Art requires no labor. Artists of all kinds would produce just as much art, of the same quality, even if no one paid them a penny for their "efforts."
Followers of the Austrian School like Rand Paul's sources for some of his notions don't believe that it is feasible or even possible to do meaningful research in economics, so they don't do any. Instead they base their theories on pure logic but fill in the details with concepts like "natural rights" whose existence they never substantiate (because they aren't empiricists), so these concepts when used by the Austrians are nothing more than rhetorical constructs. Yet they regard them as very real and consequential. Over the last century and a half they have built up a whole theory of economics based on such chimera.
Health and well-being is a widely acknowledged universal human right. Here in the US, even our Declaration of Independence lists it explicitly. (It is encompassed by the "life" part in Jefferson's famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.") Health isn't a static thing of course; it has to be maintained and maximized via the pursuit of certain resources. So, fully expanded the right is "health, maintained and fostered as needed."
Solitary individuals cannot avail themselves of this right entirely through their isolated efforts while eschewing any assistance from their fellows. This is because humans evolved as social creatures, meaning essentially that they must rely to some extent on other humans in order to prosper (survival via inclusion in a group, community, society, etc.); few if any can survive totally isolated and on their own over the long run. Simply put, accessing our basic right to health includes receiving assistance from others from time to time. Which means having access to health care. "Life" (Health) is a right, but that right is rendered empty and meaningless if it does not include access to health care.
Followers of the Austrian School like Sen. Paul depart from reality when they create constructs like "natural rights" that are divorced from any human social context. By dismissing the tools of research with breezy hand waving they fail to square up the tenets of their theories with empirically-verified reality. Consequently they end up making absurd statements like those made by Paul in the foreword to Napolitano's book.
National Security is not a right? So what exactly is the purpose of that whole "secure the blessings of liberty" bit that the Founders were yammering on about?
(Of course, having actually attempted a Great Court Run in the days before serious injury made Trinity College decide that maybe it was better to run the race in daytime with sober students than at midnight after getting them shitfaced off selections from their £1.7 million wine cellar, I may be a little more aware than most about where the movie was set)
What the Founders were trying to say was "secure the blessings of liberty at the going market rate, if funds permit," only they were not terribly articulate fellows, so they bungled it.
Rand, Rand, Rand, have you been reading Hayek upside down in the mirror again? I know Hobbes argues that it makes the stuff sound more plausible, but dude, you should know better than to trust anything you read in Hobbes.
Then third place would be a lot of quality time with Jodi Ernst...
Art requires no labor. Artists of all kinds would produce just as much art, of the same quality, even if no one paid them a penny for their "efforts."
Followers of the Austrian School like Rand Paul's sources for some of his notions don't believe that it is feasible or even possible to do meaningful research in economics, so they don't do any. Instead they base their theories on pure logic but fill in the details with concepts like "natural rights" whose existence they never substantiate (because they aren't empiricists), so these concepts when used by the Austrians are nothing more than rhetorical constructs. Yet they regard them as very real and consequential. Over the last century and a half they have built up a whole theory of economics based on such chimera.
Health and well-being is a widely acknowledged universal human right. Here in the US, even our Declaration of Independence lists it explicitly. (It is encompassed by the "life" part in Jefferson's famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.") Health isn't a static thing of course; it has to be maintained and maximized via the pursuit of certain resources. So, fully expanded the right is "health, maintained and fostered as needed."
Solitary individuals cannot avail themselves of this right entirely through their isolated efforts while eschewing any assistance from their fellows. This is because humans evolved as social creatures, meaning essentially that they must rely to some extent on other humans in order to prosper (survival via inclusion in a group, community, society, etc.); few if any can survive totally isolated and on their own over the long run. Simply put, accessing our basic right to health includes receiving assistance from others from time to time. Which means having access to health care. "Life" (Health) is a right, but that right is rendered empty and meaningless if it does not include access to health care.
Followers of the Austrian School like Sen. Paul depart from reality when they create constructs like "natural rights" that are divorced from any human social context. By dismissing the tools of research with breezy hand waving they fail to square up the tenets of their theories with empirically-verified reality. Consequently they end up making absurd statements like those made by Paul in the foreword to Napolitano's book.
Two Louie Gohmerts?
National Security is not a right? So what exactly is the purpose of that whole "secure the blessings of liberty" bit that the Founders were yammering on about?
Rand owed it to Napolitano as a fellow member of the Wacky Hair Club For Men, Napolitano as the leader of the Advancing Hairline Division.
He's not saying that the workers should control the means of production, is he?
I know right, talk about Idiocracy!
(Of course, having actually attempted a Great Court Run in the days before serious injury made Trinity College decide that maybe it was better to run the race in daytime with sober students than at midnight after getting them shitfaced off selections from their £1.7 million wine cellar, I may be a little more aware than most about where the movie was set)
What the Founders were trying to say was "secure the blessings of liberty at the going market rate, if funds permit," only they were not terribly articulate fellows, so they bungled it.
In 1.5 years, when the nomination season begins.
Rand, Rand, Rand, have you been reading Hayek upside down in the mirror again? I know Hobbes argues that it makes the stuff sound more plausible, but dude, you should know better than to trust anything you read in Hobbes.
Or Calvin, for that matter.
Is freedom from libertardian claptrap a right, or a good?