More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

[SmoothCriminal]

richardhutnik said:

SmoothCriminal said:

The existence of nationwide healthcare is already a violation of individual rights. Specifically, your right to the fruits of your labor (usually money) and the right to spend that money how you see fit. When you're forced through taxation or theft (but I repeat myself) to pay for someone else's healthcare, that's a violation of your property rights. Focusing on the issue of contraception is really missing the forest for the trees. There are no rights being pitted against each other, only two separate sets of rights being violated.


Also: What a way to come back to this site after almost a year. I really should learn to avoid controversial topics...

If you are saying that rights are being pitted against each other, just both being violated, then explaing what you see these rights being violated are, and the optimal solution that causes neither to be violated.

The issue here is the issue regarding birth control.  That is what was discussed, and a focus around the Romney ad.  There ARE other situations which end up pitting rights against each other.   I could go and track those down, if you would want.  Or, you can argue that rights are NEVER pitted against one another at any time, which would be an interesting argument to read.

The right's being violated are both property rights. The taxpayer has the right to decide whether or not he wants his money to go to the healthcare of others. Government-run healthcare violates this right. The Catholic Church has the right to decide where they want their money to go, and forcing them to provide contraception is a violation of that right.

The optimal solution is that the government steps out and let's people retain their property.

I would argue that rights are never pitted against each other, though to make an argument for that I'd first have to see an argument to the contrary.