To say that rights as you understand them are objective is simply a statement of your own political/moral philosophy. If you say the right to inalienable private property is objective, I could just as easily say the right to health care and education is objective. Each position would be supported by our respective ethico-political arguments.

Your argument that all moral systems but your own are relative is just a statement of your own personal opinion. If you can say your morality is objective, then of course others can say the same.

The only way to overcome the impasse of the relativism of personal moral vales is through deliberative democracy, the process of discussion and debate in civil society and political institutions through which a particular notion of the common good becomes enshrined in law.

C.f. Rawls, Habermas, Ricoeur et al

but some "rights" are more valid than others in this country, as the bill of rights includes them. if the right to healthcare gets included in an extra amendment, id agree its equally as valid as the rest. but until then, despite people personal differences, some rights are law, some are opinion.

@ ProxyCheater "The poor will not be better off, their quality of life will go down. Their health care will not improve, it will be worse."

This hypothesis is disproved by empirical fact. Uninsured people in the US are definitely worse off in terms of health than the poor in countries with universal health care. I understand your point that paternalistic coddling by the state can remove incentive for people to take steps to improve their own situations; but with out access to affordable and high quality food, housing, health care and education, do poor families really have any chance of rising out of poverty?

The constitution does not guarantee a universal right to health care but it certainly does not preclude it; universal health care could be instituted by Congress through ordinary legislative action. This is the case in most if not all countries with universal health care. See, for example, the Canada Health Act.

@monte: The constitution may not provide for a right to health care but it certainly does not preclude it; universal health care could be instituted by Congress through ordinary legislative means. This is the case in most if not all countries with universal health care. See, for example, the Canada Health Act.

The constitution is a document that states exactly what the federal government is allowed to do; so whatever isn't mentioned is unconstitutional. So not including it means it is unconstitutional. Which is why ObamaCare was just recently rules unconstitutional by the appeals court.

Second; you are completely wrong about rights. Let's make things easier by creating an example with reduced variables. Let's say you live in a 10 person society with one doctor. Is this doctor, in your opinion, obligated to provide you with health care? If he doesn't is this a violation of your rights?

Btw your statement, "The constitution may not provide for a right to health care but it certainly does not preclude it", would make any historian or social studies teacher cringe. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the constitution. Just read the damn introduction and your statement is proven false.

This will help your search

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

Such a title-worthy post for me to get...

100!!!