Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

There is no Constitutional mandate forcing private stores to serve all patrons.  However, when it comes to state and federal services, things are very different.

This seems to imply a belief that the government/law creates rights. I disagree: my view is that rights either exist or don't exist, and law can only, at best, acknowledge and enforce rights that exist, not make new ones. A law that purports to enforce a right that doesn't exist, then, is illegitimate.

[wierd]

Your view is more in line with how the constitution and bill or rights was drafted;

The enumeration of rights is not exhaustive, and those not explicitly cited are deferred to state level authorities to enumerate, IIRC.

The list is just ones that have been formally recognized, and codified to structure government behavior; Nothing more.  The law does not create the rights-- but the law dictates how the state treats those rights.

[Bumber]

Oh classic ameripol.

I don't know, Republicans seem pretty united on this

Same as the Democrats. Nothing new, just politics.

Yes you have successfully quoted Lindsey Graham's position on being caught out as a liar, which was "You would have done the same." My first thought upon reading that was imagining MSH angrily ranting in response.

I'm saying Democrats were arguing that the nomination should go through in 2016, but are against it now. Vice versa for the Republicans.

Sure it's after Dems were screwed over with Garland, but I'd consider that a moot point due to the Senate being held by the GOP both then and now. They could've had the vote and just voted against Garland, then repeat ad nauseam for Obama's next nomination. I can only assume it was a trade to look somewhat less partisan then, to look blatantly hypocritical* now.

Dems, lacking control of the Senate, are probably going to do a repeat of Kavanaugh. (That itself being an escalation of Clarence Thomas.) The vote will come down close to partisan lines, and Trump's nominee will be sworn in. Politics.

*Actually, McConnell did state during Garland that his reason was because the Senate and Executive were of opposing parties (a divided government.) His statement about letting the American people decide is pure BS, though.

[wobbly]

There is no Constitutional mandate forcing private stores to serve all patrons.  However, when it comes to state and federal services, things are very different.

This seems to imply a belief that the government/law creates rights. I disagree: my view is that rights either exist or don't exist, and law can only, at best, acknowledge and enforce rights that exist, not make new ones. A law that purports to enforce a right that doesn't exist, then, is illegitimate.

On what basis does it exist without laws or common agreement? The right to property that you seem to hold so sacred is just as arbitrary as any other right. Without rules it only exists to the extent you can hold it by force.

[Maximum Spin]

On what basis does it exist without laws or common agreement? The right to property that you seem to hold so sacred is just as arbitrary as any other right.

You have obviously never heard of natural rights theory.

Without rules it only exists to the extent you can hold it by force.

B I N G O

[MetalSlimeHunt]

natural law

but also

might makes right

lol

[Maximum Spin]

natural law

but also

might makes right

lol

Natural rights theory isn't the same as natural law
Although it's not the same as might making right either, but, essentially, the fact that you physically can possess property is the basis for doing so.


Actually, let me be clearer here. I am pointing out that natural rights theory is a very common theory of rights that completely contradicts what wobbly said. Frankly, I disagree with the assertion that I "seem to hold" property rights "so sacred" in the first place. I hold my own to by very sacred, by way of enforcing it violently and enthusiastically. I am ambivalent as it pertains to anyone else. My personal opinion on theft is that I don't care if you do it (to someone else), but if the property owner shoots you, you deserved that. If you get away with it, congratulations, you win.

[scriver]

There is no Constitutional mandate forcing private stores to serve all patrons.  However, when it comes to state and federal services, things are very different.

This seems to imply a belief that the government/law creates rights. I disagree: my view is that rights either exist or don't exist, and law can only, at best, acknowledge and enforce rights that exist, not make new ones. A law that purports to enforce a right that doesn't exist, then, is illegitimate.

In which case it all comes down to what rights you subjectively choose to call rights. There's no intrinsic reason right to sell what you own should be called a natural right but right to healthcare should not.

[hector13]

There is no Constitutional mandate forcing private stores to serve all patrons.  However, when it comes to state and federal services, things are very different.

This seems to imply a belief that the government/law creates rights. I disagree: my view is that rights either exist or don't exist, and law can only, at best, acknowledge and enforce rights that exist, not make new ones. A law that purports to enforce a right that doesn't exist, then, is illegitimate.

In which case it all comes down to what rights you subjectively choose to call rights. There's no intrinsic reason right to sell what you own should be called a natural right but right to healthcare should not.

I have the right to have muh gun, but not to get treated if someone shoots me!

[SalmonGod]

Actually, let me be clearer here. I am pointing out that natural rights theory is a very common theory of rights that completely contradicts what wobbly said. Frankly, I disagree with the assertion that I "seem to hold" property rights "so sacred" in the first place. I hold my own to by very sacred, by way of enforcing it violently and enthusiastically. I am ambivalent as it pertains to anyone else. My personal opinion on theft is that I don't care if you do it (to someone else), but if the property owner shoots you, you deserved that. If you get away with it, congratulations, you win.

Just quoting this for preservation.  It's a good bit of honesty that deserves to be read multiple times by those who may not have understood the conservative mindset before now.

"Everyone do what you can get away with.  I will.  That's just the nature of the world.  Do it to someone else, and I'll congratulate you.  Do it to me and I'll kill you.  It's all a deathmatch to get as much as you can."

Now imagine trying to apply good faith and compromise to this.

[wierd]

There's some twisted logic to the notion Hector.

Specifically, if I own a gun, my ownership naturally grants me the discretion in how that gun is used; Vis-a-vis, I am ultimately the one who decides such a thing.
Conversely, a doctor is the one who owns the expertise and skill to perform quality medical care. His ownership of those things naturally grants him the discretion in how that knowledge gets used; Vis-a-vis, he is ultimately the one who decides who gets treated and who does not.

Mandating that everyone has a right to healthcare, intrinsically implies that the doctor does not have such a right or such discretion; It is a form of legal compulsion to service. Last I checked, slavery is not legal in the US. As such, attempting to recognize such a right is onerous, and violates the principles of natural rights, no matter how well meaning you might be in attempting to suggest it.

Eliminating all plausible rationales for a doctor to choose to refuse care over, is not the same thing as mandating that the doctor must always provide care.  Subsidized federal healthcare is the former, "Right to medical care" is the latter.  The former assures the doctor is always reimbursed for his labor and expertise, but says nothing about his/her right to not perform surgery, or practice their art on a case-by-case basis.  The latter however, DOES dictate that the doctor cannot refuse.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Doctors cannot refuse care. Like, they can't. They can do so fiscally for things like cancer treatments, but if you show up at a hospital with your guts hanging out they do (for now) have to treat you and are committing a crime if they don't.

So funnily enough in this whole "basic healthcare is THE SLAVERY" argument, it's exactly backwards as to the law as exists already. Money can refuse you, but care givers cannot.

Honestly wierd, you can do better than repeating a psudeointellectual literal Fox News talking point. Slavery, jesus fucking christ.

Oh, and slavery also is legal in the US. Just only for prisoners.

[wierd]

Nope, Doctors refuse to provide care ALL THE TIME.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x220.htm

Physicians do not have unlimited discretion to refuse to accept a person as a new patient. Because much of medicine is involved with federal regulations, physicians cannot refuse to accept a person for ethnic, racial, or religious reasons. Nor can they discriminate based on the person's sex, unless the sex of the patient is relevant to the physician's specialty. Outside these protected areas, physicians have great latitude in refusing to accept persons as patients.

I work in healthcare, I have seen it myself.  Many doctors exercise this discretion quite heavy handedly.  One big one is "Non-compliant with orders given, specifically to resolve your healthcare problems, because you dont like the instructions? FIND A NEW DOCTOR, I WON'T TREAT YOU."  Seen that one A FUCKING LOT.

You have to resolve that, against "But I have a right to good healthcare, so you HAVE to treat me! MEH!"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So you'll agree then, that working in the ER makes you a slave? Because I guarantee you if you let a lawyer bleed out on the floor of the ER because of "muh liability", you will not be escaping prosecution.

As a med school professor once put it: "If you don't want to treat LGBT people, don't become a fucking doctor." That idea applies to all classes, really.

This is nowhere near what you're making it out to be, that's for sure. Course, that was clear from the moment you compared the right to healthcare to slavery.

Medical professionals receive special rights in exchange for special responsibilities. As far as I'm concerned, shirking the latter means losing the former, and more.

[wierd]

In all of the protected cases, the decision not to provide service (which is unilateral against all professions, not just doctors. Pastry Chefs cannot refuse service because somebody is gay any more or less than the doctor can, for instance) ultimately violates a recognized intrinsic right to exist as a person, and to engage freely with the social aparatus.

But that is not what you claimed at all-- You claimed doctors cannot refuse service. This is simply false.  Forcing doctors to always treat, due to granting an onerous right, is like granting a right to any other service. The providers of the service, then have no say in the providence of the service.  That is de-facto slavery, no matter how you want to insist it is not.

See for instance, the Merriam Webster definitions.

slavery noun
Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
slav·​ery | \ ˈslā-v(ə-)rē
\
Definition of slavery

1a : the practice of slaveholding
b : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 : drudgery, toil

The wholesale removal of autonomy as concerns patient care, which a "Right to healthcare" would require, introduces a status where definition 2 applies.  The only way it could be more onerous, would be if people stopped wanting to be physicians, and the government mandated people become them involuntarily, based on aptitude testing. (because then it would become definition 1.)

Your entire rebuttal is "DOG WHISTLE!! DOG WHISTLE!! THAT INVALIDATES THE POINT!! HISSS!!", and does not actually address the point behind it.  While the right wing morons certainly love their dog whistles, and use them inappropriately all the time, that does not mean you get to wholesale ignore when they apply as a matter of intrinsic merit.