Determination of a "Human Right"
Who decides what is a "right?" For instance, is access to free birth control a woman's right? Condoms for men (that is, after all, birth control, too)? What about Viagra? That is the antithesis of birth control, so should it be a non-right? I mean, these decisions are all value-based. More kids, pregnant woman, functional male that can lead to pregnant woman. Who decides what anyone has a "right" to, especially if it is at the expense of other people (taxpayers, insurance premium payers)? Does this mean that everyone has a "right" to his/her preference and that the cost of those "rights" should be shared by others just to guarantee their availability? In that case, where does it end? It will end when there is no more money to extract from the general population (of taxpayers, premium payers, charities, any source of funding) to pay for the demands of specific individuals.
IMHO, people should pay for what they want. They have a "right" to whatever they can earn enough money to fund. No one else is obligated to provide for their wants. Needs are a different issue. Food, shelter, emergency care, military defense. I would argue the community should protect the survival and welfare of its members. Otherwise there really is no community. But to take from a productive member of the community to provide a want to another member is wrong. It is also fundamentally destructive, as it skews the incentive to work in favor of those who contribute less and punishes those who contribute more.
The astounding power of government should be inhibited from forcing the transfer of resources from private parties to other private parties except in the interests of common defense and survival (food, shelter, emergency care). Once such transfers expand beyond these societal needs, the government has taken on the role of arbiter of social values. These are subjective in nature and hence vulnerable to the personal opinions of government solons. And then there is no end to what can be claimed by the government to fall within its jurisdiction.
Bottom line, government should concern itself only with protection of the community and leave personal decisions to ... um, people.
IMHO, people should pay for what they want. They have a "right" to whatever they can earn enough money to fund. No one else is obligated to provide for their wants. Needs are a different issue. Food, shelter, emergency care, military defense. I would argue the community should protect the survival and welfare of its members. Otherwise there really is no community. But to take from a productive member of the community to provide a want to another member is wrong. It is also fundamentally destructive, as it skews the incentive to work in favor of those who contribute less and punishes those who contribute more.
The astounding power of government should be inhibited from forcing the transfer of resources from private parties to other private parties except in the interests of common defense and survival (food, shelter, emergency care). Once such transfers expand beyond these societal needs, the government has taken on the role of arbiter of social values. These are subjective in nature and hence vulnerable to the personal opinions of government solons. And then there is no end to what can be claimed by the government to fall within its jurisdiction.
Bottom line, government should concern itself only with protection of the community and leave personal decisions to ... um, people.
posted by alison @ 8:56 PM
0 comments
