[Oe List ...] Fw: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
Dave Thomas
davthom at att.net
Mon Aug 31 11:40:12 CDT 2009
I disagree that there are no well defined Liberal and Conservative
positions. Since before our American revolution, Liberals have been defined
as those who believe that
* All people should have the same freedoms and opportunities,
* Each of us has the responsibility to protect these freedoms and
opportunities for all of us,
* We individuals and our public and private organizations should be
competent (taking care of ourselves the best we can so as to not be a burden
on others) and compassionate (assisting those who have fewer freedoms and
opportunities than the rest of us, and
* Our government should be a cooperative member of our community of
nations.
Conservatives may give lip service to these values, but they intolerantly
restrict the freedoms and opportunities they would offer people different
from themselves, often valuing the freedom of businesses more than the
freedom of individuals. Our American history is in large part a series of
struggles between Liberals and Conservatives who supported British
colonialism, slave holding, restrictions on women and African Americans, and
more recently gays and lesbians and immigrants. Dave Thomas
_____
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of ed feldmanis
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Fw: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
Janice,
I really like your thoughtful ideas. I think they add a lot to the
discussion.
We have been told the the way life is is that we are either dominated by the
government or we are free and that there is no in between. Today there are
no or very few in the political arena that rise above the battles and ask
the question of "What is smart governance."
One approach was Kennedy's. Ted Kennedy died. He did a lot of good and
helped a lot of people. He was called a liberal. This is a kind of fiction.
There really is no hard and nailed down position called Liberal or
Conservative. These are ideas and as such they are also dynamics. It is
impossible to be Liberal without being Conservative and vice-versa. One
needs the other.
In our time the discussion is not really about philosophy but about who will
control things. In the far past, when people and the government thought that
they could not have health insurance over the great expanse of this country
private concerns sprang up as not for profit organizations to provide health
insurance. They were expensive but worked somehow and left people out.
They more or less substituted for government. Remember we also had
insurance companies called "Mutuals". What was blocking everything in terms
of national action was the idea that we could not do much because the
country was so big. Then there was something called States Rights and that
idea finally collapsed but more so than for any other reason this idea lost
out because of corruption in state governments.
Here is a historic example. There was a time in this country when people
believed we could not get past 1) the physical barriers in this country and
2) the Constitution to create the Interstate Highway system. Many thought
Ike's proposal was breaking the law and creating socialism. Ike had to say
it was for national defense. Today the country would be strangled without
the interstates.
We seem to have a situation today where companies think they are government,
at least defacto government. They have rights and they are as corporations
"citizens" in the law. Companies are not, of course, governments. And in
the current debate, economists tell us that the contribution of health care
companies in added value to health care and outcomes is zero. The companies
add nothing of substantial value and take huge salaries and deny many
benefits.
As far as rights go the Constitution does say the government will provide
for the general welfare. The original Bill of Rights was in and of itself
was a big question mark. A right is created or solidified when it is an
idea whose time has come. Then nothing can stand against that idea. For
the Bill of Rights it was a struggle and was accepted with time. We may be
in the process of creating rights.
Ed
2009/8/30 Janice Ulangca <aulangca at stny.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Janice <mailto:aulangca at stny.rr.com> Ulangca
To: Colleague Dialogue <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
What do we mean by a "right" - excellent question, Susan. Your comments
raise the question of taking personal responsibility rather than having
everything handed to us. And from Jim W., what are basic human needs, and
who is the guarantor? We might more easily agree about the basic human
needs rather than the question of "guaranteeing" their fulfillment.
What about the role of government? Some of us may see government as an
important part of the answer to fulfilling basic human needs. Others may
see government as "big brother" ready to control every aspect of life -
encouraging us to give up liberty so that we can be personally lazy. If the
government has a role, does it mean that everyone sits back and waits for
things to be delivered to their doors? Does this mean a government employee
forcing everyone to have a yearly physical? No to both questions.
I propose that "access" to being able to fulfill basic human needs is a key
criterion, combined with maximum personal effort. These are times when huge
systems of various kinds limit people's access - to food, to living without
the terrors of war in their neighborhoods, to basic education, to finding
at least minimal employment, to basic shelter, and to basic health care.
Unless we begin to understand the systems and their effects on individuals,
we cannot deal with the contradictions individuals face. Governments can
surely provide unhelpful systems as well as being helpful. Corporations are
generally more nimble and clever than governments, and their systemic
effects on everything from the food supply, medications, employment, to
making the case for war, are huge now, both for better and for worse.
How do we ensure access so that every person is able through their efforts
to meet the basic needs of themselves and their families? In our small city
in the richest nation in the world the churches that work with feeding the
hungry (increasingly families with children and 2 full-time low wage
workers) are finding themselves close to being swamped with new folks,
breaking records each quarter recently. Those who help them say these are
not lazy people. Is it important to have individual charity? O yes. Is
it important to have a safety net such as food stamps available for everyone
who needs it? Yes again. Those in my community who are most involved with
the charity of the free health clinic or the food pantries are very glad for
government involvement in providing basic programs for folks in need. All
systems need critiquing and participation towards improvement - and this is
part of what we need to do as citizens, as Those Who Care.
This means more than just making existing systems work more efficiently. It
means asking questions about whether and how these systems need to be
changed.
Our present health care system is so broken in so many ways! Do we need
compatible electronic systems for health records? Do we need to standardize
and simplify health care billing? Do we need to look at the effect of
lawsuit settlements on the cost of health care (tort reform)? Do we need
to look at duplication of expensive diagnostic machines in the same city?
Do we need to change incentives in the way that primary care physicians are
paid? Do we need to be able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical
companies? Do we need to change incentives so that health insurance
companies are not most "successful" - profitable - when they deny the most
care? Do we need to look at providing incentives for preventive care? Do
we need to look at hospital services in a given area - are there too many
beds? Are emergency rooms swamped? As the healthcare provider of last
resort, hospitals have to find a way to pay for serving the uninsured - is
there a better way? What is the effect on businesses - especially small
businesses- of the cost of health care? How do we stimulate cost-saving,
innovative competition in health insurance?
These are some of the questions being discussed. Lobbyists are working
full-time to strategize the best deal for their clients. We may not have the
money they do, but we can make a difference.
Janice Ulangca
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan <mailto:susan at gmdtech.com> Fertig
To: 'Order <mailto:oe at wedgeblade.net> Ecumenical Community'
Cc: 'Colleague Dialogue' <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] Does the Big Sort give any clues?
Perhaps I should explain that I do want everyone to eat, absolutely. I've
spent much of my life working on that. Is it a right? No. I think we need
to define what me mean by a "right" and whether it is government that
fulfills all needs.
Susan
Susan Fertig-Dykes
tel: (703) 751-5956
_____
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of James Wiegel
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:22 AM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Cc: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: [Oe List ...] Does the Big Sort give any clues?
I found myself struggling with this in early July, near Jerusalem, in
working with a pilot for bringing together the sides in the Israeli -
Palestinian conflict. With people in violent conflict, it is not clear that
there is anything "in common" on which to base decisions for the future. It
was pointed out that using "rights" language puts people into the position
of being ready to fight for what they see as justice, whereas using the
language of basic human needs puts people in more of a place to inquire what
is possible.
Even so, what are these basic human needs and who is the guarantor? Even in
the constitution they were stated as "self evident"
Maybe there is something deeper going on in this shrill American debate? I
wonder if anyone who has been studying The Big Sort might have a thought?
Jim
Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun. G. K. Chesterton
Jim Wiegel
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
+1 623-936-8671 +1 623-363-3277
jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com> wrote:
From: Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 11:35 AM
No.
Susan Fertig-Dykes
tel: (703) 751-5956
_____
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of A.M. Noel
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:26 PM
To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
Yes
_____
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Susan Fertig
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:16 AM
To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Bill Alerding
Do we have a right to eat?
Susan Fertig-Dykes
tel: (703) 751-5956
_____
_____
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_____
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090831/6d13a3d0/attachment.html>
More information about the OE
mailing list