3 ms·

I find it hard to contrast this view with the view that healthcare is a human right. If you take both together it can lead to some nasty conclusions.

lostcolony 6y ago
Affordable -access- to healthcare should be a human right. No given doctor has to treat you (though there are a list of reasons a doctor can't refuse treatment), same as with every other profession. But inability to pay should not prevent you from seeking and finding treatment, and being treated should not mean bankruptcy.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  >But inability to pay should not preclude you from seeking treatment. That's the sticky bit if you think about it. Not all, but many women and men get into sex work due to lack of other options, with all that in context it would seem that there is a suggestion that you have a human right to sleep with disadvantaged women or men at government expense. If no disadvantaged people exist then I presume it would be the governments role to create them. This quickly descends into madness.
  - lostcolony 6y ago
    How disadvantaged are we talking about? Making ends meet, or being well off? Because I got into software engineering because it was the best paying option available to me that fit into my morals and ethics. I'd imagine that's also what got people into being doctors, social workers, etc. I'm not sure how sex work in this case is different. In fact, from the article, it sounds like it requires training; even if the government provided that to anyone, how is that different from any other governmental work program? How is it different from joining the armed forces? How would both be different if we also addressed poverty via a UBI or similar? You're looking at sex work as it is now, a socially unacceptable option open to nearly everyone as a last resort. This categorically changes it to be a form of social work; I don't think the same stigmas and contexts apply.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    If someone isn't forced into a job and they make the choice to do so, telling them they don't have the right to make that choice is arrogant and moralizing BS. MYOB.
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      >telling them they don't have the right to make that choice is arrogant and moralizing BS I never did this and was quite clear that some choose this willingly vs making the choice due to drug addiction or some other tragic reason. However, taking advantage of another persons drug addiction and getting them to sleep with you in exchange for more money to buy the drug is the same thing as taking advantage of someone's down syndrome in exchange for money to buy candy. It simply isn't something that someone who isn't a predator does.
- airhead969 6y ago
  Incidentally, I was refused treatment by a doctor for a no exam required condition because of their magical religious beliefs discriminating against gender.
cylon13 6y ago
This lays bare a fundamental issue with positive rights in general: having the right _to_ something boils down to having the right to force someone else to provide it for you. Compared to, for instance, the right to be safe from harm. Negative rights are easy to pin down, whereas positive rights, regardless of whether or not we should provide healthcare for everyone etc., are not a very solid concept and mean different things to everyone.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Doesn't the Declaration of Independence call out that governments are instituted to -secure- rights; specifically, 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? That sounds like a positive right to me, one very specifically saying governments are charged with upholding. And healthcare certainly seems like it falls under 'life', if not all three. I find this attempt to distinguish between positive and negative rights unhelpful semantic rhetoric. Every positive right can be rephrased into a negative right, and vice versa. The first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." equates to "You have the right to (speak, gather, etc) free from governmental censorship". "The right to be safe from harm" itself sounds like a positive right; certainly, without enforcement to ensure it, such a statement is a lie and the right de facto does not exist.
  - cylon13 6y ago
    I think the important distinction is that negative rights are defaults. You are already not being harmed unless someone harms you. Whether law enforcement exists or not, you can say someone harming you is violating your rights. With the right to healthcare, were all pre-modern humans constantly walking around having their rights violated? Healthcare requires a whole setup, so additionally it's hard to talk about what you even have the right to, concretely. I agree it's a semantic distinction, but I think it is helpful, because it separates rights in to the kinds that are fundamentally attached to human beings and the kinds that are basically strong preferences for the existence of different institutions.
    - lostcolony 6y ago

lostcolony 6y ago

Affordable -access- to healthcare should be a human right. No given doctor has to treat you (though there are a list of reasons a doctor can't refuse treatment), same as with every other profession. But inability to pay should not prevent you from seeking and finding treatment, and being treated should not mean bankruptcy.

willcipriano 6y ago
>But inability to pay should not preclude you from seeking treatment. That's the sticky bit if you think about it. Not all, but many women and men get into sex work due to lack of other options, with all that in context it would seem that there is a suggestion that you have a human right to sleep with disadvantaged women or men at government expense. If no disadvantaged people exist then I presume it would be the governments role to create them. This quickly descends into madness.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  How disadvantaged are we talking about? Making ends meet, or being well off? Because I got into software engineering because it was the best paying option available to me that fit into my morals and ethics. I'd imagine that's also what got people into being doctors, social workers, etc. I'm not sure how sex work in this case is different. In fact, from the article, it sounds like it requires training; even if the government provided that to anyone, how is that different from any other governmental work program? How is it different from joining the armed forces? How would both be different if we also addressed poverty via a UBI or similar? You're looking at sex work as it is now, a socially unacceptable option open to nearly everyone as a last resort. This categorically changes it to be a form of social work; I don't think the same stigmas and contexts apply.
- airhead969 6y ago
  If someone isn't forced into a job and they make the choice to do so, telling them they don't have the right to make that choice is arrogant and moralizing BS. MYOB.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    >telling them they don't have the right to make that choice is arrogant and moralizing BS I never did this and was quite clear that some choose this willingly vs making the choice due to drug addiction or some other tragic reason. However, taking advantage of another persons drug addiction and getting them to sleep with you in exchange for more money to buy the drug is the same thing as taking advantage of someone's down syndrome in exchange for money to buy candy. It simply isn't something that someone who isn't a predator does.
airhead969 6y ago
Incidentally, I was refused treatment by a doctor for a no exam required condition because of their magical religious beliefs discriminating against gender.

cylon13 6y ago

This lays bare a fundamental issue with positive rights in general: having the right _to_ something boils down to having the right to force someone else to provide it for you. Compared to, for instance, the right to be safe from harm. Negative rights are easy to pin down, whereas positive rights, regardless of whether or not we should provide healthcare for everyone etc., are not a very solid concept and mean different things to everyone.

lostcolony 6y ago
Doesn't the Declaration of Independence call out that governments are instituted to -secure- rights; specifically, 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? That sounds like a positive right to me, one very specifically saying governments are charged with upholding. And healthcare certainly seems like it falls under 'life', if not all three. I find this attempt to distinguish between positive and negative rights unhelpful semantic rhetoric. Every positive right can be rephrased into a negative right, and vice versa. The first amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." equates to "You have the right to (speak, gather, etc) free from governmental censorship". "The right to be safe from harm" itself sounds like a positive right; certainly, without enforcement to ensure it, such a statement is a lie and the right de facto does not exist.
- cylon13 6y ago
  I think the important distinction is that negative rights are defaults. You are already not being harmed unless someone harms you. Whether law enforcement exists or not, you can say someone harming you is violating your rights. With the right to healthcare, were all pre-modern humans constantly walking around having their rights violated? Healthcare requires a whole setup, so additionally it's hard to talk about what you even have the right to, concretely. I agree it's a semantic distinction, but I think it is helpful, because it separates rights in to the kinds that are fundamentally attached to human beings and the kinds that are basically strong preferences for the existence of different institutions.
  - lostcolony 6y ago