• 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!

Why The 'Rights' Vs 'Privileges' Argument Is Silly

Tennyson said:
Government privileges are postive rights, which are subordinate to negative rights. That is how the US's government was structured.
Click to expand...

Okay, but how far does that extend? For example, when we tax the People we are taking away their property (negative rights), correct?
 
Geoist said:
So what is the necessary role for this necessary evil? I know you are going to say protect rights... so how does that pertain to the fire department? Or infrastructure? If you say government should only be for protecting negative rights then does that mean you think the FD and all roads should be privatized?
Click to expand...

I don't think they should be privatized. That, however, doesn't mean that the Federal government hasn't overstepped its Constitutional powers in numerous areas and in numerous ways, because they have. Its powers are clearly delineated and they are fairly narrow. Everything else belongs to the states or to the people per the 10th amendment.
 
Geoist said:
Some posters will say the only role of government is to protect natural rights. If they were consistent with that stance then they would be against the fire department, infrastructure, public schooling, etc. It is clear 98% of people want the government's role to go beyond just protecting 'natural rights' even if they say otherwise.
Click to expand...
That is not the Constitutions claim, but it did set clear boundaries on what the Federal government should and should not be responsible for.

And well, Fire Departments were private organizations longer than they were a government ones. Individual communities would set them up and pitch in without the government.

Schools used to be private.

infrastructure for sure, was largely private.... or can be largely private.

None of these are rights, and they are all privileges. I could even argue it may not even be the governments place to be responsible for them either.

Maybe the best way to phrase it is, The MAIN and most IMPORTANT role of the government is to protect natural rights... I would agree with that statement.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...

Wow, there's a bunch of stupid in that post.
 
Geoist said:
Correct. So what would public schooling fall under? Infrastructure? I am trying to find out how consistent certain libertarians/conservatives are on this issue.
Click to expand...
I suppose education is technically a privilege. But when government mandates attendance, as it does until the age of 16, it gets a little murkier because they have to make it available.
 
Chomsky said:
I suppose education is technically a privilege. But when government mandates attendance, as it does until the age of 16, it gets a little murkier because they have to make it available.
Click to expand...

Every child in America is entitled to a free and appropriate education. It can't be denied to you under any circumstances. You don't even have to be a citizen. If that is not a right nothing is.
 
vegas giants said:
Every child in America is entitled to a free and appropriate education. It can't be denied to you under any circumstances. You don't even have to be a citizen. If that is not a right nothing is.
Click to expand...
But it's not a constitutional right. It was done as a government mandate. Until mandated during the early-to-mid 20th century in America, it wasn't so. And in some countries, it is still definitely not so. So I see no universal right to education.
 
Chomsky said:
But it's not a constitutional right. It was done as a government mandate. Until mandated during the early-to-mid 20th century in America, it wasn't so. And in some countries, it is still definitely not so. So I see no universal right to education.
Click to expand...

Abortion was not a right until 1972. Gay marriage was only recognized as a right recently. FAPE was decided by SCOTUS as well. If it isn't a right you are just splitting legal hairs because it can not be denied to a child
 
Chomsky said:
But it's not a constitutional right. It was done as a government mandate. Until mandated during the early-to-mid 20th century in America, it wasn't so. And in some countries, it is still definitely not so. So I see no universal right to education.
Click to expand...

No rights are universal
 
vegas giants said:
Abortion was not a right until 1972. Gay marriage was only recognized as a right recently. FAPE was decided by SCOTUS as well. If it isn't a right you are just splitting legal hairs because it can not be denied to a child
Click to expand...
And your point, is?
 
Chomsky said:
As it stands, in terms of the U.S., I might go for it. But only in specific countries. It's not a right across the board.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. It is clearly not a right in some countries
 
Spartacus FPV said:
You don't have a right to schools, or fire departments. Just because the state provides a service does not mean you have a right to it. I don't think you understand the term, or natural rights for that matter.

Your rights are what your government cannot do to you. Read your way down the bill of rights, they're all "negative rights." None of my rights cost anyone a dime. They're all things I can invoke in a court of law that a judge must uphold.
Click to expand...
You do have the right to a free and appropriate education. It is a right that can not be denied even if you are not a citizen
 
Geoist said:
Okay, but how far does that extend? For example, when we tax the People we are taking away their property (negative rights), correct?
Click to expand...

Yes; income tax is antithetical to the Constitution and negative rights and negative liberties.
 
veritas1 said:
I don't think they should be privatized. That, however, doesn't mean that the Federal government hasn't overstepped its Constitutional powers in numerous areas and in numerous ways, because they have. Its powers are clearly delineated and they are fairly narrow. Everything else belongs to the states or to the people per the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

As a decentralist, I have no problem restricting the federal government. I am speaking on a state/local government level.
 
Tennyson said:
Yes; income tax is antithetical to the Constitution and negative rights and negative liberties.
Click to expand...

If it were antithetical to the Constitution it would have been declared unconstitutional years ago. The Constitution is not some perfect holy text, people.
 
Geoist said:
If it were antithetical to the Constitution it would have been declared unconstitutional years ago. The Constitution is not some perfect holy text, people.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court abided by the Constitution, most federal laws would be ruled unconstitutional.
 
veritas1 said:
Governments aren't a privilege. They are a necessary evil. Their responsibility is to construct and enforce laws with the minimum infringement on personal liberty. That is what our founding was about. It is what our Bill of Rights is about. Yet, governments also gather ever greater powers to themselves and that power comes at the expense of individual rights. It is why surrendering your freedom in order to find security is a losing proposition. Government is needed. It's simply the degree we are willing to tolerate. Also, all the services which government provides are ultimately paid for by taxpayers so they are hardly privileges. They are no more privileges than buying a loaf of bread is a privilege given you by the grocery store. Government bestows very few privileges in fact.
Click to expand...

All "likes" of this post are from devoted tRump supporters. As Spock would say, "Fascinating.........................:)
 
Tennyson said:
If the Supreme Court abided by the Constitution, most federal laws would be ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

An amendment was passed for the income tax, therefore it is Constitutional. That is not to say I support income tax, just that it is reality.
 
Geoist said:
An amendment was passed for the income tax, therefore it is Constitutional. That is not to say I support income tax, just that it is reality.
Click to expand...

That is not the purpose of the Article V amendment process. It may be reality, but it violates the purpose of the Constitution and the core doctrines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom