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 7 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 377

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

  1. #61
    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?

    My friend just mentioned this to me and I wanted to get your opinions on it:

    "You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others. if the health care system is bad now, wait till it's as bad as the legal system. in many jurisdictions you have to be a registered bar member to represent anybody, and more and more attorneys are jumping on the band wagon thinking this is what's needed to keep the legal system in check. fools."

  2. #62
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.
    It is indeed part semantics, but I believe in this case that the semantics are important. Since we are placing power within it. Are rights absolute, or are they privilege granted by the State. Functionally, the outcomes may be the same; but the importance placed on the absolute nature of rights is, IMO, a proper distinction to make.
    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."

  3. #63
    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
    "You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others.
    I addressed this:

    This is a right among those 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.

    In this specific case, due process necessittes that you have adequate representation.

  4. #64
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Perfectly.

    You didn't work for the property, you have no claim against it.
    Ah and what makes you think work and property are perfectly correlated? Not all wealthy people work hard, and not all poor people fail to work hard. And how would the wealthy acquire their property without the benefit of society?

    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.
    No utilitarianism is a matter of maximizing the greater good, though I follow a modified version based upon a benefit:harm ratio, not the sum. Utilitarianism would say that some theft is more wrong than other theft. For example, stealing somebody's water bottle who is dying of thirst in the desert and could make it if they had the water bottle is as bad as murder, in a utilitarian sense. But stealing Bill Gates water bottle is still wrong, just not nearly as wrong. Utilitarianism focuses only on the final product of actions, and is path independent. So it would not say that stealing is absolutely always wrong, just that there is usually a better way of maximizing the good.

    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.
    And pragmatism may tell you they might as well start a career burglarizing houses such as yours if they never got the education (another positive right) needed to pursue legitimate opportunities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    "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.
    Social contexts create all rights, and the modern one is not the same as the ancient one. Limited lack of morbidity certainly can exist without clean water, but that doesn't mean clean water isn't a positive right in the context in which it can be fairly distributed.


    And even then, "equal opportinity" isn't in any way measured by "equal outcome", economic or otherwise.
    I didn't say it was. People who choose to smoke will still do worse even if they did have equal access to healthcare, as healthcare is only one determinant of health.

    And...? Nothing, even under the positive rights model, necessitates that the only way to gain an education is for others to pay for it.
    It is if you're a child, and that's who we're talking about when we speak of right to basic education.

    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.
    Government constructs are irrelevant in terms of arguing what is right and wrong. In the case of due process I just happen to agree with the government construct. For healthcare I do not.


    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 of my right to my property, or not?
    Me? I'll be a med student next year. Just saying that because what I suggest would not benefit me.

    My position had nothing to do with me personally, but rather that needs in general take precedence over property. That doesn't mean we should encourage laziness, but no I'm not willing to let people go without their needs being met so that you can buy a nicer car. On the other hand, we do need a mechanism to encourage investment, so it would be ideal to not go overboard on progressive taxation, but some level of progressive taxation is reasonable on utilitarian grounds.

    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.
    I think the problem is you believe you earned it. We do not exist in a vacuum. Society is interdependent and while success can certainly be catalyzed by effort, there are no guarantees. Successful people are indebted to their parents, customers and, indeed, all of society.

    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".
    Yes it is, else they will cost us more money, be less productive citizens, be more likely to turn to crime, be more miserable than is necessary, etc. Why should the poor work hard to improve themselves and society when they do not have a reasonable opportunity to do so? And all of that is beyond the whole matter of being a civilized society rather than a Darwinian economic jungle.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 11-04-09 at 05:39 PM.

  5. #65
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    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.
    So what you're saying is that the only laws you are bound by naturally are the Laws of Physics, and that your man named rights are yours, but you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences if the government takes them away or you abuse those rights? i r confus

  6. #66
    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 Goobieman View Post
    I addressed this:

    This is a right among those 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.

    In this specific case, due process necessittes that you have adequate representation.
    Excellent point, I'll pass that along to him.

  7. #67
    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
    So what you're saying is that the only laws you are bound by naturally are the Laws of Physics, and that your man named rights are yours, but you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences if the government takes them away or you abuse those rights? i r confus
    Yes, freedom is absolute, liberty is not. This is why someone will say "I am not at liberty to say" when there is a confidentiality agreement, gag order, or specific military maneuvers that cannot be disclosed, yes, we are free to say what we will, this is the natural state of conscience, however there are consequences, and our liberty does not protect us from them.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #68
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Yes, freedom is absolute, liberty is not. This is why someone will say "I am not at liberty to say" when there is a confidentiality agreement, gag order, or specific military maneuvers that cannot be disclosed, yes, we are free to say what we will, this is the natural state of conscience, however there are consequences, and our liberty does not protect us from them.
    Captain Semantics strikes again! I love it.

    They won't say "I'm not free to discuss that with you" and if they do they are incorrect?

  9. #69
    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
    Ah and what makes you think work and property are perfectly correlated? Not all wealthy people work hard, and not all poor people fail to work hard. And how would the wealthy acquire their property without the benefit of society?
    Oh, it's perfection you people want?

    Too bad, this is the real world, with real people in it, and sometimes someone leads a life full of **** simply because that's the breaks.


    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    No utilitarianism is a matter of maximizing the greater good,
    With stolen property.

    Don't forget that part.

    So, **** the greater good, I'm not my neighbor's slave, and I'm not responsible for the greater good, unless I'm paid five orders of magnitude more than I'm currently getting.

    Now that we've dispensed with this utilitarian bull**** in fine Anglo-Saxon style, you got anything real to back up your position?


    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Utilitarianism focuses only on the final product of actions, and is path independent.
    Well, you see, the rest of us don't fail to see that the final product of utilitarianism is slavery.

    Slavery.

    Bad.

    Got it?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    And pragmatism may tell you they might as well start a career burglarizing houses such as yours if they never got the education (another positive right) needed to pursue legitimate opportunities.
    Education isn't a right, welcome to reality again. It's an entitlement. And...federal funding of the entitlement is not allowed by the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Social contexts create all rights,
    No. Social context defines limits to the power of the collective to enforce it's desires upon the individual.

    That's if you want to be accurate in your phrasing.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    and the modern one is not the same as the ancient one. Limited lack of morbidity certainly can exist without clean water, but that doesn't mean clean water isn't a positive right in the context in which it can be fairly distributed.
    Clean water isn't a right. People that don't have it, and many don't, wind up dying.

    It happens.

    Seriously, it does.

    A right is something that nature can't take away or give. Rights are defined in the context of human relationships with each other, not with the natural world.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    It is if you're a child, and that's who we're talking about when we speak of right to basic education.
    Oh, is that why so many free-loading socialist slugs pretend the government is their mommy and they want some more time at the nipple?

    A child is owed an education by....not total strangers, but his parents.

    And only his parents.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    That doesn't mean we should encourage laziness, but no I'm not willing to let people go without their needs being met so that you can buy a nicer car.
    What part of "its not your money" do you simply refuse to understand?

    Personally, I say that all people who support socialised medicine should put their name on a list and when the program is implemented they get hit with the bill, spread out among only those who supported it. Because it's your plan so it's only meet that your money finance it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    On the other hand, we do need a mechanism to encourage investment, so it would be ideal to not go overboard on progressive taxation, but some level of progressive taxation is reasonable on utilitarian grounds.
    There's no such thing as "progressive" taxation, it's totally regressive in it's effects. Call it what it is, socialist taxation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    I think the problem is you believe you earned it.
    Yeah, reality works like that.

    I worked for it, therefore I earned it.

    cause, then effect.

    An essential rule in the physical universe

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    We do not exist in a vacuum.
    No, fortunately the planet we evolved on has an atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Society is interdependent
    And I get paid for my work, thus ending the obligations society owes me and what I owe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    and while success can certainly be catalyzed by effort, there are no guarantees. Successful people are indebted to their parents, customers and, indeed, all of society.
    No, successful people don't owe "society" jack ****. They were paid for their efforts and presumably their efforts were productive, or they wouldn't have been paid. (Clearly I'm exclusing politicians and lawyers from this assessment.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Yes it is, else they will cost us more money, be less productive citizens, be more likely to turn to crime, be more miserable than is necessary, etc. Why should the poor work hard to improve themselves and society when they do not have a reasonable opportunity to do so? And all of that is beyond the whole matter of being a civilized society rather than a Darwinian economic jungle.
    The poor don't have to work, and no one else is obligated to work to feed them. So if the poor don't want to work, they go huuungreee!

    Happens.

    Seriously, it does.

    More seriously, it's not my problem. Their body, their choice, and all that stuff, ya know?

  10. #70
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    My friend just mentioned this to me and I wanted to get your opinions on it:

    "You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others. if the health care system is bad now, wait till it's as bad as the legal system. in many jurisdictions you have to be a registered bar member to represent anybody, and more and more attorneys are jumping on the band wagon thinking this is what's needed to keep the legal system in check. fools."

    Fair question.

    Answer: The judicial system is a proper function of all governments, and thus when the accused is hauled into conflict with it, the government has to fulfill it's basic function of protecting the freedoms of the people by ensuring he has an advocate trained in the operation of the system. This descends from the state's presumption of the innocence of the accused until found guilty by trial.

    The government is under no obligation to provide health care, and in the United States is Constitutionally forbidden from doing so.

    ====

    IMO, since the judicial system is a branch of the government, all lawyers should be in the employ of the government and their case load assigned randomly so the government and the accused have a chance of parity in legal competence without the wealth or poverty of the accused becoming a factor.

    But only because the legal system is in fact an operation of the government itself.

    The beneficial effect would be that lawyer scum like John Edwards wouldn't be able to make a fortune "channeling" dead babies in courtroom show trials, funds which were taken from the hospitals struggling to find the funds to save lives.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-04-09 at 08:07 PM.

Page 7 of 38 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •