The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing. When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.
Not sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people? What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore? The "right" to their services could no longer exist. Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights." Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc. You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc. Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others.
In response to the earlier comparison to auto insurance, I would say that when you hit another driver and your rate goes up, it is your own fault for being a poor driver.
Quote from: Hank Rearden on July 17, 2007, 02:19:00 PMNot sure if it has been addressed, but I'd still like someone to resolve what I see as a discrepancy in what Graphite/Andrew/etc are saying...how can you have a service enshrined as a "right" (healthcare in this instance) without ordering one set of people to serve another set of people? What if all doctors just decided not to practice medicine anymore? The "right" to their services could no longer exist. Mind you, I'm not presenting this as a realistic possibility--I just think there is a problem in how you're defining the concept of "rights." Normally you would think of a right as a restriction on others, i.e., I have a right to privacy, right to property, etc. You wouldn't think of a right as a claim on another person's work, i.e., I have a right to healthcare, a right to vacation, etc. Saying people have a right to things necessary to live (as I think Keno did) doesn't solve the problem either since you would still be defining rights in terms of demands on the works of others. Good point. I believe that MOST doctors get into the field for altruistic purposes, rather than monetary, but money does have an effect, and the single-payer system would limit what the doctors are able to earn. When you limit the field in that way, you risk pushing people out of the field.
Okay. What if all police decided to stop being police, or the same for firefighters, public defenders, etc.? All of these give services as a right and if all stopped performing those services somebody would be forced to.Are you saying you are against any and all kinds of public service which is given as a right of being a citizen?
Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that.
That's not what I'm saying. While we guess that there would be fewer doctors if doctors are paid less, I don't really care to prove that point or argue about it. I'm saying that it is problematic to classify the services of a group of people as a "right." A service is not a right. Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that.
Discussion
Resources
