I saw Bill Whitte on NationalReview.com and I have to say that he is quite good on rights. What do you think, Paul?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTg0M2RjYjRlMGU0MTRjNWUxZTkwODQ1NWE3OTc2Yjg=

Any alleged "right" to not being shot and killed when walking down the street actually means the following:

* Taxpayers will be obligated to pay for others' police protection under threat of force
* Police will be obligated to provide protection at the government's direction

Wolfgang: Thank you for the link -- that Whittle piece is quite good.

duus: I personally believe that government funding can and should be voluntary, although there would be many intermediate steps necessary to get us to that point. At that point, police and military would continue to be paid as professionals just as they are now (as opposed to being involuntary draftees as has been the case with the US military at times in the past), and no one's rights would be violated. But in the meantime, it's critical to pare down the government to its proper functions (as outlined in the "Man's Rights" essay) and to oppose further illegitimate intrusions of the government into the private economy. The fight over whether health care is a "right" is part of that battle.

Okay, how about this one:

Any alleged "right" to enforceable contracts actually means the following:

* Taxpayers will be obligated to pay for a legal system that will protect others under threat of force
* Judges will be obligated to provide rulings at the government's direction

Are you willing to abandon enforceable contracts, too?

duus: No, I am not willing to abandon enforceable contracts, nor is it necessary to do so.

If you're interested in these issues, then I gladly steer you towards the essay by Ayn Rand entitled, “Government Financing in a Free Society,” in her book "The Virtue of Selfishness". It covers precisely the issues you've raised -- i.e., how can a properly limited government provide police protection, enforceable contracts, etc., via voluntary financing and without violating individual rights. (Unfortunately, that particular essay isn't available online, although the book is easily available in stores.)

I fully support the validity of enforceable contracts as spelled out in one of her other essays, "The Nature of Government" (which is available online):

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government

Okay, I'm willing to, for the sake of argument, suppose that there is a system for raising gov't funds which does not violate individual rights as you define them. Are you claiming that this same system that you suggest could not be used to provide health care? Why not?

If we ported over a similar system that did not violate individual rights to the health care arena, then it would essentially be a system of voluntary charity for those who could not afford care. I'm completely in favor of such a system.

Americans have always been incredibly generous in assisting those who are facing difficult circumstances through no fault of their own, as we've seen in the repeated outpourings of charity for victims of natural disasters (such as hurricanes and earthquakes) as well as man-made evils (such as the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11).

I fully support people donating voluntarily to private charities for purposes that suit their rationally-chosen priorities and values. As a physician, I've gladly given free or discounted care to patients more times than I can count, as has nearly every other physician I know.

It's the *involuntary* forced transfer of wealth for these "entitlement rights" that I oppose. It's just as wrong as saying, "Little Johnny over there needs some type O negative blood for an operation, otherwise he'll die". I fully support the choice of anyone who wishes to voluntarily donate their blood to help Little Johnny. But I would equally strongly oppose any attempt by the government to force people to strap people down and force them to donate against their will.

To clarify my last comment:

Just as I think government should be financed voluntarily, I also think that charitable health care for others should be financed voluntarily. Neither should be funded by taxes or other forms of coerced economic support.

But then there's no legitimate role (or need) for such charitable care to be administered by the government. Instead any such charitable venture can and should be a purely private venture, run by those who are paying the bills -- namely, the donors.

Hmm. So if health care, not a right, can be funded on a voluntary way, while enforceable contracts are a right, and should be funded the same way, on a voluntary basis...then, what makes health care not a 'right?' In other words, how is this about 'health care' at all? It appears to just be about funding. If health care were to be funded in this voluntary way, would it then become a right? If not, then in what sense is enforceable contracts a right?

Doesn't this undermine the premise of the this piece, that there is something about health care *per se* that makes it not a right?

This first issue of enforceable contracts is covered in the hardcopy essay on voluntary financing of government in a free society. I'd highly recommend reading it if that is a topic of interest to you.

With respect to health care, you'd only have a right to it if you purchase it on your own, if it's owed to you as part of voluntary contract (e.g., your boss includes it as part of your compensation package as an employee), or it's given to you as voluntary gift. But that's true of any good or service that must be produced by another.

To otherwise claim a "right" to health care necessarily turns the provider of that care into the slave of the recipient.

There is an important difference between genuine rights and these other entitlements, and that difference is whether they impose a negative or positive obligation on others. Hence, your (legitimate) right not to be assaulted imposes on me only the (negative) obligation not to hit you. If I chose to peacefully live my own life and leave you alone, then I have not violated your rights.

On the other hand, any purported "right" you claim to an appendectomy means that someone must provide one for you. Hence, a surgeon has to be compelled to operate on you. Or he gets paid from funds taken forcibly from others. But somewhere, it means a positive unchosen obligation is imposed on others by force. And as a corollary, it means that if everyone else wishes to just peacefully live their lives and leave you alone, that would (somehow) be violating your alleged right to an appendectomy.

Of course, if you need an appendectomy but can't afford it, anyone who wishes to voluntarily donate their money or expertise to help you can do so. Like I said earlier, this happens all the time and I'm glad that it does. But then both the donors and recipients understand that these are gifts, not "rights".