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?

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.

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.

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.

McCain’s proposal exposes him to criticism that he would put people with pre-existing conditions at a disadvantage, because they have a hard time finding affordable individual coverage. But his campaign says he is considering risk-rating the tax credit he would offer, providing more money to those who need it most. And McCain would use federal funds to subsidize state high-risk pools already covering those who have trouble buying insurance in the open market.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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…

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.

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)

Radley, I think that this line is the most eloquent I think I’ve ever seen you write.

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.

“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

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