• 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
Oh... whats all this fuss about the right to own a handgun then?
In the constitution they say that you have the right to bear and keep arms. If people say that they have a right to have a gun, they are only talking about the right to bear and keep arms.

However, when people talk about the right to food, then that means that they should recieve food no matter what.
 
In the constitution they say that you have the right to bear and keep arms. If people say that they have a right to have a gun, they are only talking about the right to bear and keep arms.

Is there a difference? They have a right... to a gun if they want one. Yet they have to purchase it. Hence their right to arms.

However, when people talk about the right to food, then that means that they should recieve food no matter what.

What has made you think that 'the right to food' constitutes a right to free food? Sounds like an assumption to me :shrug:

Lets apply the concept in an inverse manner... can we withhold people from having food?
 
Last edited:
I believe in free food, water and healthcare FOR THE NEEDY. Otherwise you pay for it.

The trick is how do you convert the needy to paying citizens?

  1. Good job market with growing businesses.
  2. Substance abuse programs.
  3. Life skills counselling.
  4. Education for the needy.
  5. Training for the needy.

Who pays for it all (food, water, healthcare, substance abuse programs, life skills counselling, education, training)?

The community where it is happening. We take care of our own.
 
What government program are you talking about that hand things out to people for free?

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?

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.

So...I'll put YOU down for deliberate also...The list is growing...

I'd respond with the known social programs that you betcha just give away stuff...like Medicare, medicaid, housing assistance programs, food stamps, etc...but of course you KNOW about them already and are just being deliberately obtuse.
 
I voted for everything on the list. I want my 40 acres and a mule! ;)
 
No, you have the right to bear arms, you do not have the right to have a gun.

You ONLY have the 'right' but because we have a constitution that guarantees it. You DONT have that same right in other countries.
 
I'd respond with the known social programs that you betcha just give away stuff...like Medicare, medicaid, housing assistance programs, food stamps, etc...but of course you KNOW about them already and are just being deliberately obtuse.

Don't people pay taxes and have those? I don't actually know much about the US welfare system, but last I checked we have an economy that cannot account for all people despite their better efforts. Maybe your one of those people of the contention that people who don't make it are lazy? :confused: Are you really of the opinion that it is morally wrong to have those programs? Is that why you are upset?

And don't rich people have a huge amount of money and assistance thrown at them through all sorts of technicalities in their business endeavors? Why don't those potential taxes go back to me? Why should I pay for a business mans lunch while hes on a business trip? Like he wasnt going to eat lunch anyways? :confused:
 
Don't people pay taxes and have those? I don't actually know much about the US welfare system, but last I checked we have an economy that cannot account for all people despite their better efforts. Maybe your one of those people of the contention that people who don't make it are lazy? :confused: Are you really of the opinion that it is morally wrong to have those programs? Is that why you are upset?

And don't rich people have a huge amount of money and assistance thrown at them through all sorts of technicalities in their business endeavors? Why don't those potential taxes go back to me? Why should I pay for a business mans lunch while hes on a business trip? Like he wasnt going to eat lunch anyways? :confused:

People? WHy yes...PEOPLE do. Not necessarily the RECIPIENTS mind you...but PEOPLE do. SOMEONE does...
 
People? WHy yes...PEOPLE do (pay taxes). Not necessarily the RECIPIENTS mind you...but PEOPLE do. SOMEONE does...

The recipients pay taxes too.
 
The recipients pay taxes too.

Some do. I guarantee you...many if not most dont. And certainly not to the level they receive those services.
 
You ONLY have the 'right' but because we have a constitution that guarantees it. You DONT have that same right in other countries.
I said that he had the right, because after what I know he is an US citizen.

I don't have that right, because I'm not an American.
 
Is there a difference? They have a right... to a gun if they want one. Yet they have to purchase it. Hence their right to arms.

Yes there is, there is a reason it's worded differently.
 
Last edited:
A well regulated health care system, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to access free medical insurance shall not be infringed.
 
All rights are just made up by us. Always have been, always wil be.
 
I believe in the meaning of community, and so we should all be striving to provide all of those things for one another. Every person's efforts matter. In a system of selfishness and apathy where people believe that they can be self-sufficient, and what's theirs is theirs, there will be more corruption, distrust, theft, and abuse.

I still prefer the rules of private property, but within the context of community where people aren't so guarded with their trivial material things and give them away more easily.
 
The military is a Constitutionally permissible government agency. If you consent to be governed by the Constitution, you can hardly claim that paying taxes for the military is coercive or immoral.

That's fine. I'm not saying you have to agree with my moral sentiments. If you don't like individual liberty you're welcome to your opinion, however wrong it may be...:2razz:

I was playing devil's advocate. If something is in some body of law and something else isn't it, the morality of both of those things is not affected. Legality and morality are not the same. And besides, I was born here, not naturalized, my opinion of the constitution was never a part of my citizenship. My personal opinion is that it makes a start towards a better society, certainly better than what came before, but the Europeans have taken our framework and have improved on it. But I am certainly happy to live under it because it gets a lot of things right.

You and I view liberty differently. To me, individual liberty means squat if there are no checks on someone gobbling up too many resources and making a new feudal age, which was happening all throughout the 1800s. I know you will call it a straw man, but it happens over and over wherever there is a power vacuum, such as in the middle east or africa. I don't see how basic constitutionality is not enough to protect the population from that. You feel differently and I don't think we are ever going to change the minds of the other person. So be it.
 
Last edited:
I agree mostly with Riv here.

I’m going to come at this from an American perspective. First, I believe people have the right to pursue and attempt to acquire the following three things, and that laws should not be made to prevent people from attempting to acquire them, based on the innate Right to Life:

Health Care
Food
Water

All three are essential to continuing ones existence in this world. I do not believe that any government should be able to remove your ability to try and attain these things through legal means.

Additionally, based on the Right to Pursue Happiness, I believe that the right to attain a job and the right to a living wage are also correct. The Pursuit of Happiness, as it is believed to have meant there, was essentially the pursuit of one’s individual wealth and well being in regards to tangible, physical comforts (be it items, land, etc). The ability to get a job, and to get a job at a reasonable wage, is essential to that.

All of these however are things you have a right to attempt to acquire, NOT the right to be given.

We have a right to bear arms. We do not have the right to be given arms. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to own guns.

We have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to be given an editorial page. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to speak about the government.

We have the right to assemble. We do not have the right to have a convention center reserved. That said, the government has little rights to disallow us to rent the convention center ourselves.

This is how I see many of those above things. Having a RIGHT to Health Care, Food, or Water means the government can’t/shouldn’t pass a law saying “People with [x] disease are no longer allowed to be given treatment because its too costly to care for them” or “This town isn’t fighting the federal government on its federal drug laws so until they relent all sale of water is illegal and we’re arresting anyone that uses a private well”.

That does NOT mean that the government should have to provide health care to everyone, nor hand out water to everyone. The first type, the right to pursue those things, affects no one but you through any kind of force. You SEEKING health care does not mandate someone provide it. You SEEKING water does not mandate anyone provide it. Simply that it the government should not bar you from that attempt, and should you get it not bar you from having it. By having the government GIVE people those things you ARE infringing upon other people, because the only way the government has that money is through taking it from other people.

Mind you, that doesn’t mean nationalized health care is necessarily wrong or evil or unconstitutional simply because its not a “right”. We have other things in this country that are not “rights” but the government provides because the majority of citizens feels its in theirs and the nations best interest. For example, we don’t have a “right” to roads, and yet the government taxes people and provides them because they are viewed by society as a necessary duty of government. However to argue that we have a “Right to the government providing roads” would be as ludicrous as an argument as having a “right to government providing health care”.

The above is similar with a job as well. The government should not have the ability to pass a law stating “Black People are not allowed to be paid anything more than $2 an hour” without people revolting up against it and being morally correct, however that does not mean that if you’re a black person you have the right to have any job you get pay you $12 an hour. The government should not be required to provide you a job, but neither should it tell you that you should not be allowed to try and pursue it.

I generally think the notion of the right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a good one to go by for a civilized society. We have the right to attempt to acquire that which will keep us alive. We have a right to fight to keep our sovereignty and to act, think, and speak as we choose as long as it does not infringe upon another’s rights. We have a right to attempt to attain wealth, land, and comfort as long as we remain within the confines of the standards that society places upon us. IE, if stealing is wrong in that society (thus illegal), then pursuing happiness through theft is bad as it infringes upon another in a way that is wrong for society. However being more successful in business is not illegal, so while my success my affect your success directly or indirectly, the effect is not done in such a way that its “infringing” upon your own right.

The problems come when people erroneously believe that because they have the right to ATTAIN something that it somehow means that:

1) They MUST be able to attain it
2) If they can’t attain it then it should be given to them

That is not a right.
 
As far as I know, I only have the "right" to remain silent.....:mrgreen:
 
I believe in the meaning of community, and so we should all be striving to provide all of those things for one another. Every person's efforts matter. In a system of selfishness and apathy where people believe that they can be self-sufficient, and what's theirs is theirs, there will be more corruption, distrust, theft, and abuse.

I still prefer the rules of private property, but within the context of community where people aren't so guarded with their trivial material things and give them away more easily.

So do you advocate that as an idea or is that something you wish to see enforced? how do you account for human nature...that unfortunate part of agency that allows some people to say...screw it...I dont want to work...and as long as there are people to take care of me I will exploit their hard work. Or take things I want. Im sure you know that every attempt at Utopia that you have described has failed.
 
As far as I know, I only have the "right" to remain silent.....:mrgreen:

You only have that right as a citizen of a country, governed by a document set in place centuries ago, that decided the rights of the individual should be paramount over the rights of the government.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You wouldnt have the same right to remain silent in say Venezuala...or Iran...or Cuba...or North Korea.
 
I have a right to food and water. That is all. I was raised working on the land and supplying for my self. People that think they deserve a silver spoon their whole life need a reality check. I want nor need anyone elses money. I am not rich, I am pretty close to broke, but I don't need someone coming in to give me money, just so they can take away my right to live freely. That includes what little money I have and my weapons. This is the way my two children will be raised!
 
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.

It doesn't matter if I agree with it, it was Jefferson's opinion and he was certainly entitled to it. That doesn't make it objectively true and therefore, irrelevant to the argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom