This guy…I think I only barely grasp what he’s saying 1 of 10 sentences. I think I get this one, vaguely.
“Freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another; and in so far as it can coexist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original, inborn right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity.” Kant – The Science of Right – 1790
What exactly does that mean? I am free when I am not controlled by someone else’s will, but my will has to respect the will of others? I cannot say I am free to stab my neighbor because it is my will because it would violate the will of my neighbor. I can think of an recent example that violates that idea, people call it the “right to health care”. This is one of those things that people really need to sit down and think out logically, maybe make a list of definitions. What is a “right”? What is “health care”? I can have a right to health care, but I don’t have a right to making someone else pay for it regardless of how much I need it. Do we all have the right to health care? Yes. There is no law that says who can have it and who cannot. But health care has a physical cost. There are things that need to be paid for; time, doctors, equipment, supplies, etc. I do not have the right to those things because they belong to someone else. I must offer some sort of trade. To say that I do have a right to those things is to say that the person that owns them does not have a right to them. It’s contradictory and cannot be upheld. To use another Kant moral statement, if I can’t make it so for everyone, I can’t make it so for anyone. “I need it to live.” is not a legitimate argument to violate someone else’s right to his person or property.