[Oe List ...] Fw: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?

Tue Sep 1 17:47:29 CDT 2009

Very helpful, David.  Now, is there someone who can give an equally helpful description of the "conservative" end?

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 Mon, 8/31/09, Dave Thomas <davthom at att.net> wrote:

From: Dave Thomas <davthom at att.net>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Fw: [Dialogue] What do we mean by a "right"?
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 9:40 AM

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
Ulangca  

To: Colleague Dialogue  

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
Fertig  

To: 'Order
Ecumenical Community'  

Cc: 'Colleague Dialogue'  

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 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20090901/1eec8df4/attachment-0001.html>