Natural right philosophers describe the three natural rights as "life","liberty" and "property".
As a libertarian; if I put forth that we have the "right" to these what am I saying?
Am I saying that others are required to protect my life, liberty and property? Or that others are required to give me life, liberty and property?
No
I'm saying I have the right to have and protect my own life, liberty and property and others have their right to do the same.
SO what is functionally different between these and a "right" to health care?
Well actually nothing..
That's the problem.. Conversations break down because the "natural rights" are framed differently than all other rights.
Because unless you change the terminology, you do have a right to health care as long as you don't initiate aggression, fraud or theft.
A "right" to health care should be seen and expressed in the same way as the other rights.
Just as you can't ethically say that people are required to give you property because you have a right to property; the same goes for health care no one is required to give you health care.
Thoughts? Counter points?