• 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
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of those things are rights. But I picked other, because something being a right does not mean others have to pay for it out of their own pocket or in some shape or form provide you with a means of exercising that right it just means the government can not stop you from getting those things assuming you have the ability to pay for those things. For example the government does not in any shape or form have to buy me a firearm with tax payer money in order to make sure I am able to properly exercise my 2nd amendment rights even though there is the right to keep and bear arms, if anyone wants a firearm then they have to go and pay for it themselves.A right just means the government can't stop you from doing it and has absolutely no business preventing you from exercising that right unless you are prison/jail.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Righteous" and "morality" are entirely subjective concepts, anyone can define whatever they want as "righteous" and "moral", therefore you're back to just demanding that what you want is a "right". Until you can objectively come up with a definition of what a "right" is and how it can be objectively determined, you're still just whistling dixie.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of the rights defined in the Constitution are absolute, as you point out. Life... well, we do die certainly and we can put people to death, plus we can kill people on the field of combat. Liberty? Tell that to convicted prisoners. Pursuit of happiness? Good thing it was put in those terms because guaranteeing people that they will *ACHIEVE* happiness is absurd. Many people can't even pursue it in any tangible way. These are all conceptual, not absolute.

Rights, as objective, demonstrable things are fantasy. They simply do not exist. No one has yet shown how you determine what a "right" is in any objective manner.
 
Pardon my hippie mind, why are people saying that they aren't rights?
Click to expand...

Psst... dont tell anyone but its because they're a bunch of reactionists to our secret socialist revolution where we plan to enslave the rich and give all these things out for free.
 
Cephus said:
"Righteous" and "morality" are entirely subjective concepts...
Click to expand...

I already addressed this. Did you purposely ignore that part of my post so you could create this strawman?

...anyone can define whatever they want as "righteous" and "moral", therefore you're back to just demanding that what you want is a "right". Until you can objectively come up with a definition of what a "right" is and how it can be objectively determined, you're still just whistling dixie.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. Why can't you answer my question? Why must every "debate" on this forum be an attempt to "win" the internetz?

Do you agree with Jefferson's conception of liberty, and do you think it is a valid moral basis for our society? I'm asking because I want to know, not because I like asking random questions.
 
Cephus said:
None of the rights defined in the Constitution are absolute, as you point out. Life... well, we do die certainly and we can put people to death, plus we can kill people on the field of combat. Liberty? Tell that to convicted prisoners. Pursuit of happiness? Good thing it was put in those terms because guaranteeing people that they will *ACHIEVE* happiness is absurd. Many people can't even pursue it in any tangible way. These are all conceptual, not absolute.

Rights, as objective, demonstrable things are fantasy. They simply do not exist. No one has yet shown how you determine what a "right" is in any objective manner.
Click to expand...

This tired strawman? Again!?

A right is a moral sentiment. Of course it doesn't physically exist; it's an abstract concept. All morality and philosophy is. That doesn't mean morality and philosophy are worthless...:doh
 
Cephus said:
"Righteous" and "morality" are entirely subjective concepts, anyone can define whatever they want as "righteous" and "moral", therefore you're back to just demanding that what you want is a "right". Until you can objectively come up with a definition of what a "right" is and how it can be objectively determined, you're still just whistling dixie.
Click to expand...

I could prove with purely objective evidence that I have various rights.

For example, I could prove that I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. I could provide various personal court documents, statutes, and many specific examples where I have exorcised this right.

Also, I can demonstrate various rights as a tenant. I could provide the rental agreement, more statutes on tenant rights, and specific occasions where I have exorcised that authority.

If a right is a collection of qualities that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval, then once those qualities are clearly defined, we could look at a given person and observe rather or not they fit the criteria and posses that right. Take gay marriage, for example. Gays don't currently have the right to marry because they don't meet the criteria. The solution: Change the criteria. In this way it is demonstrated that rights exist.

If, however, a right is something someone can do even though sometimes they shouldn't, then anything one can do is therefore a right.
 
SE102 said:
Psst... dont tell anyone but its because they're a bunch of reactionists to our secret socialist revolution where we plan to enslave the rich and give all these things out for free.
Click to expand...

Ummm...just how many billions are spent each year already on those 'free' government handout programs because people have the 'right' to food...healthcare...housing...

Its not a question of enslaving...but unless you are simply refusing to see the truth, Obama...democrats...politicians...even Biden (hes not REALLY a player) have all said they want to give away MORE and they absolutely believe the wealthy should pay for it.

ANd they HAVE to give away more of other peoples money. How else do you continue to create more crippled and dependent little pets to keep dems in power?
 
Jerry said:
I could prove with purely objective evidence that I have various rights.

For example, I could prove that I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. I could provide various personal court documents, statutes, and many specific examples where I have exorcised this right.

Also, I can demonstrate various rights as a tenant. I could provide the rental agreement, more statutes on tenant rights, and specific occasions where I have exorcised that authority.

If a right is a collection of qualities that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval, then once those qualities are clearly defined, we could look at a given person and observe rather or not they fit the criteria and posses that right. Take gay marriage, for example. Gays don't currently have the right to marry because they don't meet the criteria. The solution: Change the criteria. In this way it is demonstrated that rights exist.

If, however, a right is something someone can do even though sometimes they shouldn't, then anything one can do is therefore a right.
Click to expand...

All PEOPLE have the right to marry. In MOST states, men dont have the right to legally marry men...brothers dont have the right to legally marry sisters. people dont have the right to legally marry animals...no matter how much they love each other.

IT comes down to the rule of law. People create the rules that govern their society. As long as they live in that society they follow those rules and enjoy those 'rights' and freedoms...right up until someone attempts to take the 'right' from them.

People have the 'right' to live. Every year a few hundred thousand Americans have that right violated. But...how can that BE if it is a 'right?'

Maybe we better do a more effective job of defining the word 'right'
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...



None of the above.
 
VanceMack said:
All PEOPLE have the right to marry.
Click to expand...

All people who meet the criteria have the right to marry.

Demonstration: People who can not legally consent to not meet the criteria and therefore do not have the right to marry.

Much like how women didn't have the right to vote. SCOTUS ruled that women did not meet the criteria for that right to then apply to them. The solution: Change the criteria.

VanceMack said:
In MOST states, men dont have the right to legally marry men...brothers dont have the right to legally marry sisters. people dont have the right to legally marry animals...no matter how much they love each other.
Click to expand...

Right, one has to meet the criteria, that's what I'm saying. It seems we agree.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Ummm...just how many billions are spent each year already on those 'free' government handout programs because people have the 'right' to food...healthcare...housing...

Its not a question of enslaving...but unless you are simply refusing to see the truth, Obama...democrats...politicians...even Biden (hes not REALLY a player) have all said they want to give away MORE and they absolutely believe the wealthy should pay for it.

ANd they HAVE to give away more of other peoples money. How else do you continue to create more crippled and dependent little pets to keep dems in power?
Click to expand...

What government program are you talking about that hand things out to people for free?

Have all said they want to give away MORE and they absolutely believe the wealthy should pay for it
Click to expand...

Wait.... so they are just handing things out to people? Why havent I gotten anything? What are you talking about? If I am wrong, here inform me lol. So you think theres a conspiracy on their part to redistribute americas wealth?

ANd they HAVE to give away more of other peoples money. How else do you continue to create more crippled and dependent little pets to keep dems in power?
Click to expand...

Wait so now they are trying to break people to make them dependent? So their like skeletor-stalin who takes everyones money away with the goal of making them government dependent? Like CASTRO:lol:

Apparently I need to hear about this.
 
To those of you who picked "food, water, health care, etc." but failed to pick "other people's wealth", where do you think the "food, water, etc." will come from, if not other people's wealth?
 
Jerry said:
All people who meet the criteria have the right to marry.
Click to expand...
Married and 'legally recognized marriage in the US' are two different things.

I can marry my dog right now if I wanna.
 
You can be charged and convicted of a felony if someone comes to you with a life threatening injury, and you do nothing. Thus to some extent health care is a human right.

You can be charged and convicted of a felony if someone comes to you and is literally starving to death and you do nothing and they die. Thus you have a human right not to starve to death.

You can be charged and convicted of a felony if someone comes to you and is literally dying of thirst and you do nothing and they die. Thus you have a human right not to die of thirst.

My point is that these issues are not just black and white.
 
digsbe said:
I suppose the government will pay for it and some charities, and both are funded by taxes and donations. Do people not have rights because they are apart of society or because they are human? Should a sick child be denied healthcare because he can't pay for it? Or should starving people be denied food because they can't pay for it? As humans and as citizens of the US it is their right to receive necessities. It wouldn't be compassionate or civil to deny fellow Americans basic rights needed to live.
Click to expand...
Here we go....do we have 300,000,000 children in this country? How many children earn a leaving? Your argument is completely specious.
 
Ethereal said:
To those of you who picked "food, water, health care, etc." but failed to pick "other people's wealth", where do you think the "food, water, etc." will come from, if not other people's wealth?
Click to expand...

Fair point. We all live in a community and the community is responsible to help those who need food, water and health care. In preactice this means there is a way to raise capital to pay for this "from the community".
 
It's really silly to talk about rights. You have the right to vote, not for food. If the country is poor, then not everyone can get food. That's how nature works.

However, I would say that we should try to provide everyone food in developed countries, because it's not efficient to let people starve, and I believe we should try to provide everyone the basic needs, but after that they have to earn it themselves.
 
Ethereal said:
To those of you who picked "food, water, health care, etc." but failed to pick "other people's wealth", where do you think the "food, water, etc." will come from, if not other people's wealth?
Click to expand...

Once again who said it was being given out for free? Theres one that says right to a job.
 
SE102 said:
Once again who said it was being given out for free?
Click to expand...

If you have a right to something, it follows necessarily that you don't have to pay for it.

Theres one that says right to a job.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone have a right to a job? Are you saying that employers must hire someone?
 
Ethereal said:
If you have a right to something, it follows necessarily that you don't have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Funny guns are a right in this country... does that mean they are free?

Why would anyone have a right to a job? Are you saying that employers must hire someone?
Click to expand...

Since you're putting words in my mouth and finding implications I never implied, I guess I'll say unemployment doesn't matter to you then. Why is it an issue?

Like you're not opposed to all the above because you're a market fundamentalist?
 
SE102 said:
Funny guns are a right in this country... does that mean they are free?
Click to expand...

No, you have the right to bear arms, you do not have the right to have a gun.
 
SE102 said:
Funny guns are a right in this country... does that mean they are free?
Click to expand...

We don't have a right to guns, we have a right to keep and bear arms. Please tell me you understand the difference...

Since you're putting words in my mouth and finding implications I never implied, I guess I'll say unemployment doesn't matter to you then. Why is it an issue?
Click to expand...

If someone has a right to a job, then that means firing someone would be a violation of their rights. What don't you understand about that?

Like you're not opposed to all the above because you're a market fundamentalist?
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom