Printable View
Third world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
*Nice, starting out with a pejorative, then asking about legitimacy. :donkey:Quote:
Here's a question for the pinkos here, is a government that doesn't provide free education illegitimate? Is it committing human rights abuses? In what way is it different to a government that does provide it?
And so if a kid comes out of public school stupid, is that government a human rights violator?
Is it engaging in a human rights violation?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Didn't Dread say it was a slippery slope to go down the "rights" alley? Now we've got Loki asking if a gov't is "legitimate" or violating "rights"? What are you two, a tag team called the Professor and Mary Ann? :rolleyes:
Loki is making the same point in a different way. But you are talking about the social contract, so it's a fair question.
Yet, you're both laying blame on a governmental system for any faults, flaws or gaps. Why?
Let's presume the US follows the "free market", "free enterprise", or "capitalist" model of things. No gummint intervention. The theory isn't borne out in practice, in the pay-to-play model. There's not enough evidence that charities or non-profits can provide quality education and healthcare for the needy or disadvantaged. If they could, surely they would have by now. But even the Catholic church (with more money than God) could *NOT* fund millions of kids' educations, let alone pay for every granny's hip transplant or nursing home care.
Again, if education and/or healthcare is a human right, is a government committing a human rights violation by not providing those services to its citizens?
As I said, we don't even need to get into the Rights debate. In a first world, developed and civilized society, basic education and basic health care is a matter of fundamental necessity. In a large and diverse economy like ours, being competitive globally matters. But private entities can't/don't fill the needs. If they could have, they would have. That's why our democratic republic government steps in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Technically rights we're entitled to by merit of being a human being are termed 'human rights." That's one type of right, but it's not the only kind. Civil rights are distinct from human rights and then there are social rights, not generally recognized in the 1st world. *and of course there are different schemes of organization, like where the rights are thought to come from, like natural rights, legal rights (from the application of positivism) etc* You're laying out a natural rights framework and no, health care doesn't fit into that. Personally, I don't think it fits into human rights and certainly makes no sense as a civil right. You can make some sense of it as a social right with a slightly different parse, as the expectation of society that people within it be healthy. The UDHR does list health as a human right, but as even a cursory analysis of the document will reveal, it encompasses all kinds of rights plus the kitchen sink and so makes a very poor framework to hang anything on. It's a wishlist of all sorts of things the authors liked and thought people could/should/would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Most first world nations recognize social rights, though. Simply by being a more advanced society, and recognizing social "contracts" benefit the greater good.
Rights are not contingent on consequences. So no, you cannot claim a country recognizes social rights just because it provides social services in order to achieve some kind of an outcome (e.g. to be a better competitor in the global economy).
I think we can agree the concept of civil rights doesn't apply here. Regarding social rights: they are not a widely recognized category of rights and with the exception of socialist states, are not really acknowledged as being "rights". Yes, I am using the natural rights framework here, but that seemed to fit the context of how the people in this thread were treating the "right" to education.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
No wonder you used the term "pinko", Loki. :rolleyes:
The debate would look differently if you'd admit the amount of your education that has been publicly subsidized. Beginning with grammar school and moving into collegiate level in the state of Illinois, let alone post-grad. You should thank some degree of SSSocialism for your current situation, and your future prospects.
:donkey:
Another problem with healthcare in the US: seeing it as vastly different from public education. If we polled thousands of people, they'd probably all agree that public education is something valuable, and should be accessible to every child. Kids should have access to reading, writing, math, sciences, information in general.
Really, who wants a bunch of illiterates in a society, anyway?
Poll the same people and I'd bet they'd agree that children should have vaccinations, regular physicals, corrective lenses as needed, and treatment for childhood diseases. Most people would agree babies and children should have clean water and proper nutrition as well. Most people probably agree that kids should also have comprehensive sex ed and access to birth control. Even if their parents are poor and can't pay for any of those services.
Loki, would that make most people lib'rul commie pinkos?
Gee, I wonder how much my parents (and myself) would save in taxes if there was no public education, not that this is relevant as to whether education is a right. You also falsely assume that all levels of education are provided based on the goodwill of the government. Newsflash: private colleges are at least as generous with scholarships and stipends as public ones.
Your parents obviously felt it was "worth it" to emigrate from Russia. Are you saying that they (and you) now regret paying taxes so others might have access to the same public education you had in the US? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
University institutions are also heavily reliant on gummint tax breaks, whether private or public. Giving "newsflashes" about scholarships or stipends is a rather silly way of trying to justify your own subsidies. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Let's experiment with a new framework. Observing other nations with social turmoil, does it really makes sense to deprive citizens of basic health needs?
Basic health meaning clean potable water, hygienic sewerage, decent nutrition, routine vaccinations, antibiotics for certain infections......IV fluids for severe dehydration, protein bars with vitamins for severe malnutrition.....moving to next tier care like proper anesthesia for surgery in sterile fields and providing tanked O2.
Emergency and Disaster providers deal with this sort of thing all the time, every day. They have a knack for triage. I'm not sure why the rest of our medical field can't take on the same challenge, for providing services within limits, when those limits mean "money". After all, this is a rather dire or emergent situation, if it threatens our whole nation and its future.
Define justice as it pertains to diabetes and please explain why outside hostilities are so special.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Sure, but who's stopping us from developing a society where almost everyone can pay for it? Eg. due to being healthy productive people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Asian countries with cheap labor? Capitalists who believe moral behavior follows cheap labor markets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Oh crap, were you being hypothetical?
Er I have no idea what you're talking about, not if you're trying to say that globalisation makes Americans both unhealthy and unable to afford healthcare.
Late night sarcasm, minx. ;)
Justice mostly doesn't pertain to obtaining free healthcare or diabetes...unless somehow you are being force-fed sugar in your sleep and suing a company over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think you know that you're not going to get a UN document taking that seriously. That document in particular remains controversial among the religious and libertarians. That particular clause also seems a bit contradictory. If "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children", doesn't free and compulsory education prohibit a parent from participating in the "unschooling" movement?
Once again, I have no problem with developing a society where everyone can pay for education. This is why I support school vouchers. But it's not a fundamental right. When our government is running huge deficits, we can't call these things rights that can never, ever be financially ramped-down to save money.
But it isn't free. Nothing is free, like I already said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
By your definition, these poor people get free military defense. They get a free court system. They get free consumer products protections. They get free environmental protections. They get free educations. They get free sidewalks to walk down, steet lights to light their nights, roads to drive on. Why should they not get free immunizations? Why not free early diagnoses of diabetes so the disease can be controlled early on? Why not free casts for their broken bones?
But again all of this costs money. All of this is necessary to live a long, healthy, potential-filled life. And all of it makes for a prosperous country. The problem with US health care isn't that too many people have it, that everyone should have it, that our goal must be to ensure everyone has it; the problem is we spend way too fucking much on it. We need to find out what is driving the cost and find a means to curb that. Is it:
1. Inefficiency - too many parallel administrative structures, not enough compatible computerization, etc....
2. Fraud?
3. Disease management focus vs. Health managment focus?
4. Generally unhealthy lifestyles that produce disease (diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, lung disease, other due to insane diet and legal drug use...)?
5. Fee for service pay structure eoncouraging unneccessary tests and treatments?
6. Malpractice insurance costs and lawsuit fears encouraging unneccessary testing and treatments?
7. Pay to health care personnel too high?
8. Profit motive?
9. Exploitation of the nature of the service - people will pay what it takes to treat illness and injury...?
10. Too much focus on minute life extension in hopless, end of life situations?
None of this stuff can't be fixed. None of it will be fixed by just cutting people out of the system with mindless budget slashing.
EDIT: Please forgive the overly emotional rants last night. I was a little drunk. And you suck, so.... :o
No, but the kid has shitty parents. Or parents too damn busy. As a side, IMHO teachers are getting too much blame in all this - it takes a lot of family effort to ensure a kid gets a good education, unless he's in boarding school or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There is no expectation that charities will step in and help. The expectation, admitted or not, is that those left out of the for profit system are, well, left out. You know, like the people living in Indian landfills. Left out. They'll still benefit from free military defense....Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
For the love of...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You've got a degree from an ivy league school right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus_type_1
Did they ever mention this condition?
Did you know that there are many diabetics that can't control their blood sugar levels without insulin even though they aren't force-fed sugar in their sleep??
Granted, but in one of those groups gay marriage and abortion remain controversial and in the other you find CitizenCain. Loki asked about human rights, and that's one take on human rights. Feel free to present the Dreadnaught Convention on Human RightsQuote:
I think you know that you're not going to get a UN document taking that seriously. That document in particular remains controversial among the religious and libertarians.
There's nothing remarkably contradictory about it. Even Enoch recognises that your rights end where mine begin. Parents' right to choose the kind of education is tempered by their kids' right to get an education in accordance with the two preceding clauses.Quote:
That particular clause also seems a bit contradictory. If "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children", doesn't free and compulsory education prohibit a parent from participating in the "unschooling" movement?
So, about your ridiculous military spending and your incompetence wrt taxing corporations on their profits and your thousands of retarded tax loopholes andQuote:
When our government is running huge deficits, we can't call these things rights that can never, ever be financially ramped-down to save money.
I love that you quoted that right after Fuzzy showed why it's unreliable. It's like you're trying to prove that you're incapable of independent thought on any social or economic issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Food, clothing, and shelter are basic needs. Should the government be providing them to all its citizens? Is it engaging in human rights abuses if it does not?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I don't need independent thought when I can leverage other people's independent thought. Or did I fall asleep and miss the post explaining how the topic of this thread has turned to "Minx's capacity for independent thought"? Did I? A cursory analysis of this thread suggests otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This is the problem with you Loki. You get confused about objectives all the time. Would you like to switch usernames?
Why don't you go over all of the "rights" provided by the Declaration and then tell me if you still take it seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So you're saying human rights aren't human rights on their own merits? Are you claiming that my subjective gut reaction has any bearing on anything? I didn't know that "whether or not you take it seriously" was a reliable litmus test of anything meaningful. If it is then I wonder how to deal with the obvious fact that deeper thinkers than I have taken the UDHR seriously enough to write it, to sign it, to use it as the foundation for better and more binding documents and then gone on to enforce the rights set out in those documents. Does my standard supercede theirs?
Let's just say that if those were all "rights", then every government in existence is guilty of massive rights violations. I won't even mention the fact that many of the rights are mutually exclusive, and their enforcement necessitates infringing on other rights.
There are no innate human rights. The concept is a cultural construct as are all the individual ideas about what is or is not a right. To ask the question "Do Americans, or humans in general, have a right to health care" is to ask one's subjective opinion and then pretend its somehow objective. All the rights any of us have are subjective brain children of some great thinker who managed to impress his audience enough to move the world. Health care is a right if we, as a nation, or a global civilization, say it is; and that will only be the case when the majority of Powers are willing to make it happen. Oh, and it should be needless to say that bringing up whether health care is a "right" or not in this discussion is pointless. Maybe if the argument was of whether it should be a right....Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
As Loki and I already discussed, Loki didn't really mean human rights. He meant natural rights. Different conceptual approach, one which largely does not fit the UNDHR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm fairly certain that if Aimless delved into it, he'd find appeal in Vasak's "generations" formulation for rights, and so would have no real problem with anything in the UNDHR. I know the EU as a body has fully accepted all 1st and 2nd generation rights *though of course it can fall down on implementation*Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Eh? Enoch's philosophy revolves around this concept, so it would it be a surprise that he recognizes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
True, it's more of a thing that would be neat if everybody had these 'rights' if it was in any way possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That said, does anyone have any real rights, and who decides what it is?
More of a "it would be neat if people had their goods/services". I'd say I can't wait until people have a righto an iPod, but there are already those saying that people have the right to internet usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Well, goods/services that are beneficial for society as a whole, I think. I can see how education would fit in there, as would health care access, and internet too if you stretch it. iPod not so much.
But still, according to you, who decides what is a real right, and are there any? Why is the list of the UN not good, but are property rights according to some here a natural right?
That article mainly says that no-one agrees on it, which makes it problematic for something that is supposed to be self-evident and universal ;)