View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #41
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    He makes perfect sense. Just because you have the RIGHT to something doesn't mean it is OWED to you. Your rights and Freedoms, that you are GIVEN by those who fight for your freedom, and who have fought for it, is not even owed to you. You have the right to healthcare, and no one is turned down if they are sick. The country would be a lot better off if we were all a little more responsible AND we realized that "Life isn't Fair" and "**** happens" When you try to force equality or fairness, you run into far more problems than if you just try to give everyone a fair chance. That's why Modern Liberalism is a bunch of whiners. They can't quite move past that part in their life where Mommy and Daddy took care of everything for them and they think they are owed all kinds of crap simply for existing.
    Oh I didn't say he was not being consistent, but that's quite different from invalidating alternative philosophies. Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing? Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity? One place where libertarians seem a little naive is where they assume equality of opportunity is maximized in a laissez-faire context. It quite clearly isn't. And I think the two main moral problems with the philosophy of libertarianism is that, sure, the parents do have a responsibility to their children to provide for their education and healthcare, but the kid is the one who will have to deal with the consequences, and it is not the kid's fault. So by not ensuring a kid's schooling and healthcare, they are not being treated as justly as they could be. This leads directly into a utilitarian critique, in which case it is unpragmatic to allow a Darwinian economy to persist due to the connection between crime and poverty, and the lower amount of harm induced by progressive taxation. The existence of positive rights would not mean we could not align incentives to encourage more productive behavior - quite the contrary.

  2. #42
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Oh I didn't say he was not being consistent, but that's quite different from invalidating alternative philosophies. Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing? Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity?
    Non-sequitur.
    Respect and opportunity are different than health care in that there is no real cost to provide them. Health care has a real cost, and must be paid for with the fruit of someone's labor.

    Whatever 'need' you might have, there is no sound argument that you have a right to have that 'need' fulfulled by someone else -- you simply arent so important that your need for (x) takes precedence over someone else's right to property.

    And, as for the "need" for health care:
    Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-04-09 at 03:40 PM.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Why shouldn't people be owed things simply for existing?
    You're not serious are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Are they not owed respect and a chance for equal opportunity?
    There's plenty of opportunity out there, and respect is a two way street, you have to give first to get it in return. but neither respect nor opportunity are 'rights' they are things you earn, work hard for, or are lucky enough to stumble upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    One place where libertarians
    My profile says libertarian because it's the closest thing on the list, just thought I'd clarify I'm not really a libertarian. I'd say I'm more of a Minarchist or something along those lines with lots of tangent philosphies thrown in. Ok, now where were we...

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    seem a little naive is where they assume equality of opportunity is maximized in a laissez-faire context. It quite clearly isn't.
    true, but trying to force fairness doesn't do it either. And at the same time it puts a strain on the government, which by the way translates to the rest of us pay for it. We need a happy medium.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    And I think the two main moral problems with the philosophy of libertarianism is that, sure, the parents do have a responsibility to their children to provide for their education and healthcare, but the kid is the one who will have to deal with the consequences, and it is not the kid's fault. So by not ensuring a kid's schooling and healthcare, they are not being treated as justly as they could be. This leads directly into a utilitarian critique, in which case it is unpragmatic to allow a Darwinian economy to persist due to the connection between crime and poverty, and the lower amount of harm induced by progressive taxation. The existence of positive rights would not mean we could not align incentives to encourage more productive behavior - quite the contrary.
    wat?

  4. #44
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    true, but trying to force fairness doesn't do it either.
    And this is the crux of the biscuit:
    Its not the government's job to (try to) establish some degree of 'fairness' in economic stature.

    You have the right to pursue happiness; you have no right to have others provide to you the means to catch it.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,769

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I agree with everything else, however, there are some very limited instances where I think that enforcing someone else's right is all of our business, to explain, if someone is being threatened by physical threats or intimidation in my presence, it is my business to enforce their right to life and liberty if I can reasonably stop the threat and it is imminent, as is all of our responsibility, however, this is such a limited scope that it rarely applies and many of us will hopefully never be in such a position. IOW, if someone is being denied an actual right, we protect not only them, but ourselves by backing those rights up.
    Presumably, that's not a person rejecting their right. What you're talking about is someone who does not want to be intimidated, they just have no way to stop it. If someone wanted, for example, to be threated by physical threats or intimidation, they ought to be able to do so. You have no right to stop them from exercising their right or rejecting their right.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #46
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,769

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You can't remove rights.
    Sure you can. Commit a crime, you lose your right to freedom. Commit a serious enough crime and you lose your right to vote and own firearms. Rights are revocable by the society which granted them in the first place.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #47
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,769

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And thus, my argument.
    You have the same right to health care as you do to a gun, a car, a TV and a house.
    ie. none whatsoever.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #48
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Non-sequitur.
    Respect and opportunity are different than health care in that there is no real cost to provide them. Health care has a real cost, and must be paid for with the fruit of someone's labor.
    Healthcare is meant to reduce morbidity/mortality, and some lack of morbidity is needed in order to enjoy any rights at all. So it falls under the equality of opportunity umbrella, and is not non sequitur at all. Education also costs something, but is required for equality of opportunity. Even right to counsel and police protection require the fruits of somebody's labor, but is required to protect rights.

    Whatever 'need' you might have, there is no sound argument that you have a right to have that 'need' fulfulled by someone else -- you simply arent so important that your need for (x) takes precedence over someone else's right to property.
    And in what way is that self-evident? One could just as easily say that needs always take precedence over property on utilitarian grounds. I guess you're stating a position moreso than an argument.

    And, as for the "need" for health care:
    Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.
    lol, a luxury. If something needed to preserve life isn't a need, I'm not sure what isn't a luxury. Pretty much everything is a luxury by your standard.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Um no. Clearly he simply does not believe in positive rights. I already acknowledged that you do not believe in positive rights as you're libertarians. Here's a primer for you guys:

    Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Don't need it.

    Rights that have to be paid for by someone else are not rights at all, but politically motivated entitlements, and as such should be opposed by all freedom loving people everywhere.

    Calling it a "positive right" to hide it's true nature is merely deceitful and typical of the leftist mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Well I wish this were so with car insurance. I would rather not buy liability insurance.
    You're under no obligation to purchase car insurance.

    You're required to purchase insurance only if you exercise your privelege of owning a car that you intend to drive upon the public roads.

    That's the responsibility you choose to accept when you choose to buy the car.

    If you do not wish to buy insurance, do not buy a car.

    It's that simple.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-04-09 at 04:44 PM.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    And in what way is that self-evident?
    Perfectly.

    You didn't work for the property, you have no claim against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    One could just as easily say that needs always take precedence over property on utilitarian grounds. I guess you're stating a position moreso than an argument.
    One could say lots of things. Since the premise utilitarianism is that stealing is okay if you can concoct a really cool sounding argument for it using octo-syllabic words, then it's patently false, because stealing isn't acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    lol, a luxury. If something needed to preserve life isn't a need, I'm not sure what isn't a luxury. Pretty much everything is a luxury by your standard.
    You must be talking about something I need to preserve my life. Those aren't luxuries, and I provide them. If you're talking about something someone else needs to preserve their life, well, hell, I never signed up to be their father, so they can go begging elsewhere for their luxuries.

Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •