thegoodanarchist: <Aug-04-17 Bureaucrat: (continued)>
I have edited your continuation for clarity in my response. I also have two parts.
<tga: I can be alone on a tropical island. Free to speak my mind... I don't need government to *provide* that.>
True. But you are also free to collect food, cultivate crops... (i.e. the equivalent of economic rights)...
Do you think civil and political rights existed <before> the formation of modern states, while social and economic rights did not?>
What you call economic rights, such as collecting food and water, cultivating crops, hunting animals, I consider subsistence. These activities are included in our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
<Civilization and the rise of states curbed some (or most) people's economic and civic freedoms in return for "protection" by the state.>
This is another way of saying that, in order to live in harmony with other people, everyone has to make compromises. So freedom of speech does NOT include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.
<Thus, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly gained <value> (in comparison to your tropical island), because it would allow people to challenge the power of the state. That is why dictatorships always restrict freedom of speech.>
That is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it.
<The Universal Declaration of Human rights emphasises the obligation of states (i.e. governments and state institutions) to protect human rights of citizens.>
So far all of the rights we have discussed are exercised by the individual, with his or her own internal motive force. Free speech, freedom to collect food & water, etc.
<It includes healthcare, social security, and equality before the law as fundamental human rights>
Social security needs further clarification as to what you mean by it. Equality before the law is a self-evident right.
However, healthcare is unlike any of the others discussed so far.
What if NO ONE wanted to become a doctor or a dentist or a nurse?
Then how do you provide healthcare without compelling someone to become a doctor or a dentist or a nurse without depriving other people of their liberty?
<...alongside civil and political freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. You argue that some of those rights are not rights at all, but <services> proviced for the citizens.>
<However, when services are <necessary> in order to protect the rights of the citizens, I don't see how useful or important that distinction is.>
Really? You don't? To me it is THE MOST USEFUL distinction.
Once healthcare is declared a right, then the government is compelled to provide national health care. It no longer becomes debatable politically.
That means all citizens are suddenly faced with the financial burden of providing universal healthcare, without any say in the matter! The entire issue is removed from discussion, and the political will of one group becomes utterly victorious and is imposed (without recourse) on all political opposition, who are utterly defeated on the issue.
But my money is the same as my time, which is limited. I get income from selling my time, along with my skills, to an employer. So a portion of my limited time on this earth is then converted to limited money, which I can use for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
And that is the situation until socialism wins on an issue, and declares healthcare (for example) a right, and my time/money is confiscated by a fascist state without my consent nor representation, because it is a "right" and so even my elected representatives cannot oppose it!