On 3/15/2010 8:45 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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

First, your argument is logic chopping. There are differences among different needs. For example no one wants to need health care. Second, empirical observation trumps logic. Communism empirically failed, it didn't reach Marx's paradise. Was Marx's logic wrong? - probably not, he just didn't take account of enough in his premises. Universal health care succeeds. Every OECD nation, except the U.S., had some form of non-profit universal health care, their results are as good or better than the U.S. and they cost only half as much per capita.


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