I changed my standard of living in order to afford more insurance and avoid that hassle. My choice. Your choice might be different. At least we have a choice. So far.

When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?[/QUOTE]

I am afraid there are more people who believe that than not. They are willing to give up a perfectly good style of government that other countries admire enough to copy at least large parts of it, in exchange for handouts from the richer people who only do it because they are forced to by the government.

It is a very complex discussion but I'll give a very simple answer. You may want to check out the writings of philosopher John Locke ,who identified universal natural rights not subject to surrender in the social contract or the sovereign .

Included among these were "life, liberty, and estate (property)" . It would not matter where on earth you live .The social contract could not deny the individual these rights and the individual has a right to defend them against tyranny.

These natual rights formed the basis for the English Bill of Rights,the American Declaration of Independence ,the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen ,and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

In the end you are correct in saying that any right is dependent on your ability to keep them. What the enlightenment philosophers were saying is that the 'Prince' had no inherent right to deny you your natual rights.

Thanks for replying tomder55. I have read portions of Locke's 2nd treatise, he was certainly a great mind, and there is no denying the influence he had on the founding documents of the U.S.A. I do however have a few problems with his philosophy, not least of which the rather dubious justification given for the acquisition of property, which was cited in the course of many a "land grab" worldwide. Certainly I would agree that an individual or group may be justified in rebelling in certain circumstances, but this is not the same thing as having a right to do so. Much in the same way that I feel a person may have justification for an act of theft in extreme situations, yet they have no right to commit such an act.

It seems to me that the only reason I have any rights at all, is because they are guaranteed by the government, the "soveriegn" if you will. In this sense I see ALL rights as being "civil rights", rather than "natural", I am very much more in the Hobbes camp if you like (however I have my problems with him as well). This may seem as being neither here nor there, and of little consequence either way. After all, it doesn't matter from what source these rights are derived, the fact is we have them, and that's all that matters isn't it? For myself, I think it is significant if we are to consider what purpose these rights are to serve.

If we are to view them as "natural" or "God-given", then we have no place from which to to alter or remove these rights, irrespective of whether they have any use at all. Even if such rights had become detrimental to the well being and freedom of a society, we would have to live with them anyway. If we are to view them as completely synthetic, they may be altered to serve the necessities of a "free" society in any particular context. Of course there are those rights of which cannot I conceive being absent in ANY free society, such as property, but this does not make them "natural" in any sense of the word.

Yes Hobbes argued that rights are abstractions.
In the case of the US rebellion the sovereign proclaimed a right to tax the colonist property(and other "intollerable acts" ) and they in turn proclaimed the social contract broken because of the issue of representation. The social contract as defined by Rousseau was only valid if it was validified by the consent of the governed .

"Thus, the question of whether justice can be achieved in society may not depend on whether individuals can be forced to comply with civil authority but on whether individuals and civil authority can act in harmony with, and fulfill their moral obligations toward, each other. Moreover, there may be a moral obligation to comply with civil authority only if that authority is legitimate (i.e. if that authority is based on a fair and just agreement among the members of society).

Natural rights defined a boundary that the sovereign could not cross .

As I mentioned ;in the end it mattered not that they believed it ,as much as the fact that they took steps to defend their rights against the sovereign. So there is certainly an element of the Darwinian nature your described . But natural rights were postulated with the idea of certain moral restraints beyond the law of the jungle.(I will not go into the debate over whether these are derived from the construct of the human mind or 'God given')

There is no god so these "rights" don't exist.

Oh, good. Since there is no such thing as a god-given right, I can punch you in the nose as often as I want, since you have no god-given rights to be protected from my actions.

Elliot

Sure, go ahead. See you in court.

I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a defintion. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights".

This brings me to my next query. What exactly is it that makes ANY right meaningful? Here in Australia I enjoy certain rights, such as property, privacy, etc. These rights serve me very well. They protect me, and enable me to live in a certain amount of peace. However if I were living in, let's say Sierra Leone, I am highly dubious as to whether these rights would have any meaning at all. Is this because I would not have them in that country? Or simply that they would be no reason for others to respect them? Is there a meaningful difference?

These questions are rhetorical for the most part I must admit, I do have my own answers for them. However I would be intersted in hearing other opinions on the subject, which I feel shows great potential for reasoned a debate/disscussion.

You bring up an interesting point here.

I find it interesting that the Bible, which was supposedly written by G-d (and as a religious Jew, I tend to follow that beliefe) never mentions any rights whatsoever.

What the Bible mentions is responsibilities. The responsibilities of man to his fellow, the responsibilities of man to his community and the responsibilities of man toward his G-d. Never once in the Bible is there mention of anyone's RIGHTS.

This seems to be true of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Based on what I have read of the Koran (I'm something of an expert in the OT having studied it intensely for over 35 years, and I have read the NT several times in order to familiarize myself with it, but I am a complete layman about the Koran) there is no mention of "rights" in the Koran either.

Can anyone tell me of any text that any religion claims was written by a god or gods or under the inspiration of a god or gods that mentions "rights"?

I find it interesting that the Founding Fathers created a document that mentions "inalienable rights" that were "endowed by their creator". And that document was NOT the US Constitution. The document that talks about inalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the term "inalienable rights".

The Declaration, however, established the concept of inalienable rights for the people of the United States, and the fact that these rights exist is not up for debate. I do not question the existence of these inalienable rights. I question the SOURCE. Are they really endowed by G-d or are they granted by man as part of the MORALITY learned from G-d and His Laws? A good lesson, to be sure, but that does not mean that rights are a direct edict from G-d.

Again, if the source of these rights was from G-d, why did he never mention them in his own texts? Yet he DOES mention responsibilities.

One of the things that often occurs to me is that my own religion, Orthodox Judaism, never mentions the concept of rights. We speak in terms of responsibility. (Although after the events of last Thursday, I question how well some of my co-religionists take care of their responsibilities.)

And in the USA, one of the main problems I see in our society is that people seem to always be claiming rights, but very few are willing to take responsibility.

The health care issue is a perfect example: many Americans see health care (or insurance) as a "right" that needs to be guaranteed by the Government. But very few people are willing to take responsibility to provide health insurance for themselves. It's their employer's responsibility, or their government's responsibility, but it is their "right".

Abortion is another issue where this applies. Women have the "right" to an abortion, but they have no responsibility to refrain from having sex to avoid getting pregnant.

Criminals have "rights", but they have no responsibility to avoid breaking the law.

Terrorists have "rights", but no responsibility to refrain from killing innocent civillians.

I could go on, but I think we get the point.

We would do better in this country to take more responsibility and worry a bit less about rights. After all, if we are following G-d's will with regard to rights, shouldn't we also follow His will with regard to taking responsibility?

Yes, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But with those rights, we are encumbered with certain responsibilities... to ourselves, to our neighbors, to our community and to the nation as a whole.

If all we care for are rights, and we take no responsibility, then we are taking advantage of others and we are leeches on society.

So... we THINK that our rights come from G-d. But we KNOW that our responsibilities come from G-d.

Which do you think should come first?

Elliot

Sure, go ahead. See you in court.

What court. There are no rights. I haven't violated anything. Courts can only protect you if you have a right. You're on your own.

Well in Canada we have laws concerning assault, perhaps you don't.

My best guess then is that in Canada the government is the grantor of rights.

Yea, we try to keep religion out of politics.

What the government giveth the government can taketh away.

I guess so. We don't seem to worried. People like us are in a government, it would affect them to.

Well in Canada we have laws concerning assault, perhaps you don't.

Sure we do. We are protected in our RIGHT to be free of assault on our persons. But if those rights don't exist... well, then you're SOL.

Ok.

[QUOTE=Tokugawa;1878880]I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a definition. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights".

Your natural rights are the ones that say someone else does not have the right to cause you physical harm or pain.Just because those rights are not respected, does not mean they are no longer your rights, It just means Someone else does not respect your rights. There are such creatures in the human race and in the animal "kingdom",(for want of a better word) that have no respect for others. They cause pain, they kill, they have no respect for others. But in order for the life to continue, we have to have some love and respect. Without that, the off-spring would be children of rape, hate and discontent. Propagation of the race would eventually disappear and the planet would revert to the state it was in the beginning. Even the disrespectors have rights. We have to have balance. And the wheel turns.

I think, in this context, rights and responsibilities are interchangeable in meaning.

I think, in this context, rights and responsibilities are interchangeable in meaning.

No, they're not. Not even close. Please see the examples I give in post #301:



The health care issue is a perfect example: many Americans see health care (or insurance) as a "right" that needs to be guaranteed by the Government. But very few people are willing to take responsibility to provide health insurance for themselves. It's their employer's responsibility, or their government's responsibility, but it is their "right".

Abortion is another issue where this applies. Women have the "right" to an abortion, but they have no responsibility to refrain from having sex to avoid getting pregnant.

Criminals have "rights", but they have no responsibility to avoid breaking the law.

Terrorists have "rights", but no responsibility to refrain from killing innocent civillians.



There is clearly a difference, in context, between "rights" and "responsibilities" in the American lexicon. We all seem to have rights, but nobody seems to have any responsibilities.

Elliot

I agree that responsibility is a neglected concept in our society.

But I DO think that while the Bible does not say anything about rights, that they are IMPLIED.

An example is "Thou shalt not kill." While nothing is said about the victim's rights in the matter, it is unlawful to violate that victim's (implied) right to life.

The enforcement from God's side is placed on the perpetrator by imposing responsibility.

That is reinforced by the command to treat others as you want to be treated.

My mind assumes that the "others" have rights that I must respect.

That is reinforced by the command to treat others as you want to be treated. This is something that I believe in and so does a great deal of humanity since it's a tenet of social living, but it isn't solely a Christian command by a long shot:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)

This is something that I believe in and so does a great deal of humanity since it's a tenet of social living, but it isn't solely a Christian command by a long shot:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)

Of course.

But most of the non- Christian versions are like this. "Don't treat others in a way you don't want to be treated".

That may seem like a minor difference, but the Christian command tells us to do something POSITIVE, while the others tell us not to do something NEGATIVE.

You do see the difference, don't you?

Logically they are the same. But I like the non-christian ones better, for instance if a christian was an alcoholic then he would have no problem leading one into alcoholism.

Logically they are the same. But I like the non-christian ones better, for instance if a christian was an alcoholic then he would have no problem leading one into alcoholism.

NK, that makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.:D

To ET Wolf
I am going by how I believe, not quoting from the Bible, Koran, any literary giants etc. Independent of all that, I take responsibility for my own actions and therefore hold myself accountable to try very hard to respect others "rights". That means to "Cause no Harm", Do not hurt another person physically and as far as possible not hurt anyone mentally either. There I said no quotes and used a generally accepted one, I guess by the Good Greenwitch. As far as God is concerned, I respect peoples right to believe or disbelieve. That is their right. I believe there is more than one God. The God almighty and many lesser Gods of mother nature. That is my right. I have a right not to be harmed by other humans of malcontent. I have a right to seek happiness. I have lots of rights but to balance that, I have responsibilities. It does not need to be a Bible quote to make it right or wrong . Maybe rights and responsibilities got mixed up in the translation. Have you read the new bible chapters? I haven't,

One more thing, men and women have a responsibility to abstain to avoid pregnancy. It takes two.+

You haven't convinced me that we have no rights or responsibility. SS

To ET Wolf
I am going by how I believe, not quoting from the Bible, Koran, any literary giants etc. Independant of all that, I take responsibility for my own actions and therefore hold myself accountable to try very hard to respect others "rights". That means to "Cause no Harm", Do not hurt another person physically and as far as possible not hurt anyone mentally either. There I said no quotes and used a generally accepted one, I guess by the Good Greenwitch. As far as God is concerned, I respect peoples right to believe or disbelieve. That is their right. I believe their is more than one God. The God almighty and many lesser Gods of mother nature. That is my right. I have a right not to be harmed by other humans of malcontent. I have a right to seek happiness. I have lots of rights but to balance that, I have responsibilities. It does not need to be a Bible quote to make it right or wrong . Maybe rights and responsibilities got mixed up in the translation. Have you read the new bible chapters? I haven't,

One more thing, men and women have a responsibility to abstain to avoid pregnancy. It takes two.+

You haven't convinced me that we have no rights or responsibility. SS

ISH,

I think you are misunderstanding what I have said. I haven't said that we have no rights. I am saying that we have BOTH rights and responsibilities, but the majority of our citizens forget the responsibility part and concentrate ONLY on the rights. They claim that these rights are divine, as in coming directly from G-d. However, while rights are not specifically listed in G-d's written works, the responsibilities ARE listed there, and should coinsequently be even MORE important than the rights. Yet the responsibilities are the first thing ignored.

Do you understand my point now? I am not arguing that there are no rights or that they don't come from G-d. I am simply pointing out that there are responsibilities as well.

ISH,

I think you are misunderstanding what I have said. I haven't said that we have no rights. I am saying that we have BOTH rights and responsibilities, but the majority of our citizens forget the responsibility part and concentrate ONLY on the rights. They claim that these rights are divine, as in coming directly from G-d. However, while rights are not specifically listed in G-d's written works, the responsibilities ARE listed there, and should coinsequently be even MORE important than the rights. Yet the responsibilities are the first thing ignored.

Do you understand my point now? I am not arguing that there are no rights or that they don't come from G-d. I am simply pointing out that there are responsibilities as well.

OK now I understand. I guess it is obvious what I thought you meant. We are in agreement,
Totally on that one.

Except for the pregnancy and sex and I guess you meant both should abstain if they really want to be sure of no babies. It has been the woman's responsibility for making babies for too long. A man's world as they say and it is good to see them step up to the plate and share the burden as it should be.

I am glad we agree. SS

Back to the actual subject now, I was reading that. :rolleyes: