- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,649
- Reaction score
- 55,262
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The purpose of any political model is to address conflicts between various rights. Some of these rights are rights of claim and others are rights of liberty. Rights of claim are those which impose a responsibility on someone else and rights of liberty are those which stand alone. For example, the right to retention and use of the proceeds of ones labor is a right of Liberty while the right to live free from insult or injury is a right of claim. Our various political models are based on the amount of control a government exercises regarding these rights and how that amount of control is determined.
While some might believe that rights of claim are not really "rights" because they place an obligation on someone other than the holder of a given right and others might argue that rights of liberty don't really exist because there is an inherent responsibility put on others to acknowledge and respect those rights or they can't exist I would suggest that, for the purpose of discussion, a political model which supported only rights of liberty or only rights of claim would be so undesirable that it would never really exist.
With this as a basis for discussion I would like to focus on a limited set of thoughts regarding rights and political models:
1. Which political models support rights of liberty more than rights of claim?
2. How much influence (if any) does a democratic process have on whether rights of claim or rights of liberty are given preference in a political model?
3. Is it more desirable to have a balance between rights of claim and rights of liberty or should one type of right be given preference?
4. Are there any rights of claim or rights of liberty which are inviolable? If so, why?
While some might believe that rights of claim are not really "rights" because they place an obligation on someone other than the holder of a given right and others might argue that rights of liberty don't really exist because there is an inherent responsibility put on others to acknowledge and respect those rights or they can't exist I would suggest that, for the purpose of discussion, a political model which supported only rights of liberty or only rights of claim would be so undesirable that it would never really exist.
With this as a basis for discussion I would like to focus on a limited set of thoughts regarding rights and political models:
1. Which political models support rights of liberty more than rights of claim?
2. How much influence (if any) does a democratic process have on whether rights of claim or rights of liberty are given preference in a political model?
3. Is it more desirable to have a balance between rights of claim and rights of liberty or should one type of right be given preference?
4. Are there any rights of claim or rights of liberty which are inviolable? If so, why?