TheAgitator.com
Last Night’s Debate
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008A few observations:
• McCain was much stronger than last time, and may well have won on points. But debates aren’t about debating skill, or even public policy. They’re about likability and not screwing up. I suspect the image most voters will take away is that of an angry, cantankerous old man with clear contempt for his opponent debating a young, articulate, good-looking guy who smiled and appeared gracious. Obama wins.
• Obama’s answer on the "Obama Doctrine" sounded like it was written by Sarah Palin. He clearly didn’t have an answer about what criteria he’d use in determining which humanitarian crises are worthy of U.S. military force. He was all over the place. What we’re left is, then, is, "Iraq never posed a threat to the security of the United States. Which is why we should have sent troops to Darfur, instead."
• Tom Brokaw was very good.
• The most depressing part of the night for me was watching CNN’s real-time reaction from undecided Ohio voters. When Obama promised health care for everyone, promised that you could also keep your employer-sponsored health-care, promised to do all of this and bring health care costs down (he really must be Jesus), and capped it all off with a pledge to maintain the current system of employer-sponsored health care, his ratings were off the charts. The Ohio group gave McCain his strongest marks when he promised to buy up all the troubled mortgages. Is there any way to pull off this "democracy" thing without using actual voters?
• Note to McCain: Don’t crack jokes in a format where you’ll be the only one laughing at them. It’s creepy.
• Note to Obama: It’s great soundbite to say everyone has a "right" to health care. But there is no "right" that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.
• The choices last night on the economy: Mass government intervention pretending to be tangentially related to the free market versus mass government intervention that makes no illusions about any allegiance to the free market.
• The choices last night on foreign policy: Four years of lots more small wars versus four years of a couple more big wars.
Did you actually watch the debate? This review sounds oh so much like a script handed to you from the Republican party…talking points.
Jeezze, even Fox News, CNN, CBS said BO (”That One”) won the debate.
Not sure what debate you were watching Radley.
As to their answers who can tell? They’re both lying about themselves and each other.
To me at least McCain came across as angry, doddering and already bitter over his loss.
Between “That one!” and refusing to shake hands afterwards . . . just very . . . bitter.
Everytime I see him walking around and handling the mic he just looks doddering and frail.
McCain did look old and bitter. He kept standing up from his chair and walking around while Obama was speaking; very rude if you ask me. Plus, his poor attempts at humor really weren’t helping his image at all “my friends.”
Obama didn’t do much better, but at least he kept smiling and looked cool at all times. Why he didn’t just ask McCain why he kept making the statements he did after Obama just corrected them is beyond me (like the statement about 50% of small businesses having higher taxes when the number is closer to 10% and most of them are doctor’s private practices, or architect offices, or engineering consultants: companies that make over $250,000 in revenue after payroll). He did keep going over his time, which really annoyed me and my wife, but that’s the only annoying factor we could find.
The “that one” remark really made my ears perk up. It’s a very interesting choice of words. I myself use the phrase towards a person only in obvious jest, or to signify my strong contempt towards that person. That’s fine for him to feel that way, but I think showing it so openly like that on national television…not so smart.
Wally: The fact that “McCain had better answers, but came off so weak and unlikable that voters thought the other guy won anyway” can pass for Republican talking points shows how profoundly boned the GOP is this year.
Radley’s assessment pretty much sums it up otherwise, especially on the sheer magnitude of government giveaways they promised. I really wish Obama had asked how spending $300 billion to buy every bad mortgage in America fits with a spending freeze.
At one point fairly early in the debate an audience question came from a young black man about how the bailout was going to help him.
Now, I was at the computer facing away from the TV, but listening. McCain’s tone of voice took on such a condescending sound in his answer, I couldn’t believe it. He took on the voice of a parent talking to a young child about something the parent knows the child doesn’t understand. He even said something along the lines of
“Then there was FannieMae and FreddieMac…things you probably never even heard of before…”
I seriously expected some fallout about it. Did anybody else note this exchange?
nice sum-up.
“Is there any way to pull off this “democracy” thing without using actual voters?”
amen, and amen.
“Obama Doctrine”
Did you expect him to give finite criteria for sending in armed intervention? Would you want his foreign policy to be that inflexible or wouldn’t it be better to assess individual circumstances on their own merit? I know he didn’t say that either but in an environment where hate speech and fear are the rule; I think he came as close as possible. To the extent he did not push McCain further, he might feel McCain will sink himself and all he has to do is be the one standing at the end.
Health Care
True, health care is not a “right”, but keeping all that you produce is not a “right” either. Welfare in all it’s forms is the price we pay for capitalism. Do away with welfare and you kill capitalism. As a people, we are always quick to go to someones aid, but when our own are hurting, we cry foul? Private giving might be the answer some day, but not now. When I feel that my life is in danger, I should not have to fear going to the hospital, either because I have no insurance or because I feel my insurance is inadequate.
How do I decide between my life now, or incalculable debt later?
Obviously some people will say, “That’s your tough luck, coercion this and coercion that.” Well the end game for that is; your gun will not save you from the mob. Compromise or fulfill your own prophecy and be devoured. Hate, as fuel for life, will keep you alive, but like the coward, you will die many small deaths before the end.
I was disappointed with Obama, and didn’t expect much from McCain.
Obama seemed to pause every third word, and didn’t seem to be addressing a single point. I kept getting the impression that he might have something to say and be able to say it well, but that he was making sure to get his own talking points and sound bites in. I also think he totally dropped the ball on the “let’s attack Pakistan” part. McCain was a jackass about it, but he was also right that Obama could have answered the question forcefully without saying specifically that cross-border attacks were appropriate. It really is good foreign policy to threaten your “friends” without really threatening them (if you have to). Of course, the rest of McCain’s remark was smarmy and wrapped in BS.
Oh, and how many times can a man revel in the fact that he has a military background before even soldiers get tired of hearing it? I was a hard-core true believer when I was in, and I’m sick of him flapping his gums about the time he served…I don’t think a third of his comments came without a reference to it (ok, not that much, but…).
In the end, nobody wins.
Chris in AL
I heard the same thing you did. As a matter of fact, my wife made the analogy of an old grandparent talking down to his young grandchild. It was definitely condescending and insulting.
It’s official…I have “checked out” for the remainder of this mind numbingly stupid election year. Do whatever America…we’re screwed regardless. Tweedle Dee….Tweedle Dum….no difference…elect either. I shall devote the remainder of the election period to drinking beer, doing bong hits, and playing xbox until the debacle is over. See you all in about 2 months…
Oh, and the yes and no question at the end: “Is Russia an evil empire?”
Either one could have pulled ahead if they’d just answered with one word. No.
They didn’t need to explain it any more than I do, I hope.
“Is there any way to pull off this “democracy” thing without using actual voters?”
“Your problem is that you’re trying to clean up the whorehouse and keep the business.”
That was Frank Chodorov to the fabluous morons who put together the Libertarian Party back in ‘72.
Democracy fucking sucks. Get that through your Pollyanna head right now, or keep being a moron dealing with cannibals.
Welfare in all it’s forms is the price we pay for capitalism. Do away with welfare and you kill capitalism.
You’ve got it backwards. Capitalism doesn’t depend on freeloaders – freeloaders depend on the producers. Do away with welfare and you simply increase the benefits for the people actually doing something to generate goods/services/profit.
your gun will not save you from the mob
That really depends on the size of your gun, no?
Sorry Thorn, you have it backwards. Capitalism created Welfare and Welfare saved Capitalism. Do away with welfare and you create an unsustainable environment which will fall apart.
No
Personally, I’m going to learn how to speak Canadian. Then really “checkout”. The “idiotcracy” is just so…not right. At least if you’ve voted NADER, you’ve voted sanely.
Social leaders (govt or religious) – not capitalists – created welfare. They have used their laws or influence to force producers to give away the fruits of their labor for free under the guise of “social responsibility”.
Production doesn’t require theft in order to succeed.
Again, why does anyone care? Nothing is going to change. EVER. Obama is a terrible candidate when it comes to experience, policy and platform. McCain is a terrible candidate when it comes to record, policy and platform. Great. Guess what? It doesn’t matter which one is elected, nothing is going to change.
If the average American was kept from all media and knowledge of the presidential election results for the next four years, they would have zero idea who won the election. The people on stage have no aim to change anything – it’s a system that has provided boundless power for the both of them and everyone involved within.
That was the first time I’d really seen either of them speak (yeah, I don’t pay attention much to those candidates, since there’s no way I’ll vote for them), and I was just struck by how utterly small and uncomfortable John McCain looked.
I’m in the ‘they’re both the same’ camp, so if one of those two has to win, I kinda hope Obama wins, because I can’t imagine having a president that stiff.
I wish people would stop, think, and realize how how smart (relative term) McCain’s health care is.
And really, why don’t democrats like it. It’s highly progressive (in the tax code sense) and very redistributive.
It might even increase access AND cut costs, (since a lot of people like me who are forced into gold plated employer plans with high cost, high benefits would swap for medical savings accounts or other plane ol’ high deductible plans and go to the dr a lot less.)
The only draw back from a dem’s point of view is that people would be able to choose their own plan. That seems detestable to dem’s. They also reject the idea since it was GWB’s (although Bush wanted to make insurance premiums deductible instead of giving a credit. Same concept, though.)
Anyway, it is one of the few libertarian positions taken by either candidate (McCain’s commitment to free trade is the other.) So this libertarian is voting for McCain.
Thorn, that is a great sound bite but isn’t grounded in fact or history. People, in response to industrialization, demanded welfare. Governments complied or faced possible revolution.
“there is no “right” that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.”
Bravo, Radley! We’ll make an anarchist out of you yet!
So, “Edintally”, you’re saying that it’s all about bribes and ransom?
I don’t mean to sound elitist, but why would anyone here watch the debates? It’s like going to see Beverly Hills Chihuahua and complaining that it’s not nearly as good as Bladerunner.
Can you believe that the European settlers in America actually fought a war against a government that we (libertarians) would give anything to have right now? In the never-ending battle between individuals (prey) and government (predator), evolution has given them their greatest weapon – democracy.
It is early…should know the difference between plane and plain.
Another thing about McCain’s health care plan the matches Obama’s rhetoric is that the biggest gainers would be the middle and lower middle class, who get severely shortchanged in the current system.
It Obama wants to “reinvest” in this group, McCain’s plan would be a great start.
Last night, I watched a very sloppy event, where I could care less which side won. Each played it poorly, although there was a clear winner. The results were practically meaningless unless you are directly involved with either team, or are a monetary donor.
I began to wonder why anyone would even televise this in the first place, and doubted my sanity for watching it. I probably could have found something better on another channel. But, the debate was on, and so I kept watching the Troy vs. Florida Atlantic game………
I’ve just got to disagree with you Radley on the subject of Tom Brokaw. I thought he was, by far, worse than the first two moderators. Townhall formats are supposed to be loose, free-flowing and allow for actual back and forth conversations with the audience. Brokaw didn’t want to allow that.
I was under the impression that a moderator is supposed to a)encourage actual discussion between the candidates, b)reasonably control time limits without going all Italian Train Schedule on them, and c)get the hell out of the way and let the candidates talk.
Instead, Brokaw a)interrupted, didn’t allow follow-ups, and when, at least at one point, when Obama asked to respond to a charge, kept interrupting the candidate to prevent him from responding because “we need to move on” b)was a time-Nazi through most of it to the point of annoyance from both of the candidates, and c)through a combination of the first two points, seemed to be trying to keep the attention focused on him.
Seriously Tom. Sit down and shut the hell up and let the two candidates battle it out.
#20–
I am firmly against McCain’s health care plan, for rather personal reasons. I work for a small NGO that is currently barely making ends meet with current health care costs. However, I currently have good insurance.
Under McCain’s health care plan, those benefits are taxed and our small agency would no longer be able to afford to provide them and be forced to drop the health benefits, putting me onto the open market with the 5k credit.
So far, no real problem…..except that I have a pre-existing liver condition. Right now, it’s nothing too big, but with my genetic history, one day, it might be. With the right medicines though, I’ll be fine.
But….I do some health insurance law….and I know for a fact that I’ll never get insurance on the open market, and if I somehow did, I would not get it for 5k. Right now, health insurance companies can refuse any individual applicant, for any reason. Most pick out the most healthy, and refuse to take anybody with a pre-existing condition. I know this for a fact. I’ve seen it first hand. In short, I would lose my employer-based health care under the McCain plan, and would not be able to buy it on the private market. I would be screwed.
And the thing is, I agree with de-coupling health insurance from employer benefits. Right now, health insurance costs are making me one of the lowest paid lawyers in the state, just because my boss is barely breaking even as it is.
But under the McCain plan, I’m facing a drastically shortened life-span. Independent estimates have shown that up to 20 million people would lose their health insurance under it. I would be one of them, and for me, it’s a life or death situation.
And, just to short-circuit the inevitable, I’m not stating my feelings about the Obama plan. All I’m doing is pointing out some very serious flaws in the McCain plan. His plan is kinda like saying we’re going to fix global warming by taking away everybody’s gas-guzzlers, and then giving people 100 dollars to buy a used car. Sure, part of it could work, but all you’d be doing is putting people into a far worse situation.
Tom Brokaw was very good.
Fine. Now are we finally going to be rid of him?
Actually, I found his performance on board the USS Mission Accomplished with Bush back in aught-three far superior in fawning smirkieness than last night’s effort, or lack thereof.
But matching red ties with McCain was a nice touch.
[...] Radley Balko has the best substantive analysis: Obama’s answer on the “Obama Doctrine” sounded like it was written by Sarah Palin. He clearly didn’t have an answer about what criteria he’d use in determining which humanitarian crises are worthy of U.S. military force. He was all over the place. What we’re left is, then, is, “Iraq never posed a threat to the security of the United States. Which is why we should have sent troops to Darfur, instead.” [...]
Brokaw did a terrible job. He was constantly berating the candidates for not speaking within the allotted time when we could have really benefited from more explanation. The questions he gave were ill contrived and even he was pronouncing “nuclear” as “nukUlar”.
Put this on your bathroom mirror folks,
“Democracy is about electing the best liar, not the most qualified.”
Look at it every morning.
Now that doesn’t mean that McCain is the most qualified for being President, in fact I think he is about the same as Obama. But the above comment by Radley tells us that the guy who is
Attractive,
Smiles,
Articulate, and
Gracious
wins. I see nothing about understanding the issues. I see nothing about knowing how to deal with a crisis. What I see is a list that describes the kind of people you want at your birthday party.
Yet there is this mythical belief that Democracy produces good results. I think that great leaders are elected by accident, not on purpose. Now that makes it better than things like dictatorship, oligarchy, and so forth, but it isn’t something magical.
I’m going to try to get as many down clicks as I can here…
Edintally, seriously, your view of history and welfare is absurd. Welfare destroys capitalism. It always has. But charity does do a tremendous amount to spur it on. This idea that welfare is an insurance policy to keep the rich from being attacked the mobs of poor is an insurance policy that should be instituted by the private sector. Only then, through legitimate self interest, would the rich figure out what charitable actions reap the greatest benefit for the hungry mobs. Charitable givings are usually based on merit and personal improvement, unlike welfare which is based on enslaving the poor.
You don’t think you should fear going to hospital from not having insurance? Blame the feds for doing everything they can to increase the cost of healthcare by limiting the supply through CON laws, med school restrictions, and insurance manipulation.
Red Green, Nader is populist socialist know-nothing ass who is about as sane as Paula Abdul on or off her pain meds. You really think Canada is better that America? I’m not saying its worse, just that the dumbassary on this side of the great lakes occurs there as well.
Dave Smith, although I agree with about McCain’s healthcare platform, one good thing out of a hundred bad is not a good enough reason for me to vote for McCain. I can come up with one good thing about Obama too, but who cares when the bad things for both candidates far outweigh the few good things.
Having preference for either one these candidate is like having preference for aids over cancer. Voting for either one makes you partly responsible for their crimes.
I didn’t watch the debate. I got stoned, got blown, and passed out. I beat both of them in the debate.
“But there is no ‘right’ that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.”
What about the right to a fair, speedy trial when accused of a crime?
It would be nice if McCain (or Palin) – the people from the supposed smaller-government party – would actually confront their opponent on the bullshit soundbite about deregulation being the reason for the current crisis. I’ve heard it 2 debates in a row from Jobama and I don’t understand how the ‘R’ candidate can’t easily argue against that … I thought McCain was finally going to ‘bring it’ when he started talking about Fannie/Freddie but he never went into detail. I think that was McCain’s last chance …. game over now.
[...] Balko goes after Barack Obama’s health-care plan this morning, writing: Note to Obama: It’s great soundbite [...]
I’m pretty sure it all boils down to Same Shit, Different Assholes.
Emergency rooms treat everyone, insured or not, so we already have universal health care here in the USA
Re: size of the gun and mob, I would say that what matters more is how many cartridges you’ve got and how fast the gun fires, not its size.
I played a drinking game during the debate and took a drink for each time McCain said “my friends”. I had to quit playing about half way through the debate because he was basically making me chug my beers. “My friends” is like an involuntary tick with him, and very annoying.
Obama and McCain are just trying to help lock us in to the health care they get. Serve 1 term, you’re taken care of FOR LIFE. No lines for them because they’ve had a fancy title. Who pays for their premo health care package BY FORCE? Us. So they just want us to be equal with them, but more equal than others when it’s convenient. EQUALITY FOR ALL, BUT I AM MORE EQUAL!
Lee, maybe they should step aside so more people can be Senators to get that sweet health care… :)
“Yet there is this mythical belief that Democracy produces good results. I think that great leaders are elected by accident, not on purpose. Now that makes it better than things like dictatorship, oligarchy, and so forth, but it isn’t something magical.”
Democracy is no better in terms of freedom than dictatorship, oligarchy, etc. In some ways it is worse. In an (open) dictatorship or oligarchy, the people understand the difference between the ruling class and their own. In democracy (or hidden dictatorship or oligarchy such as exists in the U.S. and other States), the myth of popular sovereignty acts as an effective disguise for the true governing system.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
“But there is no ‘right’ that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.”
“What about the right to a fair, speedy trial when accused of a crime?”
I might tweak Radley’s words a bit, but he wrote it rather well.
It is axiomatic — there is no “right” that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor and resources.
There it is. Your example stems from a flawed premise, that a legal system must be under State monopoly. Nothing could be further from the truth. State monopoly of the legal system has created every single problem found in the system. Each and every problem would be resolved with maximum efficiency and justice in a free-market legal system, just as every other problem in every aspect of society would be resolved in a market free of coercion.
Of course, this mass problem resolution would be unattractive to those least likely to benefit from it — the ruling class called the State. Thus, society will trudge along under the gun and:
Zigzag our way through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain
Wondering which of the buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
#38
USA’s universal health care – that’s rich. Yes, some are treated. Yet if you suffer from an illness (like cancer) that needs repetitive treatment (but no emergency) then no emergency care. Second, if you have a job and insurance, then get sick and can’t work, you lose your job and… your insurance. You have some assets – so no welfare, so what to do – well I guess liquidate everything, right – you should have saved better, I suppose. Maybe you can beg for a charity handout.
Keep believing the BS. Sorry, I believe that there is more than the frequently cited false choice between our system (which is not the free market) and the socialized ineffective health care of Europe.
“But there is no “right” that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.”
Radley, I think that this line is the most eloquent I think I’ve ever seen you write.
“But there is no “right” that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.”
That is exactly what a “right” is. A right is defined by the duty of other’s to recognize that right. That will at some point require forcing someone else to give up their time, or labor, or resources.
Now the question of whether or not health care should be a right is an open one and obviously you disagree with that, but the reasons why (or why not) need to be much more than this phrase. (Not to say you don’t have other good reasons)
That is exactly what a “right” is. A right is defined by the duty of other’s to recognize that right. That will at some point require forcing someone else to give up their time, or labor, or resources.
Wrong. What does anyone else have to give up for me to exercise my right to free speech? Free press? Freedom of religion? Freedom of conscience? Freedom of association?
Answer: nothing. They don’t have to listen to me. They don’t have to read what I write. They don’t have to attend my house of worship. They don’t have to join my club. My exercise of my rights doesn’t affect them at all.
The only arguable right to which your statement applies is the right to a fair trial. But there, the government is trying to take away your rights (your freedom), so it is obligated to (a) prove you violated someone else’s rights, and (b) do so in a fair and just manner.
A “right” to health care means the government has to force a doctor to treat you, force a manufacturer to make drugs for you, force a hospital to pay for the overhead to house you, and so on.
You have the right to the fruits of your own labor. You don’t have a right to the fruits of someone else’s.
The Battered Wife Syndrome Of Politics…
Why Do We Keep Going Back To The Same People?
I didn’t watch last night’s presidential debate. In fact, I’ve not watched a debate since the primary debate where Rudy Guiliani snickered at Ron Paul for bringing up Austrian Economics. Knowing that th…
“The only arguable right to which your statement applies is the right to a fair trial.”
Nuh uh. Check my refutation of said example in #44.
A pure free-market common law system with private dispute resolution organizations has been demonstrated to be valid and sound by Rothbard et. al.
English common law is the basis of what is supposed to be the justice system in the U.S. Of course, it has been corrupted beyond recognition by the State.
From the time of the Magna Carta up through the 19th century, there were competing courts in England and Europe. Royal courts, merchant courts, religious courts, local courts — many competing jurisdictions where a dispute could end up in the appropriate one to the alleged tort.
Anarchy will not remove violence from humans, as violence is the core attribute of human nature. What anarchy does that is useful is to distribute violence as evenly as possible across society. When each individual is sovereign (equal), the greatest amount of respect for each individual will have to be paid out of social necessity. Each individual responsible for his own defense — true citizenship and self-realization.
In the present system. there are great big clumps of violence engineered by the chaos of the State. Those that control the State are immune to this violence. Those controlled by the State are at its everlasting mercy. This is your world, statists.
At the risk of nearly echoing Radley.
A right is defined by the duty of other’s to recognize that right. That will at some point require forcing someone else to give up their time, or labor, or resources.
That’s an incredibly wrong distortion of what a right is… and the frightful part is that far too many people in America believe it to be true.
If you become ill, you have a right to request a surgeon to help you. Professional oaths aside, the surgeon isn’t bound by some moral law to assist you. You have the right to ask for help, and that is the end of your rights in terms of seeking and getting medical attention.
If you cannot pay, the doctor has a right to refuse to treat you. You cannot demand his services, any more than you can demand the services of the mechanic when your car breaks down and you cannot afford engine repairs.
If you cannot pay, you have no right to demand that *I* pay for it… just as you have no right to break into my home and steal cash from my safe, in order to pay for car repairs.
Conversely, the doctor and the mechanic have the right to OFFER their services. You are not required to pay for surgery you do not need, not are you bound by moral law to pay a mechanic to replace a perfectly good engine.
If i choose to pay for your medical care, then perhaps I gain a bit of good karma or some feeling of satisfaction in doing a good deed. But to demand that I pay your doctor bills amounts to nothing more than theft by legislation. There is little difference between forcing society to pay your medical bills, and stealing drugs from the pharmacist.
I have a right to my own property, just as any free person does. To claim you have a “right” to medical care is to make a claim on *my* property; somehow you have determined that your need for something is greater than my need for something else, and if I don’t agree – you’ll simply take it by force.
That is utterly perverse.
Your need for something – however great – does not create moral obligation on others to provide it for you.
There are no such things as “rights.” You can choose to do something and deal with the consequences, and governments will occasionally go to bat for your action by not prosecuting you. But anybody who believes in God-given, or Natural, or any rights other than those created by man for man is just deluding themselves.
Incidentally, do we enjoy a “right” to national defense? It’s provided for all of us, whether we want it or not, and it’s is paid for with the same taxation that Obama’s proposing to use on health care. Why is one tolerable but the other isn’t?
You can ding my opinions until you’re blue in the face, but show me an absolute right that any of us enjoy, and I’ll retract my claims. What can we absolutely do without fear of government intervention? What can we absolutely do without fear of punishment?
The notion that we enjoy rights is a convenient one for all of us, but it is merely a notion. All we can really do is make decisions within the boundaries of the law and hope that we don’t get punished for it. But that isn’t a “right.” It’s just a decision.
Sam,
We can refer to the origin of one’s rights as natural, god-given, or man-made, but agreeing on that is more of a philosophical discussion. The more important goal is in terms of deciding what a free person should and should not a) be allowed to do and b) expect from someone else.
I could easily say that I was born with the right to express my opinion. Someone can counter and say that’s not a universal right, as a Chinese resident isn’t born with this right. However, that counter isn’t quite accurate – had the Chinese person been born in a free country, they could express whatever they like.
In other words, a right exists whether the govt chooses to allow you to practice it or not. Perhaps there will always be some country on the planet that forbids even the most basic of human rights, but that country’s actions don’t vanquish the existence OF that right – merely the practice of it.
I was born with the right to think or not think, to feel, to express, to draw abstractions, to produce or not produce, to defend my life and to breathe the air.
Rights existed before government; they are not a creation by government. Govt doesn’t give an individual any right – at the most, it regulates exercising them.
In closing: you asked, “but show me an absolute right that any of us enjoy, and I’ll retract my claims.” Everyone has right to agree with every single word I’ve said, or disagree… and that right is certainly absolute.
#45
Yes, our government provided health care system is quite bad compared to most(all?) nationalized health care systems. France or Japan anyway, I’m sure, do it much better. Perhaps cheaper too(if we count the cost of private health care in the USA.)
I doubt we’ll get French or Japanese style health care.
Thorn,
You said I have the right to agree or disagree with your opinion, but that’s not a right. That’s just me deciding to agree or disagree with you.
Also, rights existed before government? How? Where did they come from?
Salvo (#28): FWIW, via Cato’s Michael Tanner:
“Rights” is a legal term. Inalienable rights are granted to us by, wait for it, the Bill of Rights. Philosophically, you may disagree, but your disagreement doesn’t make it any less true. Sam correctly points out that none of the legal rights we enjoy is absolute.
While I enjoy Radley’s blog and find most of it pretty level headed, I am unaware of any absolute right to the total value of my production. The State doesn’t have the right to take a portion of my earnings but it does have the authority to do so. Radley may not agree with that authority, I may not agree, and you may not agree, but that does not negate the very real authority the State possesses. If the issue is the use of those monies for purposes of redistribution then we can debate how it might be redistributed.
IMO the real problem with all the parties is their deeply held conviction that everyone else is wrong. Repubs, Dems, and Libs all have some good ideas, but some is not all.
Inalienable rights are granted to us by, wait for it, the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant you rights; it’s a list of rights that the Govt is prohibited from infringing upon.
For example, where in the 2nd Amendment does it grant you the right to bear arms? Read the text – it doesn’t. It doesn’t GIVE anyone a right, it LIMITS govt action.
I understand what you are trying to say, but as a matter of law (as far as I am aware) your rights are spelled out in the BoR. To the extent you want to have a philosophical debate about Natural Rights, I’m not sure I see the point? Now, as we sit here, we take for granted those rights which we consider Natural. But that was not always the case. Somebody, somewhere, thought about it and others began to agree. A group of men thought it important enough to put it on paper and so here we are.
In a philosophical sense, I can’t take your rights away (I and you in the general sense of the words). But I can stop you from exercising your rights which has the same effect as you not having them to begin with. Given unlimited resources, I can probably convince you that you don’t even have the rights you think you have.
In a very real sense, rights are granted by men for men. You have the luxury of debating this. Your ancestors did not.
American Viewers have their mind on sex. It has become a question of the better bed partner. Obama or McCain? Its not what you say but the way that you say it—youth always says it better. Obama will slip and slide into the #1 bedroom. Call it a landslide if you want to be discreet.
Let’s get beyond the quagmire of the “rights” discussion – Let’s call medical care a benefit. Fine. How should it occur in our system?
Do we provide no coverage? – the market solution. Well, that means insurance companies with a motive to limit care and reject claims to enhance their bottom lines. Disagree? Then name the business that “paying as many claims as possible”. Then what to do about those that lose their insurance & jobs…must they beg for it?
Is it possible that there may be some things that the market cannot adaquately solve – i.e. like Common Defense and fire companies. Should we have a private army have to hire our own fire company? Why not is there a right to have your house not burn down? –
Is that possible for health care – are there some illnesses, like cancer, for which one cannot plan? Is it possible that someone with that type of illness may lose their job and then their insurance? So what to do?
Lastly, the bailout will impact this discussion as well. Congress just killed any argument for the free market. How can you sell the voter the idea that it is ok to bail out Wall Street (when they are in trouble) but not the rest of us?