Well Phaedros. But it is still not a right, it is charity.
As I said before. if anyone had proposed that freedom of speech would be execised as "CHARITY" all of you would say that that was totalitarian. To beg for the right for free speech and PERHAPS get the right...
In the case of disabled peopla you belive that the only way they can excersise their right to LIFE is via charity... But that is not regarded as totalitarian.
No. If this is libertarianism, well then I have to redefine libertarianism myself.
I feel disgusted, once again... As almost every time I speak to fellow libertarians.... Anyone that wishes to contact me can do so via my blogg http://ligator.wordpress.com
I will leave this quasi-freedom discussion.
/T
You are incorrect. Libertarians do not regard freedom of speech as some universal right. It is for that reason that you cannot shout "Fire!" in my theatre.
Sorry, but your philosophy is incoherent. Do you have a right to candy? Or a sofa? Or a TV?
Of course, you have the right to speak just as you have the right to walk and eat. However, in a private institution there may be rules set down by the owner. You can still say what you want, but you can't expect the owner of that place to like it if it is offensive to him or her.
Jerlerup, I'd recommend watching this:
http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/
Now answer this: Is it better for people to voluntarily cooperate torwards the well being of their fellow man by their own volition? (charity, loans, etc, etc) or is it better to aggress against peaceful people in order to steal from them to compensate a victim of nature whose natural condition they are somehow "obligated" to change? (this is what you are calling having a "right")
Also I'd recommend reading the first chapter of this:
http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf
If you had been born blind instead of deaf would you have the "right" to cut out another person's cornea to have it transplanted into your eye so you can see?
I think your first mistake is assuming that because some people are born different or "disabled" that they need to be made the same as everyone else in order to have their own full spectrum negative rights.
Let's say someone is born deaf, blind, with no legs and no arms. Do they have a "right" to legs and arms and a cure to their deafness and blindness? No. Why? Because the resources needed to attain those ends are SCARCE, i.e. it takes someone's labor to acquire and administer them.