No, it’s not a yes, lol. You have a “right” to someones services because they agreed to it! That is a simple concept. You do not have a right to their services because you claim a right to health care.
It negates no statement I’ve made. In case it wasn’t obvious to you, we’re talking about intrinsic, natural rights. You have no intrinsic right to the fruits of my labor, unless I hand that over to you of my own free will. It’s not complicated!
In case it wasn’t obvious to you, we’re talking about intrinsic, natural rights.
You didn’t limit your statements to “intrinsic, natural rights” in either Post 9 or Post 20, so I had no reason or obligation to limit my response to that. That you find it necessary to make the distinction of “intrinsic, natural” rights indicates that there are other kinds of rights. Note that Webster’s 1828 Dictionary states: “Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.” I would say legal rights and contract rights are included.
And you did write “There’s not enough discussion of what rights really are…”. I don’t see how we can discuss that without discussing the various kinds of rights.
You have a “right” to someones services because they agreed to it! That is a simple concept.
Putting quotes around the word “right” as you did implies it’s not really a right, but it may well be a right. It’s not an intrinsic or a natural right, but it may be some other kind of right.
You do not have a right to their services because you claim a right to health care.
You might have some type of right, if your claim is a just claim.
It negates no statement I’ve made.
I’ll stand by my previous statement in regard to your previous statement.
By the way, does a newborn baby have any sort of right to care (provision of sustenance, health care, etc.) from the parents, or can the parents claim the newborn has no right of any kind to anything from them?
And now, to your Post 41, after a bit.