No, I'm talking about positive obligations. The ACA has not entered yet.
This thread is literally about the ACA repeal. Everything in it stems from the ACA.
Also, I said you didnt help build the hut. Rights are universal. You have a right to my hut regardless if you are sick or not (applying your ideas consistently).
The world is not as simple as you seem to want it to be. It can't be as straight forward as assuming everything is universal without any outside facets affecting things. Although definitions tend to be pretty universal
I don't see any part of that definition that says rights must be universal.
If you believe in rights, they exist regardless if a government exists or not. The government is merely a tool to secure these rights. The law is irrelevant in this context.
The law is irrelevant on your imaginary island but that's not where we live. Rights as we know them exist because we created them through politics and law. They are not an intrinsic part of human development.
So its selfish? Okay. Not an argument.
Selfish behaviour like that doesn't benefit society in any way. That's the argument. You as an individual are worth next to nothing compared to the entirety of the society you live in. Whatever minor inconvenience it is to you, the ACA is a benefit to society as a whole which is far more important.
Its immoral to not help them? This is a statement, not an argument. Why is it immoral not to help them?
I'm not going to get into a pointless debate discussing the origins of morality. Why something is moral or not is irrelevant to this conversation.
I personally I would help them, but that is irrelevant.
Oh but it is! Because according to your philosophy you wouldn't because they have no right to your labour. You don't owe them anything. The minor inconvenience to you is worth more than their life. That is the philosophy you are championing right now.
Im not okay with you letting me die, but I recognize its not your problem. But I sure as hell would break down the doors to your hut because the alternative is death.
The hypocrisy here is highly amusing.
And this statement does not contradict my argument. I am saying you/me/anyone have no right. I am not saying you/meanyone will not act on it.
It's completely contradictory and you aren't going to fool anyone by glossing over things like that. the bottom line is you're saying one thing but your actions in that situation would be completely opposite to the philosophy you're supporting.
say I make 12k/year (barely above poverty for 1 individual)
55k/year? (average family household income)
100k/year? (a shit ton of money)
How much do each of these tax brackets owe to society assuming they live in the same moderately priced city.
What's a moderately priced city? If you want me to give you a hypothetical number I'm going to need numbers to work with. I'm assuming you're talking US dollars.
I barely have an impact. Its incredibly negligible. But its there nevertheless.
It's not an impact large enough to get you out of doing something that actually supports society.
Do you understand why waiters exist? Because people want them because they increase quality of life as a luxury. So if waiting was outlawed, society would be deprived of thousands of people's labor. By definition, society would be worse off.
In the grand scheme of things the impact would be meaningless. Scale is important.
I think you are conflating quality of life and basic necessities. You do realize there is more to life than just food, water, clothes, access to various facilities, and shelter?
Considering that I am in fact alive and living in society, yes. I am aware of that. I'm not conflating anything.
I'm saying you have no right to my labor. I'm saying that positive obligations do not exist.
It's not about individuals.
Society is entitled to your labour and I, and others, in turn benefit from it as members of society. As a member of society, you benefit too by being able to have access to affordable healthcare.
So if I make $100 in a night, the $14 is making a huge different to society? What a mathematically false statement:
That $14 translates to $4.3 x 10^-8 /person. That $14 is of much more use to me than it is to society. And that is assuming any percentage of the money isn't sucked up my inefficiency or bureaucracy.
It would be false if you were the only person giving $14, but you're not. Millions of others are also contributing which results in a much greater sum which
is of use to society. In the case of the ACA and similar, it means many people get medical treatment that they otherwise wouldn't have access to which is much more important than anything you'd spend $14 dollars on.
Medicare is for being 65 and older. Im years away from qualifying. And regardless, that $14 will never cross paths with me ever again.
It very well might. Much like conservation of matter, once money has been created it isn't destroyed it is just moved somewhere else.
$14 is not saving hundreds of lives.
I didn't say it was. However when millions of people are giving $14, it's not just $14 dollars anymore.
My mindset is self-centered and narrow? 10/10 argument i praise your intellectual superiority
It wasn't so much an argument as a statement of fact. The argument is that looking at the world like that is ultimately not beneficial to society. I get that it's not easy to think of society as a whole over the self, human beings are not wired like that. However if we want to continue to prosper as a society and as a species, we need to make ourselves make that shift.
I dont contain an ounce of forethought? Well, provide evidence please. Its not an argument.
You're completely ignoring that a fairer, cheaper healthcare system is better for both you and society in general in the long term because you're hung up on that $14 now. Went explained a part of this really well earlier, but there's also the part where you could very easily end up in a situation yourself where the ACA saves your life.
Its harmful to me as an individual because I dont want my labor taken? Well, I have no problem voluntarily giving away my labor for free because I do lots of charity work. But I guess I'm such a self-centered selfish person that I am unredeemable in your eyes. What a tragedy.
Oh please, let's not get all melodramatic here. You know damn well I have no personal problem with you.
And stop trying to take the moral high ground here. Because you dont have the moral high ground. If we are defining virtue as giving away one's one labor for the benefit of society (we will assume its beneficial for argument's sake), then one must voluntarily give his own labor. Forcing others to give up their labor is NOT virtue.
It's not about the moral high ground. It's about what is better for society as a whole vs the individual. society as a whole trumps (no pun intended) the individual. That's also the fundamental difference in our view points. You tend to focus on the individual, I focus on what is better for the group so to speak.