Reply #9: It's that particular phraseology that bothers me. In the US, our rights [View All]

[Flatulo]

are guarantees that our government behave a certain way. If they violate those rights, we can seek redress from the courts. But none of those rights speak to things like food, shelter, medical treatment, etc.

Even the 'general welfare' clause of the COnstitution is considered by almost no one to be speaking to things like food and shelter. Rather, it grants the government the power to pass laws to ensure that citizens do not screw each other over and beat each othr toa pulp.

Now, let's take health care as an example. It would be in the best interests of a smart government to have a healthy population that can be productive. Even if you completley put aside arguments about compassion, it has been shown rather pursuasively that a single-payer system would be cheaper and more effective than the mess we have now. On this basis, I support a single-payer system.

But to phrase health care as an absolute right is a very slipper slope. For example, do I have a right to have perfect teeth? To not go bald (something dear to me)? To have a stiff dick on command? To have accss to growth hormone so I can be as tall as the next guy? To have perky boobs?

And who is to pay for providing all of these 'rights' to me? I can envision a scenario where benfits become so generous that the argument for working becomes rather weak. Is it moral for me to rely on the efforts of others for all my needs (assuming I am able-bodied and work is available)? I think not.

I'm sure that in this particular forum, where there is a very strong Marxist contingent, these thoughts will be rather repugnant, but I'm putting them out there because this is a discussion board. I hope I haven't offended anyone, and I would appreciate civility in any responses.