• 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!

Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

TheEconomist said:
I don't need to know the answer to a riddle to know when proposed solutions are wrong. Anyone gifted of thought realizes you don't need to know what to do in order to pin down what won't do the job: the difference lies in the distinction between sufficiency and necessity.

I never had any pretense that I knew what was the right path, only that your position was not well thought out.


You began with a dubious interpretation of the Declaration of Independence to legitimize welfare programs. Then, you objected to my reply with an equally problematic interpretation of the Bill of Rights, arguing the 9th amendment written in the 1780s covers healthcare. You also didn't seem to realize my previous reply had much more trouble excusing healthcare spending than military spending.

When all of it failed, you resorted to relativism: rights are conventions, so why shouldn't we just pick other conventions or modify those conventions? The problem is that the criterion I provided earlier does have a discriminatory effect: the only thing that counts as rights by what I wrote earlier is negative rights and the justification is that it's the only thing you will get that treats people as equals. If people accept that principle of reciprocity, they agree with what I said and disagree with what you said.

Ironically, the relativism you brought to bear doesn't even do what you sought out to do: the same argument can be said about any convention and any means of deciding on conventions. It excuses absolutely everything without fault and it is not limited to a discussion about rights. Even with this, your best effort would lead to making my claim and your claim equally valid and it comes at the price of ever hoping to point to anything is preferable to another. More to the point, it's not because something can be done that it should be done. People can disagree on moral issues without this implying there doesn't exist incorrect answers. Neither does it mean a set of correct answers doesn't exist.

You're having a moral argument about how we should do things and not a scientific argument about how things happen to function. Moreover, you're not arguing with someone who made the claim that rights emerged out of a divine will or nature itself. I am not an avatar of American conservatives trying to forgo the argument on why rights as negative rights might be legitimate by saying "they did it this way first" or "God wants it."
Click to expand...

Rights are determined by the will of the people and enforced by the government. They are subject to change. These are facts you can not deny.

The people have determined they want some positive rights. So they become rights.

The rest is philosophy you can argue with your bartender
 
vegas giants said:
It is in the US according to about a dozen scotus decisions. Sorry

Were you born with an attorney?

You can get one of those for free too
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. But considering you are completely ignorant about what rights are, I'm not surprised you believe in such stupidity. The insane left is always looking for ways to bring back slavery.
 
Glitch said:
No, it isn't. But considering you are completely ignorant about what rights are, I'm not surprised you believe in such stupidity. The insane left is always looking for ways to bring back slavery.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. And your opinion is the stupidest most ignorant thing ever posted on here as evidenced by a dozen scotus decisions.

Isnt polite debate so nice? Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Right to primary education
Right to emergency medical care
Click to expand...

Well, no and no. Equal ACCESS is not the same as a right to the product. You can have equal access even if access is none.

Right to a free attorney
Click to expand...

Well, no, not really free... first off, you will usually be charged something for their services, and second and more importantly Public Defenders offices are not required to take cases. If you are charged, you could be without a "free attorney" and you incorrectly call it, which can mean any number of things rarely plumbed because this country is lousy with lawyers.. but in theory you can have nobody willing to defend you at which point, I suppose, your case would be dropped.

Which is the other part of a "free attorney", the state is not required to prosecute anyone, so therefor the service that you have a "right" to is not a mandatory service.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, no and no. Equal ACCESS is not the same as a right to the product. You can have equal access even if access is none.



Well, no, not really free... first off, you will usually be charged something for their services, and second and more importantly Public Defenders offices are not required to take cases. If you are charged, you could be without a "free attorney" and you incorrectly call it, which can mean any number of things rarely plumbed because this country is lousy with lawyers.. but in theory you can have nobody willing to defend you at which point, I suppose, your case would be dropped.

Which is the other part of a "free attorney", the state is not required to prosecute anyone, so therefor the service that you have a "right" to is not a mandatory service.
Click to expand...

You are not entitled to only equal access to primary education. You have the right to free and appropriate education.

Free....free free free....free free....free

According to scotus
 
vegas giants said:
So you are against public primary education being a right?


Just say that
Click to expand...
public education was around before "socialism" was any more than a wet dream in some loony's head.
 
vegas giants said:
Uh.....it is socialism. Duh. Lol
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You guys seem to think every "feel good" item is "socialism". Sorry, no. Not every government idea or program that provides a service or given you guys a "warm fuzzy" is socialism.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. You guys seem to think every "feel good" item is "socialism". Sorry, no. Not every government idea or program that provides a service or given you guys a "warm fuzzy" is socialism.
Click to expand...

Public education is. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Public education is. Lol
Click to expand...
Nonsense. As I mentioned above public education far out days any socialism. In fact for a long, long time education was a local activity.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense. As I mentioned above public education far out days any socialism. In fact for a long, long time education was a local activity.
Click to expand...

It is socialism. The very definition of the word
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...

You already have the right to all of those, and more. I've exercised my right to all of those since I was about 20.
 
vegas giants said:
You are not entitled to only equal access to primary education. You have the right to free and appropriate education.

Free....free free free....free free....free

According to scotus
Click to expand...

Nope nope nope nope and nope. As I haved already pointed out, by the law it is not anywhere a mandate to provide services as Bernie Sander's nutter platform is.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope nope nope nope and nope. As I haved already pointed out, by the law it is not anywhere a mandate to provide services as Bernie Sander's nutter platform is.
Click to expand...

Yep yep yep yep.


Scotus has ruled over a dozen times children are entitled to a free and appropriate education.


Great precedent for healthcare
 
jimbo said:
You already have the right to all of those, and more. I've exercised my right to all of those since I was about 20.
Click to expand...

You currently do not have a right to any of those. You have "access", as politicians would say. Opportunities exist, although maybe not for you, and certainly not for everyone.
 
nekrodev said:
You currently do not have a right to any of those. You have "access", as politicians would say. Opportunities exist, although maybe not for you, and certainly not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Without a right, you can't have access.

Everyone has access and a right. What you do with either depends on you. It's up to you to create opportunity
 
jimbo said:
Without a right, you can't have access.

Everyone has access and a right. What you do with either depends on you. It's up to you to create opportunity
Click to expand...

You've literally got this entirely backwards. You can have access without a right - and that's the case in our current reality with almost everything.

Colleges exist, so you have access. But, unless you earn a scholarship or have rich parents, you might not actually be able to go. It's not a right.
Hospitals and pharmacies exist, but unless you have insurance and money, you might not be able to afford it. And even if they skip over that, you're now in debt for the rest of your life. That's hardly a "right".
 
OlNate said:
Not sure if these are all "rights", but it's a good list of things to do to avoid your country turning into a ****hole... :shrug:
Click to expand...

The title "Economic Bill of Suggestions" wouldn't have gone over very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom