The Glade 4.0

These are not "i" words. Please revise and resubmit.

irroneous

Indigent

_________________

Ignominious!

Inconceivable!

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Irony

_________________

What burden does "X" put on "Y" for "X" to exercise free speech? None.

What burden does "X" put on "Y" in order for "X" to have a free press? None.

What burden does "X" put on "Y" in order for "X" to own a gun? None.

I would argue that those (and others like them) are actual rights.

That is not the case with health care as a right, because "X" may be burdened with providing that "right" to "Y". (someone certainly is) Whether through increased taxation, or doctors forced to treat, or whatever. Health care, I would argue, is an artificial right. Although I do not see it as a right at all.

The whole "health car is a right" thing is ridiculous, but suggesting that it is so because it forces doctors to provide services is just as ridiculous.

We have several "services" enshrined in law and in the constitution. Any service you are guaranteed by law or the constitution that requires labor would be "serfdom" or whatever you guys are suggesting. Health Care would be no different.

Those "services" aren't being framed as "rights", though.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I guess I don't see the relevance of what the level of burden something has with it being "actual" vs. "artificial". They are all at the end of the day ideas created by man about what some people think should be allowed or a "right".

That said, your list is shortsighted and incorrect.

During the recent Republican National Conference held here in MN, that right to free speech absolutely presented a burden on our law enforcement agencies. The same happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle a while back.

The recent "leak" of Afghanistan documents on wikileaks absolutely is causing a burden on our relations with Pakistan as well as our various governmental agencies involved with the efforts over there.

Owning firearms similarly places a burden on the various law enforcement agencies due to the necessity to protect and train those officers.

Healthcare is no different. It does place a burden on the rest of society, but the goal is that the resulting good that comes out of it is worth the burden. Much like the burden of a free press, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms (which I all support as an FYI) is worth it.

Which doesn't matter, practically speaking. If you spend your time on this objection, you'll end up with "fine, it's not a right - here's your universal health care service". Focus on why it's a bad idea as a service.

Why no matter how many times I post about the difference between a right and a privilege do some people never seem to get it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm pretty sure <almost> everyone understand this. What are you talking about? Also, why are you decrying the woes of educating the masses on a message board?

Because arguing semantics on the internet is the equivalent of masturbating with sandpaper? Its irritating to all parties and probably isn't going to get you anywhere but sore.

_________________

Funny because the last two pages are all about this difference.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Funny that after probably 300 pages (this iteration of the board only) on this board of rights versus priveleges no one seems to get that the other side isn't going to agree with them no matter how thoughtful, logical, eloquent or well-framed their argument.

_________________

Not really, they are about the fact that some people don't understand that "rights" are a construct.

Well, there's an exception to that. The right to an attorney.

That one, however, is indispensible to the protection of rights itself, so it's an anomoly, or an exception that proves the rule if you prefer.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No it isn't. It doesn't matter what they are. Construct or not, they don't have any power in and of themselves.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

^^^^ THIS

_________________

Well, ideally, the attorney is reimbursed for the time required to present the case. However, the compensation is usually drawn from a static pool of money, the rates are low, and here, if you are appointed to a case after the first couple of months, attempting to file for compensation is pointless, and keeping track of the time/expenses just adds additional overhead to your loses.

Plus, depending on the nature of the programs, and the reason for being in the system, there are contract attorneys that are given the cases, who voluntarily commit to the state government to provide "free" services for the term of the contract. I know several attorneys that have used those contracts ($35,000ish /yr) to start their own firm, since that essentially pays for the majority of their overhead (paralegal, etc) for a year. Anything they make on normal cases is income.

I would pose a question then. If rights are simply what are constructed by man, then we can conceivably take a man's life for any or no reason at all. By doing so, we have proven his right to life didn't exist. If his right to life did exist, said construct would have established ways to ensure this doesn't happen. We know this because we are defining rights as a construction of man, not any sort of transcendental concept. That he was murdered proved said right didn't exist.

Therefore, how can you say murder is a crime? It doesn't violate any right.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The problem with your question Rafael is that the debate revolves around whether or not the constitution defines rights as a component of government via the social contract, or it just enshrines naturally existing rights.

In the case of murder, the right to life is defined in the Constitution, so the answer to your question is unknowable in the US.

If that's your only argument, yes. However, in order to present your other arguments, so they'll have a chance of being listened to, you've got to take things one step at a time. First, you've got to disabuse people of the notion that healthcare is a right, otherwise, [they'll retort] whether it's a bad idea or not, we must do it because...it's a right.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The ability to do something, in this case speak, is not a right. It's simply an ability we possess. The "right" to speak is something we established through our government and protect collectively.



And I would argue that they are simply things human beings can do, assuming they are not otherwise prevented. In a state of nature, man has no rights. He simply has abilities. Those abilities go only so far as others choosing to not prevent them from taking place.

In a state of nature, for example, you have the ability to speak. That ability only goes as far as you are able to physically prevent people from stopping your speech violently.

In a society like ours, wherein your ability to speak is considered a right and is collectively protected, there are consequences for those who would seek to violently stop you from speaking. Such protection, and thus the right, does not exist absent government (collective protection).

Taxation is not force. It's the price you pay to have your rights. We all pay into the social contract, and we all benefit from it.

Ultimately, that might mean some reasonable limitations on liberty. You don't get to own a nuclear weapon. Doctors don't get to discriminate against patients based on race. Lunch counters don't get to be segregated. If you have a multi-floor building, you have to have an elevator. It's not legal to incite a riot, and it's not legal to conspire to commit a crime. These are all reasonable limitations we put on our "rights" in the name of other fundamental concepts in our society, including the public good.

In a state of nature, there are no rights. Rights do not exist until they are collectively established, and ultimately cannot exist without collective enforcement and protection. As such, our concept of what constitutes a right can evolve. For example, we now hold Voting as a fundamental right. We now hold that women are not in fact the property of their husbands, and have a right to pursue careers, get divorced, and prosecute husbands that rape them.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show