• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...


  • Total voters
    84
That only works if it's accepted on a societal level. An individual can claim any "right" they want, whether or not they can achieve it often depends on whether or not those around him accept it as well.

If a "right" is nothing more than something you want, then the word really loses all meaning.

A right is not something you want; not once have I said such a thing.

A right is a righteous or moral claim on or to something. Obviously, people can disagree about what's "moral" or "righteous", and that's perfectly reasonable, but unless you are a nihilist or fascist I don't think you'd have much reason to argue against the morality of individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson defines "liberty" quite well:

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

So, Cephus, do you personally agree with his notion of liberty and do you think it is a valid moral basis for our society? If not, you're free to state why.
 
Rights don't cost money. Resources do. Thats why food, homes, water, healthcare etc....are not rights. They are resources. Just because we have the right to bear arms, that does not infer that everyone be given a gun if they can't afford to arm themselves.
 
Based on this definition, IMO, there is nothing that someone has a right to, though I agree with rivrrat. One has the right to try to obtain any of the things you mentioned.

Nothing? Not even their own life?
 
Of the following, which do you feel is a "right", i.e., a moral claim on something?

Health care.
Food.
Water.
Other people's wealth.
A job.
A minimum or "living" wage.
None of the above.
Other.

Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean there's a mandate for anyone to give it to you.

Sometimes you have to take it, and when you do out of need, it's not a crime.
 
Nothing? Not even their own life?

Not in an absolute sense. If this was the case, we would not have the death penalty. Cephus makes sense around the societal part of the rights/morals issue. In the US, we do have a right to life as dictated in the Constitution... with the exception of those marked for death by the death penalty, but it was not always like this, and it is not like this everywhere.
 
No one said a right couldn't be violated.

Ok then. If we look at it that way, the laws of cause and effect, then no, based on your definition, there are no absolute rights.
 
I only voted for a living wage.. not even food.

IF you do get a job (and you're a citizen), you are entitled to a minimum or fair wage.
Slave/near slave labor isn't fair.
-
 
I only voted for a living wage.. not even food.

IF you do get a job (and you're a citizen), you are entitled to a minimum or fair wage.
Slave/near slave labor isn't fair.
-

I saw those two options as entirely separate entities. Like one would be entitled to a living wage if they did NOT have a job.
 
I saw those two options as entirely separate entities. Like one would be entitled to a living wage if they did NOT have a job.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with rivrrat: "I have a right to try and obtain all of those things."

I would further argue that the right to peruse all of these things appears to be truly universal. I say that based on historical events where a people suppressed inevitably struggle to overcome. Whether or not they succeed is not the point, it's that no matter how oppressive a ruling force, resistance exists non the less.

The right to resist, to peruse, even if you fail, seems irrevocable. It may very well be the only truly universal right.
 
I saw those two options as entirely separate entities. Like one would be entitled to a living wage if they did NOT have a job.
We had different takes on the OP.

I was assuming that 'living wage' Only if one does get a 'job'.
Because it alone was a separate option.

You're not entitled to a job (as we always have unemployment), just IMO, a decent wage if you get one.
-
 
Last edited:
Let me add as to 'Living wage'....

I would raise the Minimum Wage to $10 an hour or More.
We've lost all the manufacturing jobs we can anyway. We can't compete with $1 an hour in Asia or elsewhere.

And I would kick every illegal immigrant OUT of the country (Employer fines or ID cards would do it). Those Jobs "Americans won't take", even in the field, I think they WILL at 10-12 an hour.
IMO, It would put 2 Million Citizens BACK to work immediately.
An inexpensive/nonexpensive 'jobs program'.

Let's reclaim our country and remaining jobs and pay 5c/10c more for Big Mac (or lettuce) if that's what/All it takes to do it.
-
 
Last edited:
Rights given in the Constitution, Bill of Rights. Don't see where job, health care, food, water, etc. was on the orginal list.

Right not to be held without just cause.
Freedom of (or from) religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble. Freedom to petition the government.
Right to bear arms.
Freedom from quartering soldiers.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrants must only be issued upon probable cause, and shall be specific.
Criminal indictments must be by grand jury. Freedom from double jeopardy. Freedom from testifying against oneself. Right to face accusers. Right to due process. Right of just compensation for takings.
Right to speedy trial. Right to impartial jury. Right to be informed of the charges upon which the accused is held. Right to face accusers. Right to produce witnesses for the accused. Right to legal counsel.
Right to jury trial in civil cases. Facts found by a jury cannot be reexamined by another court.
Freedom from excessive bail or fines. Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment.
Right to not be a slave.
Right to citizenship of any person born in the United States. Right to equal protection of the national and state laws. Right to be free of any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of a citizen. Right to be free of any law that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Right to vote regardless of race or color.
Right to vote for Senators.
Right to vote regardless of gender.
Right to vote for presidential electors if a resident of Washington, D.C.
Right to vote even if a poll tax or any other tax is unpaid.
Right to vote guaranteed for any person at least 18 years old.
 
Of the following, which do you feel is a "right", i.e., a moral claim on something?

Based on the capitalist system in the U.S. or just the world in general?

'Cause we really don't have any rights in the U.S. :D
 
where exactly do these 'rights' come from? At who's expense?
 
Pardon my hippie mind, why are people saying that they aren't rights?

Just trying to understand both sides here.
 
I voted other.

I have a right to try and obtain all of those things.

Hear hear...

Society has rules. Inate rights are defined by those rules. How we choose to respond to those rules is our 'right' becasue it is the only thing we can truly control.
 
I voted all of them just to skew the data and piss off the really hard-line Ayn Rand style libertarians
 
Pardon my hippie mind, why are people saying that they aren't rights?

Just trying to understand both sides here.

Its a realistic position. Where is the universal code written that defines 'rights'? Why arent those same rights we enjoy the same rights Hatians enjoy? Why dont Cubans or North Koreans enjoy those same rights?

The concept of 'rights' is a feel good concept. It is as inane as the word 'fair'.
 
where exactly do these 'rights' come from?

These rights are endowed by society as a matter of responsibility.

At who's expense?

You're already operating under the assumption that some people will have to pay more 'expense' than others for these rights to be attainable?
 
Its a realistic position. Where is the universal code written that defines 'rights'? Why arent those same rights we enjoy the same rights Hatians enjoy? Why dont Cubans or North Koreans enjoy those same rights?

The concept of 'rights' is a feel good concept. It is as inane as the word 'fair'.

or "equality"
 
or "equality"

Or equality. true.

They are WONDERFUL words...and great concepts. But shall we all embrace God for giving us those rights? Yahweh? JoJo the Rabbit?

Its an idea...and in OUR country they are ideals we value and work to achieve them. But unfortunately too many believe the way to achieve it is to reduce everyone else to mediocrity.
 
These rights are endowed by society as a matter of responsibility.



You're already operating under the assumption that some people will have to pay more 'expense' than others for these rights to be attainable?

Which society? Do these rights ONLY exist in America?

Its not an assumption. Its a reality. Crippled and dependent pets need caretakers.
 
Back
Top Bottom