Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘rights’

You don’t learn this in the publicly-funded educational system.

Read Full Post »

Canadian health careCanada’s Supreme Court ruled on October 18, 2013 that a Toronto man who has been on life support for three years cannot be removed from it without the consent of his family, despite doctors deciding it is no longer medically necessary.

Two Sunnybrook doctors have lost their bid to unilaterally remove a severely brain damaged patient from life support, but they still have the option of going to a provincial tribunal to try to overrule his family’s wishes, the Supreme Court has decided.

What I find shameful about the doctors in question, is not that they are arguing that life support is no longer necessary, but that they argue that “they were not actually providing medical treatment by keeping the man on life support.”

Of course providing life support is medical treatment. It’s not free to make, purchase or operate those machines, and providing related support.

Their argument strikes me as a cynical attempt to end life support, perhaps under a completely valid medical basis, under false pretenses, because of the constraints of the law.

However, I also find it shocking that the Supreme Court decision would claim a right to medical treatment at the involuntary expense of others. The cynicism is furthered by that “right” subjected to being arbitrarily denied on the basis of the decision of a subsequent government panel, which perfectly illustrates the inability of governments to grant positive rights.

I am sympathetic to the concern of “death panels”, which is what the provincial government panel effectively can serve as. Also, doctors can even be pushed into that role because of pressures in the socialized health care system, and this is exactly why I support private money for primary health care in Canada, which is what all other countries in the world allow for, except for Cuba and North Korea.

For more on health care, see my articles:

1) The first step in health care reform: Recognizing that health care is not a right

2) Ron Paul right on health Care: It’s not a right and it’s not a privilege — it’s a good

3) Stefan Molyneux reveals the perverse incentives in the U.S. health care system

Read Full Post »

English: Denis Rancourt, Professor of Physics,...

On the March 3, 2013 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I interviewed former University of Ottawa physics professor, Dr. Denis Rancourt, and covered the following issues, among others:

Hour 1: Canada to put the word defence in defence spending and Dick Cheney mistakenly thinks the 2nd Amendment granted rights. Hour 2: Interview with persecuted former university physics professor, Denis Rancourt.

Read Full Post »

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States.

Showing that his ignorance of, or disdain for, the Constitution doesn’t only apply to nine of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, Dick Cheney said in his February 13, 2013 interview with Charlie Rose (at 41:17):

I think it’s very important we not infringe the rights granted to all Americans under the Second Amendment

Except that the Second Amendment granted no rights, and only affirmed existing rights, including the right of self-defense.

Further demonstrating his willful ignorance, given that he repeatedly swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, Cheney fails to realize that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to recognize the existing right to keep and bear arms as a bullwark against government tyranny, which is why the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned in connection with a well regulated militia.

Read Full Post »

Waterloo City CouncilAs reported by the Waterloo Chronicle on August 15, 2012, in their article, A better way:

She now goes out of her way to avoid the Northdale neighbourhood and the surrounding area because she can’t stand the look of the bland, characterless apartments currently being built there.

Yet while city staff and some councillors say the city must walk a fine line to balance the enforcement of visual and aesthetic guidelines with the rights of developers — even going so far to consider using millions of dollars in incentives to rebuild Northdale — there are some builders in the city who have already taken that next step without a handout from the city.

If Waterloo City Council really cared about the property rights of individuals, they wouldn’t take millions of dollars in the form of property taxes in order to redistribute them to other property owners. Particularly, I see favouritism toward well-monied property owners, but it’s become so commonplace these days, even when it’s as blatant as taking money from the unemployed and underemployed for something as blatant as video game research, as I previously documented in my article, Canadian government calls for austerity, awards $5.8 million for video game research.

The last sentence of the paragraph I quoted shows that private developers can succeed in spite of regressive policies such as the one Waterloo City Council has floated.

Read Full Post »

Yellow orange cheese Some changes made for use...

“We are the 99 percent” is a false frame for several reasons, including that there is nothing inherently wrong with being in the top one percent of wealth holders.

This becomes obvious with the simple example of 100 individuals, ranging in assets from $1 to $100 each, incrementing by one dollar in each case, from person 1 to person 100.

It is also a false frame because there is no distinction between those in the top one percent who acquired their wealth legally and without special government privileges, and those who didn’t.

It also doesn’t distinguish between those in the 99 percent who acquired their wealth legally and without special government privileges, and those who didn’t.

There is no consideration given to those in the one percent who give much in charity, whether publicly or privately, than those who give hardly any, or just enough to meet their social expectations.

For me, the valid frame is, “we are those who uphold each other’s rights.”

However, you won’t be hearing that frame anytime soon, and not because it’s not as catchy as the “we are the 99 percent,” but because it doesn’t serve the agenda of those who seek to divide us in order to conquer us.

Read Full Post »

P questionThe question you should ask any political candidate seeking your vote, in order to determine whether they’re qualified is:

“What is the purpose of government?”

17 years ago, I would’ve answered that question by saying it’s to maximize the greater good. However, that allows for harm to be done to some, though I had it in mind that it would be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Today, I answer that question a very different way, and won’t vote for a candidate who would answer it any other way than:

“To protect individual rights.”

If he/she is sincere in his response, you can feel more comfortable that when given power, he is less likely to infringe upon your individual rights with the justification that it is serving the greater good.

As a corollary, the only legitimate infringement upon an individual right is in the course of necessarily protecting other individual rights. An example is when your right to freedom of peaceful association is infringed upon (by detaining you) if you violate the individual rights of others.

A local example I have spoken out on is a Canadian federal agency’s award of $5.8 million for video game research at the University of Waterloo.

The justification has been given that it serves the greater good, but that is small comfort to the security guard I know who was laid off from his $25+ an hour manufacturing job in 2006 and is now only making $11 an hour, or to the person I know who was laid off from a company after they went bankrupt and still owe him over $2000 in pay for services rendered.

While I appreciate the same good intentions of those who justify government action in the interests of what they regard as the greater good, just as I used to, it is indeed a slippery slope, and can lead to a vicious tyranny of the majority, with 50%+1 subjugating the “minority.”

It is so commonplace these days for government to forcibly take the earnings of some in order to redistribute it for the overwhelming benefit of others, but what specifically led me to speak out on this redistribution is the outrageous nature of forcibly taking the hard-earned wages of people I know who can scarcely afford it in order to pay for something as comparatively inconsequential as video game research, which can easily be voluntarily funded solely by the lucrative private sector video game industry and individual private donations.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »