Hi Stathis and Friends,

        I respectfully invite you to re-read my comment.

>             That a "need" becomes a right by convention or treaty or 
> any means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion 
> of the rights of those that can provide those "needs". "From each 
> according to their ability to each according to his need" scream out 
> at us here and without a coherent response we are witnessing the 
> virtual imprisonment of any and all that might have the skills required to
provide such.
>             What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and 
> similar arguments requires that a government has the "right" to demand 
> services from individuals with ability *for whatever reason* which 
> then is to accept that the State has the right to control the behavior 
> of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated.

 I stated an argument for the purpose of soliciting comments and
counter-arguments not to make a "moral" claim. In fact, I thought that my
argument was an attempt to counter the "moral" claim in the article by
pointing out the logical (to me at least) implications of the claim:

"> Question: Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
> Answer: According to the most widely accepted international human 
> rights treaties, yes."

        My primary motivation for posting this was to extend the previous
discussion of the efficiency of Market vs. Managed systems in economics and
I assume, perhaps naively, that all of our members are interested in an
objective exploration of logical arguments within the context of the
        If the totality of Existence is "logical" or "Computational" or
both, then it seems to me that there should be no counter-example for such
within our sphere of experience and that if we find what appears to be such
a contradiction we should consider that a) there is a misunderstanding
somewhere that leads to the counter-example or b) that there is a flaw in
our premise somewhere or c) some combination of a) and b).

        It should not matter what the particular "need" is. The same
reasoning can be applied to Housing, Transportation, Food, Entertainment,
etc. So long as some notion of "need" can be presented and accepted by some
portion of society that has the ability to implicitly or explicitly use
coercion to motivate the fulfillment of this need. I am trying to get a
discussion of the consequences of this entire line of reasoning without
having to get into the subjective notion of "morals". 


Stephen P. King

-----Original Message-----
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:32 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human


The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good"
or "beauty": a concept made up by humans. You obviously think that public
health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people in the
world) think that the lack of public health care is morally wrong. You could
have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency of public versus
private health care, but with the core moral issue you will reach an
impasse, because your premises differ.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to