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 6 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 377

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

  1. #51
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    No, the government uses force to prohibit your exercise of your rights. The rights themselves have not been removed.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #52
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Cutting to the chase, yes, suicide should be legal.
    Not to put too fine a point on it..... just exactly what is the penalty for committing suicide?

  3. #53
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It is.

    If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.
    Health insurance isn't a right, it's an insurance policy.

  4. #54
    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
    Healthcare is meant to reduce morbidity/mortality, and some lack of morbidity is needed in order to enjoy any rights at all.
    "Some lack of morbidity" exists w/o health care, especially w/o health care as a positive right, as evidenced by the ample opportities that existed before the invetnion of said (supposed positive) right.

    So it falls under the equality of opportunity umbrella.
    No, it doesn't.
    "Equal opportunity" has to do with the government preventing people from discriminating against you based on your race, etc, when you're trying to exercise one of your rights.

    And even then, "equal opportinity" isn't in any way measured by "equal outcome", economic or otherwise.

    and is not non sequitur at all
    It is, and very much so, as demonstrated.

    Education also costs something, but is required for equality of opportunity.
    And...? Nothing, even under the positive rights model, necessitates that the only way to gain an education is for others to pay for it.

    Even right to counsel and police protection require the fruits of somebody's labor, but is required to protect rights.
    These are rights derived -entirely- from our governmental construct, and as such, the nature of these rights -require- that they be provided by that government. For instance, due peocess exists because we created a government to ensure that we receive it; as such, due process can only exist within that construct.

    Heath care? Entirely different story, and as such, your example doesnt apply.

    And in what way is that self-evident?
    I'm sorry -- did you have a sound argument that you have a right to have your 'need' fulfulled by someone else, or not? That your 'needs' take precedence over my right to my property, or not?

    See, I -earned- my property. If you do not know what I mean by "-I- earned it" when I speak of the right to property and how your 'need' does not take precedence over same, then I'm not sure how I can get it across.

    lol, a luxury
    Yes, for exactly the reasons I specified, reasons your response does not counter -- it is only a "need" if you can soundly argue that a certain standard of living is "necessary".
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-04-09 at 05:22 PM.

  5. #55
    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 Crunch View Post
    Health insurance isn't a right, it's an insurance policy.
    You have a right to buy health insurance, just as you have the right to buy a car, in that both are an example of a freedom that you can exercise under the premise that you have the right to property, and, by extension, the right to use that property to acquire goods and services.

  6. #56
    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 Crunch View Post
    Not to put too fine a point on it..... just exactly what is the penalty for committing suicide?
    In some states suicide might still be a capital offense (I'm pretty sure it stems from the biblical essence of suicide being the unforgivable sin or some jazz, I could very well be wrong on all counts).

    Well, Why is that so you ask? well, perhaps because attempted crimes carry the same punishments as if the crime had been committed. So...IF you try to kill yourself, don't mess up...or they'll kill you a bit slower than you had anticipated. Maybe the fact that you'd sit on death row for a few years would deter you from attempting in the first place? lol.

  7. #57
    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 Ikari View Post
    No, the government uses force to prohibit your exercise of your rights. The rights themselves have not been removed.
    Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.

  8. #58
    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 Crunch View Post
    Not to put too fine a point on it..... just exactly what is the penalty for committing suicide?
    Failing to do it properly can result in getting tortured by a flock of state-paid psychotherapists.

    More importantly, people who assist suicides are subject to serious criminal charges.

    The only issue I have with legalized suicide is that many travelers are merely suffering from depression, a treatable medical condition, or other disorders that can be treated in one form or another. So a legal suicide option that entails medical and psychological review of the suicide would save lives on the one hand, and humanely assist those whose bodies are a true torment to them, and remove the burden on loved ones who find themselves confronted with either breaking laws with serious consequences or endure the suffering of their loved one that has one foregone conclusion.

  9. #59
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    Completely agree. I was under the assumption that you meant under no circumstances is it our business, sorry about the misconception.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #60
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.
    It's the exact thing you didn't understand a few pages ago. Rights exist because we are free, excercising them has limits. Freedom is always in play because you are of a will to do what you feel comfortable with, including accepting the consquences, liberty is the logical end to your protections of feedom, in other words, you as an able bodied person of sound mind can pretty much do anything you damn well please, including things that are illegal......however your liberty to do those things and remain in good legal standing and willingness to abide by those limits is where the line is drawn.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 6 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •