From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:21:08 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

In article <1992Dec30.233927.26939@shearson.com> jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
^In article <C02z9F.Arn@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
^
^  dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:
^  >  You DO have an obligation to help
^  >those who need help, as do I, and every other human being.
^  >   As I said, you have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than
^  >you.
^  >    Society as a whole has an obligation to help those in need. 
^
^   Excuse me, who made this a law? Where does it say I am OBLIGATED
^   to help others in need? Seems to me this is an individual decision.
^
^Well, thank you for providing us with your biased crap. I suppose that
^when someone show you a law you suddenly say "Keen!" and dont bother
^to think that a law is not the final measure of rightness in the
^world.
^
^Aside from the fact that you write like an idiot, I agree with your
^theme. I dont see why people make such a big deal over it or even
^argue it though.
^
^I have the 'right', if you wish to call it that, to do ANYTHING AT
^ALL. What I can do that is perceived by others is fairly limited, of
^course; what I can do that only I perceive is less limited, but still
^limited to a degree.

	Rights are those actions which the laws of a society do not
prohibit.  I do not believe that any of us here would define some
base, abstract, hypothetical freedom to do absolutely anything that one
wishes at any time as a "right."  This is an impossible definition,
since rights depend on a societal laws for existence.  In a society
without laws (none of which has ever existed), "rights" are meaning-
less.

^I can attempt to help needy people if i wish. I can attempt to bomb
^Iraq if I wish. I, like most people, am more likely to accomplish the
^former of course. Anything one can do, one can be said to have the
^'right' to do. A person can _attempt_ a very large number of things,
^including things that are called impossible.

	As I've argued above, one _cannot_ be said to have the right
to take any possible action at any time because absolute freedom ob-
viates the mere usage of the word "right."

^By this point I am sure that the vaguely intelligent people reading
^this have the idea I am trying to convey. With that in mind, it is
^still possible to say that "Society as a whole has an obligation to
^help those in need" if you allow that society has an interest in
^self-preservation and that "those in need" are members of society.
^
^Which is to say that society has the same rights as the individuals in
^the society. Society can place restrictions on its own behaviour, just
^as an individual may. These do not remove rights, but merely create
^guidelines.

	Again, rights cannot be removed because they are limits
to, not endowments of, freedom.  Abortion, for example, is not an is-
sue of the right of an unborn person to live, but the right of the
mothering female to prevent the emergence of that life into the world.
Also, I'm not sure I understand your separation of society and its in-
dividual members into two entities in this manner.  Please enlighten me.
You seem to be erroneously equating society and government.

^The only question then is "can society force its members to follow its
^restrictions?" and the answer is that the question is meaningless. Any
^people who dont wish to follow the restrictions of a society are NOT
^members of that society. They might occupy space in close proximity,
^but that is not the same.

	What, then all societies are invariably composed of law-abiding
citizens?

^It is impossible to conflict with 'your own' society because it ceases
^to be yours when you cease to agree.

	I suppose, by this reasoning, that no one is individual enough
that we don't have a horde of little societies roaming about here in
the United States.  Are you inferring that one man or woman can consti-
tute a society?

^Society has the right to attempt to force all people in a physical
^locale to obey its restrictions. After all, you have the same right;
^you merely find it nigh impossible.

	Perhaps you mean that rights are limited to citizenship.  But
what about religious rights?  Do two Christians, one on the moon and
the other on Europa, both of which bodies are well distanced from the
other, have complete freedom to interpret the laws outlined in the
Bible in any way that their newly imposed freedom allows, despite
what they agreed upon during their residences on Earth?

^Summary: Discussion of 'objectivism' is pretty useless, and pretty
^         unlikely.
^John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.

	It seems to me that Objectivism often (d)evolves into Relativism
here.  Maybe we should label the discipline Subjectivism instead.

						 _m d c_
			  Milo D. Cooper  '92   | 1992  |  mdc@crash.cts.com
						`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism