It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh dear, you appear to be missing the point of the 'right' in this discussion.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand
Ok, so those striking docs ... if you need health care and they are refusing to provide it ... does that give you the power to march up to one, put him or her in chains and beat the snot out of her until he or she complies and gives you care?
We had a system like that in the US once for getting forced labor. I'm not so sure I'd want my health care provided that way though.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok
You have the right to keep and bear arms, not have them provided to you. Not quite the same thing.
The right to health care presumes you are being cared for meaning someone is giving you care.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand
Still you miss the point and try to fall back on the ability to change the constitution.
The point I am making is that it can be changed right back and the citizens that are armed win the battle.
It would do one no good to attempt to change the laws and get shot for it.
The same with freedom of speech. The man with a gun can say what he wants.
Being an unarmed citizen is a dangerous endeavor.
So where exactly do you get your definition of a 'right' from then? Mosts dictionaries are along the lines of a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something, yet you give added value of 'something which requires no action/loss from another' etc.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: schuyler
So, urm, who exactly defines and enforces these particular mahgical 'rights' you speak of?
The biggest gang in town? The community or wider society?
Different societies/nations, different rights.
Cultural semantics is all, and you take comfort or security deluding yourself with the trickery of rights/entitlements/privileges, they can all be taken away, and different cultures have different rights.
The biggest gang in town always controls the rights, don't delude yourself that the constitution defines 'rights' for the whole world and cannot be changed.
We are working off the definition of right.
Clearly you do not get that.
A right is something that imposes NO obligation on anyone else in order for you to have it. Things like education and health care do that. In that case, they are not rights. They are civil privileges that can only be guaranteed by society as a whole and thus can change on a whim.
Do you really think if society disappeared tomorrow that you would still have that health care that you have a "right" to?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand
No, that's an entitled mentality.
I do not think of things that my fellow citizens have to provide for me as rights. To start doing that invites the mindset that we should becomes collectivists, that their property should be mine to use as I see fit for my benefit when it isn't mine in the first place.
The doctor is worthy of his hire. His skills are worthy of compensation, not mine to use as I see fit, when I see fit as I would my car. I respect him and what he has had to do to earn those skills which took far more time and effort than I put into my own education.
Everyone is ruled by the biggest gang in town and they set the 'rights' whether it is the US, UK, or Nomadic tribe then the 'rights' are set by whoever is in charge.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand
No, that's an entitled mentality.
I do not think of things that my fellow citizens have to provide for me as rights. To start doing that invites the mindset that we should becomes collectivists, that their property should be mine to use as I see fit for my benefit when it isn't mine in the first place.
The doctor is worthy of his hire. His skills are worthy of compensation, not mine to use as I see fit, when I see fit as I would my car. I respect him and what he has had to do to earn those skills which took far more time and effort than I put into my own education.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
I never made the claim that the us government does not make or change laws.
I made the claim that millions of guns pointed at the gov. keeps our ability to have a constitution and protect it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok
You have the right to keep and bear arms, not have them provided to you. Not quite the same thing.
The right to health care presumes you are being cared for meaning someone is giving you care.
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: schuyler
No we wont force "you".
Obviously were you are healthcare is not a right and your not British so we are not forcing you to do anything.
The UK is not the USA and the USA is NOT the UK.
UK has a community and culture accepted healthcare as a right the same way Americans have accepted guns as a right.
Just accept that fact and move on!
What is people obsession with forcing US values on country's that dont share them? Insecurity?
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok
Healthcare here is a birth right?
You really need to get control of your Fox News fetish. You bring it up several times per day. It's absurd.
Now, on topic...health care is NOT a birth right. It is a privilege that you pay for, and by law you must have access to, BUT, if there are no doctors do you still have that right?
Your "birth right" is based on other people providing a service for compensation. That DEFINITIVELY makes it "not a right". You're misusing the word, and misunderstanding the concept.
Now, kindly educate yourself. I bet you Brits have a "right" to that too...
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand
No, that's an entitled mentality.
I do not think of things that my fellow citizens have to provide for me as rights. To start doing that invites the mindset that we should becomes collectivists, that their property should be mine to use as I see fit for my benefit when it isn't mine in the first place.
The doctor is worthy of his hire. His skills are worthy of compensation, not mine to use as I see fit, when I see fit as I would my car. I respect him and what he has had to do to earn those skills which took far more time and effort than I put into my own education.
Yes in YOUR CULTURE.
It is not in OURS.
Why cant you just accept the fact the UK is not the god dam US of #ing A? We haven't been the same since 1783.
Our cultures and our mentality's are just plain different on the regards of healthcare? Cant you grasp that?
Cant you grasp the UK will NEVER not with out a fight give up our healthcare rights anymore than the US will give up its guns and move on?
Why the need to force AMERICAN values on us?
So, I ask you the the same as I asked another US member who is yet to reply, where do you get your definition of a 'right' from exactly?
originally posted by: stolencar18
Your "birth right" is based on other people providing a service for compensation. That DEFINITIVELY makes it "not a right". You're misusing the word, and misunderstanding the concept.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand
Still you miss the point and try to fall back on the ability to change the constitution.
The point I am making is that it can be changed right back and the citizens that are armed win the battle.
It would do one no good to attempt to change the laws and get shot for it.
The same with freedom of speech. The man with a gun can say what he wants.
Being an unarmed citizen is a dangerous endeavor.
Ok, lets play this scenario out. Congress passes a law banning handguns and gives everyone 90 days to comply with a buyback program. On the 91st day they cross reference the guns not bought back with the list of registered guns. You decided to keep your handgun. The police come to your door. Are you going to shoot them? What are you going to do when SWAT shows up? Lets say an entire town refuses this law and the national guard is sent in. Are you going to shoot your fellow Americans?
How far would you go over a gun that is now by law illegal to own making you a criminal.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: stolencar18
Paying for an education is one thing, what's going on in most universities is something else entirely. People are being given debts that they can NEVER repay and they can't even declare bankruptcy on them. There would be a whole lot less complaining about free education if two things were true:
1. The cost of an education in any way reflected the market value of that education.
2. They were treated the same as every other debt.
Job requirements keep going up, to make $15/hour now you need a bachelors degree and that's rapidly approaching a masters degree. Spending $150,000 to jump from $10/hour to $15/hour is not a good deal but people believe they should be able to pursue jobs they would like to do. People who goto college don't want to be cashiers their entire lives, they want to be doctors, scientists, engineers, artists, designers, marketers, and many other professions. The system however is set up that this is not possible. The way it works now is you graduate college, get stuck in an entry level job, and 10 years later you're still there while your education/skills have atrophied and you still have almost as much debt as when you started thanks to interest. People see this happening and they want it changed, and frankly they're 100% right to want it changed.
originally posted by: stolencar18
You do not need a degree to make $15 an hour. That's ridiculous and completely false. As far as the cost of university goes, you forget that these people CHOOSE which universities to attend (Ivy League vs state university vs local college), they choose where to attend school, and they choose to go into debt to pay for an education path that they chose.
Your statements that the "system" is set up to stop job progression is bull. Lots of people work their way through college and come out debt free, or with manageable debt loads.
People are 100% wrong to want this changed. What's next? Demanding that 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom houses be given for 10 grand? You know, because you NEED a house, because the system is rigged. Right?