Are Food, Shelter and Healthcare a Right? YES
In the typical Left versus Right divide of American politics, one claim the left tends to proclaim is this. Basic needs are a right. Healthcare is a right. Food is a right. Education and Shelter are a basic right. In fact transportation is a basic need that could easily be added to this list.
This may seem irrational, since there are also those on the left who claim that freedom of speech should be removed from the Bill of Rights. But perhaps this is just evidence that the left vs. right dichotomy is false.
Nevertheless, let's examine freedom of speech. This implies freedom of thought and belief by it's very nature. Speech is merely the communication of ideas. A good argument can be made in favor of freedom of speech. If we assume that people will have different views, then some of those will be serious and have to be resolved. The only way to resolve them is by communication or violence. Violence ends other people's activities. Communication persuades. If you simply ban certain types of ideas from the pool of allowable speech, then those ideas will still exist in people's beliefs. Furthermore, it's likely that people will find ways to share those ideas that law enforcement can't prevent.
Nevertheless, the only way to respond to dangerous ideas when they exist is to either fight them through violence or persuasion. If you choose persuasion, then you'll need to allow the dangerous idea to enter into the discussion. It's the back and forth of normal debate. Of course persuasion can take other forms. After allowing someone to speak all of their nastiest thoughts, a simple hug may have more persuasive effect.
The problem with a ban on free speech is that you don't allow the persuasion tactic. This leaves nothing but violence. The proponents of banning speech claim that violence can be generated though speech. The fear is that the persuasion tactic will fail and the dangerous idea will gain followers. To kill millions like in the 20th century, you need lots of followers. This reasoning is based on facts, but it leaves out the other half of the truth.
This ban on free speech results in a more violent good government. You have to also take into account all of the dangerous ideas that get removed though persuasion everyday. In fact, it seems obvious to me that most people propose dangerous ideas at some time in their lives. Therefore, all people would suffer violence when persuasion could have resolved the problem. Anytime someone even proposes a banned thought, they would be fined or arrested somehow.
The left must be thinking that they can actually control the emergence of dangerous ideas though violence better than it can be controlled through persuasion. They must be thinking that extreme and severe punishments would act as a deterrent and people would just stop having dangerous ideas. But this is inherently irrational. For those who are persuaded by simple speech need no such additional motivations. Those who are not persuaded by simple speech often risk more severe punishment simply to act on dangerous ideas.
Now that we've ranted about freedom of speech, what about the right to food and other basic needs? The right to free speech means that you can say whatever you want. But that right can only exist as long as others provide it for you. To put this simply, I have to allow you to say what you want and cannot prevent you. Many of us would probably like to stop people from saying certain things at certain times. But the right to free speech brings an associated responsibility to provide that for others.
Now let's say that everyone has a right to food. I for one actually agree with this. It seems entirely consistent with the Christian virtue of Charity. For example, James tells us that religion that is pure is to take care of orphans and widows. Jesus tells us that if we give a cup of water to a poor child in need, then we gave it to him.
Here is my primary point. If the man on the street has a right to my hamburger, then I should give it to him. But let's think about this. If everyone has a right to food, then don't I have a right to expect him to give me the hamburger, even if I just gave him mine? If food is a basic right, then that means that I have that right as much as anyone else. Everyone has that right. This means that everyone also has the right to provide food for others. If everyone has the right to food, then everyone has the responsibility to provide food for others.
This leaves us with a bit of a riddle. If everyone has a responsibility to provide food, then everyone can just provide for himself. Therefore it follows logically that since everyone has a right to food, then everyone has a responsibility to provide food. The only people exempted from the responsibility are those who cannot provide. The most obvious example is children. Children are born only knowing how to eat, sleep and poop. They can't even roll over. Thus they have no ability and therefore no responsibility to provide.
The simple point is that if you believe the needy among us have a right to be provided for, then logic requires you to believe that anyone who can provide for himself and others has a responsibility to do so. Therefore the belief that a person who could work should work is a belief that's based on the idea that everyone has a right to have basic needs provided. It's the same as how freedom of speech means you can't beat people up for saying things you don't like.
This may seem irrational, since there are also those on the left who claim that freedom of speech should be removed from the Bill of Rights. But perhaps this is just evidence that the left vs. right dichotomy is false.
Nevertheless, let's examine freedom of speech. This implies freedom of thought and belief by it's very nature. Speech is merely the communication of ideas. A good argument can be made in favor of freedom of speech. If we assume that people will have different views, then some of those will be serious and have to be resolved. The only way to resolve them is by communication or violence. Violence ends other people's activities. Communication persuades. If you simply ban certain types of ideas from the pool of allowable speech, then those ideas will still exist in people's beliefs. Furthermore, it's likely that people will find ways to share those ideas that law enforcement can't prevent.
Nevertheless, the only way to respond to dangerous ideas when they exist is to either fight them through violence or persuasion. If you choose persuasion, then you'll need to allow the dangerous idea to enter into the discussion. It's the back and forth of normal debate. Of course persuasion can take other forms. After allowing someone to speak all of their nastiest thoughts, a simple hug may have more persuasive effect.
The problem with a ban on free speech is that you don't allow the persuasion tactic. This leaves nothing but violence. The proponents of banning speech claim that violence can be generated though speech. The fear is that the persuasion tactic will fail and the dangerous idea will gain followers. To kill millions like in the 20th century, you need lots of followers. This reasoning is based on facts, but it leaves out the other half of the truth.
This ban on free speech results in a more violent good government. You have to also take into account all of the dangerous ideas that get removed though persuasion everyday. In fact, it seems obvious to me that most people propose dangerous ideas at some time in their lives. Therefore, all people would suffer violence when persuasion could have resolved the problem. Anytime someone even proposes a banned thought, they would be fined or arrested somehow.
The left must be thinking that they can actually control the emergence of dangerous ideas though violence better than it can be controlled through persuasion. They must be thinking that extreme and severe punishments would act as a deterrent and people would just stop having dangerous ideas. But this is inherently irrational. For those who are persuaded by simple speech need no such additional motivations. Those who are not persuaded by simple speech often risk more severe punishment simply to act on dangerous ideas.
Now that we've ranted about freedom of speech, what about the right to food and other basic needs? The right to free speech means that you can say whatever you want. But that right can only exist as long as others provide it for you. To put this simply, I have to allow you to say what you want and cannot prevent you. Many of us would probably like to stop people from saying certain things at certain times. But the right to free speech brings an associated responsibility to provide that for others.
Now let's say that everyone has a right to food. I for one actually agree with this. It seems entirely consistent with the Christian virtue of Charity. For example, James tells us that religion that is pure is to take care of orphans and widows. Jesus tells us that if we give a cup of water to a poor child in need, then we gave it to him.
Here is my primary point. If the man on the street has a right to my hamburger, then I should give it to him. But let's think about this. If everyone has a right to food, then don't I have a right to expect him to give me the hamburger, even if I just gave him mine? If food is a basic right, then that means that I have that right as much as anyone else. Everyone has that right. This means that everyone also has the right to provide food for others. If everyone has the right to food, then everyone has the responsibility to provide food for others.
This leaves us with a bit of a riddle. If everyone has a responsibility to provide food, then everyone can just provide for himself. Therefore it follows logically that since everyone has a right to food, then everyone has a responsibility to provide food. The only people exempted from the responsibility are those who cannot provide. The most obvious example is children. Children are born only knowing how to eat, sleep and poop. They can't even roll over. Thus they have no ability and therefore no responsibility to provide.
The simple point is that if you believe the needy among us have a right to be provided for, then logic requires you to believe that anyone who can provide for himself and others has a responsibility to do so. Therefore the belief that a person who could work should work is a belief that's based on the idea that everyone has a right to have basic needs provided. It's the same as how freedom of speech means you can't beat people up for saying things you don't like.
Comments
Post a Comment