@Darren Because then it wouldn't be a privilege anymore. What's the purpose of working hard and making tons of money if I can't live longer than these people? Sorry, gotta say no to the nanny-state.

Well stated, I agree.

@Darren No it is not. The military and defense is explicitly defined in the constitution as something the government must do. It is not a service, it is a requirement. Those who serve are voluntary. Well atleast until the draft is made legal again...

@Darren no, even if you are starving it's not moral to steal. I JUST TOLD YOU NECESSITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RIGHTS EVEN IF IT IS THE LEAST IMMORAL CHOICE.

@Darren If you want healthcare to be cheap and good, put it into the free market and treat it like a commodity so that market competition will basically force it to innovate and make healthcare cheaper.

@Darren I'm not talking about characteristics, but of one's labors -- the product of one's own hands. A child is a different case -- hence why you likely used it as an example -- and demands different treatment.

Does a child have a right to demand the fruits of a paren't labors? For a time, possibly. But, as per the rule of reason, we know that the child only enjoys such an entitlement in his infant state. Once the child becomes old enough to contribute to a household, he is rightly ordered to do so. When a parent punishes a child for disobedience, and consequently sends that child to dinner, is the parent denying that child his rights? Of course not.

Moreover, when a child is brought into the world -- the parents are typically making the decision to care for the child, willingly. Of course, if they choose not to, they can put that child up for adoption. Can that child, now orphaned, claim a right to the parent's labors? To the parent's estate? To the parent's goodwill? Obviously not.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that "hyper-individualistic" is a bad thing, but individualism, I certainly believe, is to be valued.

@Darren I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response. I believe that, in your own reply, you have conceded my point. We have "moral obligations and duties" to one another. That is to say, we have graces and niceties that we ought to engage in towards others. However, such moral obligations, it is plausible, can be ignored. Disregarding them is deemed morally reprehensible, of course, but it is nonetheless an action that can be taken. The analysis turns on notions of voluntariness and willfulness or volition. Therefore, it stands to reason that the fruits of our own labor do, in fact, belong to us, but we can -- and should -- choose to willfully and voluntarily share with those around us, particularly those in whom we have a morally imposed obligation to care for. I think that this argument is seen is incidental to the Lockean proviso.

I share your belief in Christianity, and I believe that its moral teachings are aligned with my argument above. You and I are speaking in terms of what mankind "should" or "ought" to do. This is very different from what man is "required" or "commanded" to do. Rights inherently demand or restrict certain actions, while morality imposes behavior that ought to be observed, but, to one's own moral detriment, is not required of an individual.

@cottreau
Needing an organ or other medical treatment is not a fundamental right much like having a place to live. The US constitution offers the bill of rights as the necessarily principles in order for a free society. Everything after that is on the individual, we are not entitled to more than the basic rights granted to us. The US constitution does not give us free stuff, it only tells us what we can and cannot do.

@cottreau
We Americans aren’t into socialism, although it is growing with the younger generation. A universitial health care for all or free healthcare want cut it here. We have over 320 million people in the US and still allowing more people in every year. We would have to tax an unfair amount to get free health care, which it really won’t be free. Canada and the EU have plenty of issues with their free health care, like waiting for months to see a specific Doctor.

@Darren Christianity is not the basis of western culture. Thousands of years of human learning and development is the result of western culture.

@Darren
Our economic system is fine. It’s the people who do not know how to work the market or to lazy or stupid. I’m doing just fine without the help of the government or any socialistic programs, and I’m just a plumber. Using the Bible to promote socialism is just as nonsensical as using it to kill women who are unwed and not virgins.

@Darren
Who is being left on the street to die? Welfare, food stamps, W.I.C, section 8 housing, Medicaid, Financial Aid, etc. Thats not enough? So, healthcare should be a right, well food is more essential, should we have given to us for free? Foodcare for all!

@cottreau
Socialism and Communism are equally as bad, whether or not we “paint them with the same brush.” Healthcare Is not the only thing on the list of “free” things the Left is advocating for, they also want free education, government jobs, housing, salary caps, etc. none of these are rights granted to us by the Framers of the US constitution. You’re right, you don’t have to live here, however when you are chased out of the rest of Western Society by the barbarians don’t forget about the good ol’ USA!

@cottreau
There isn’t one socialist country that was successful, they all failed miserably. Venezuela is only the last example. Nothing is free, everything has a price, our tax money will pay for it. Socialism comes with high taxes and over printing of money. Here in the US the socialist are calling for Government jobs for everyone and a salary cap to prevent one from making to much money. Socialism/communism is evil, pure and simple. It is the same as nazism in my book.

@cottreau
They aren’t socialist, they have social programs. Some of those countries you mentioned tried socialism and it wrecked them, and for some strange reason they seem to want to bring the old days back.
Peace out brother. It was nice having a dialogue with you!

@cottreau
What example are you looking for? Europe has tried socialism in the past, it didn’t work well at all. This is easily researched by googling socialism in the 20th century.

Socialized medicine is a social program, it relies on high taxes to fund it and a single payer system, that eliminates companies from competing.

Individual(s) who earn low wage or none at all still receive medical benefits on the tax payers dime.

The single payer healthcare system is a Government program, anything the government touches they break. Doctors and medical staff do not provide the best healthcare being that they feel under paid. Just go to a city ran hospital for reference.

Why is healthcare, that some think is a right being subsidized by the government? Why not subsidize other rights as well? Who decided this?

Socialism does not work.

@cottreau
I clearly stated that socialism and social programs are not the same. And yes, I’m stating a fact, socialism has never worked nor will it ever!

As far as social programs are concerned, I’m sure there is some benefit for some, however the odds of fraud and misuse are great, not to mention people remaining stagnant do to having a safety net. It’s a slippery slope.

Are you a socialist? Do you believe socialism works?