NO, HEALTHCARE ISN'T A "RIGHT" (just something a first world country should provide)

Neither side frames it's argument well in this debate. No, healthcare shouldn't be an enshrined right as Sen. Sanders claims. When legislating positive rights (ie. rights which demand an action or service of others) great care must be taken, as positive rights often inherently infringe upon the rights of others. This is why the US Bill Of Rights is written almost expressly as a charter of negative rights.

But, Sen. Paul does not do his argument any service by invoking slavery. Besides from being uncouth, it is not a particularly good comparison, given the amount doctors are paid (to mention but one obvious example of many issues). But as a student of and self-appointed protector of the constitution, he has a greater understanding of positive and negative rights, and their relevant impacts upon a society, than most.

Here's the thing though: Not every thing you want your country to do has to be mandated as a "right". Rights should be reserved for the bare necessities required to keep the country going and, as I've stated before, largely negative rights.

That said, there are some things that should be a prerequisite for a first world country, and one of those things is basic health care. Public healthcare doesn't need to be shoehorned into the constitution to be considered something a government should provide. But as one of the richest countries in the world the US, like all the others, should find the money to make sure that if you unexpectedly fall ill, it doesn't result in bankruptcy. That's just basic compassion.

PATRIARCHY

patriachy

ˈpeɪtrɪɑːki/    noun

1. Social organisation marked by the supremacy of the father in the family or society.

2. The systematic subjugation of women and minorities for the sole benefit of (usually white) males, via the implementation and flawless execution of a conspiracy of such sheer scope and complexity that to allege cooperation with it's existence could only be reasonably seen as a compliment.

ARE THERE LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH?

"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

- Noam Chomsky

To legislate against "hate speech" is not just a violation against the principles of free speech, it is a full step beyond legislating against thought crime. To criminalise my thoughts or opinions would be egregious enough, but hate speech legislation actually skips that step and jumps straight to punishing me for the thoughts of others.

What I say doesn't actually have to be hateful, violent, or discriminatory, it just has to be interpreted as such by others. Worse still, in Australia, the act of expression in question needs to merely upset the intellectually low hanging fruit by being "offensive".

But at what point do words go from being merely unpleasant to hateful? And what exactly constitutes "inciting violence"?

Is it enough for me to merely insinuate that I wouldn't be particularly upset if harm were to come your way, or do I have to give someone specific instructions on how to cause you harm? At what point does a statement stop being mere words passing my lips and become the act of violence which inflicted injury upon you? Put simply, when do words become actions?

Three options:

1. In my head
2. In the head of the third party, or
3. They don't

If it's #1 then we're legislating thought crime. If it's #2, then surely I cannot be reasonably held accountable for the independent decisions of another person. And if it's #3, then we are attempting to outlaw the supernatural, criminalising that which does not exist.