• 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!

Defining a Right

What is a Right?

  • A Right is whatever Society determines qualifies

    Votes: 11 34.4%

  • A Right confers no obligation on another to exercise

    Votes: 10 31.3%

  • Other definition

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • Total voters
    32
OpportunityCost said:
So, if a simple majority decides housing is a right, they can deprive others of property to pay for the shelter of others?

A right is something that does not harm another to exercise. Basic rights like speech, assembly, religious worship, and others that government could not suppress or take away without sacrificing their ability govern legitimately. That is, they would need to use excessive force and be tyrannical and lose consent of the governed.

That is why healthcare isn't a right, its something society has decided people should have for the betterment of that country or group of people, it is not a right. It has a societal cost, whereas free speech has no cost, unless and until it harms another.
Click to expand...
I do not see a right as something that can be granted, like housing.
At best the government might only stop your rights from being infringed.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Of course it is. Not that there's anything inherently wrong in using a simple question to instigate a debate, at least by my reckoning. But of course the actual OP was just the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

Meh...I like the topic clearly defined before I jump in...saves back tracking, which sucks when the rule is suggested with the exception in mind...
 
longview said:
I do not see a right as something that can be granted, like housing.
At best the government might only stop your rights from being infringed.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was making a point. Many others will disagree but rights are not granted by legitimate governments, they are protected by legitimate governments---recognized, not granted.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I agree, I was making a point. Many others will disagree but rights are not granted by legitimate governments, they are protected by legitimate governments---recognized, not granted.
Click to expand...

Nope. They are created by law or scotus in the US
 
haymarket said:
What doe you mean by forcing others to provide for it? Like paying taxes or compelling their behavior to allow your right to be exercised?
Click to expand...

If society says you have a right to a car, that means someone else has to pay for your car.
 
soylentgreen said:
So when workers were fighting for rights of labour they had no right to do so? As there actions of strikes and protest were deemed illegal by the government.
Click to expand...

What you just described is part of the fight to obtain rights.

If the government does not recognize what you claim as a right - then you don't have it.
 
Redress said:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Thank you wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

See how easy that was?
Click to expand...

That's not a right. That's a wikipedia entry.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So, if a simple majority decides housing is a right, they can deprive others of property to pay for the shelter of others?

A right is something that does not harm another to exercise. Basic rights like speech, assembly, religious worship, and others that government could not suppress or take away without sacrificing their ability govern legitimately. That is, they would need to use excessive force and be tyrannical and lose consent of the governed.

That is why healthcare isn't a right, its something society has decided people should have for the betterment of that country or group of people, it is not a right. It has a societal cost, whereas free speech has no cost, unless and until it harms another.
Click to expand...

You have the right to an attorney and attorneys are paid
 
vegas giants said:
Nope. They are created by law or scotus in the US
Click to expand...

We are talking about philosophically and the basis for government to make decisions on what they do and do not recognize as a right. That's your definition and I am sure you are happy with it, until government decides to take those rights away and you have no recourse; which, of course, is the point.
 
vegas giants said:
You have the right to an attorney and attorneys are paid
Click to expand...

Not always. Pro bono and public defenders exist for a reason. In any event it is the right to access. You have the right to self defense through arms, that doesn't mean the government is going to pay for the firearms.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Not always. Pro bono and public defenders exist for a reason. In any event it is the right to access. You have the right to self defense through arms, that doesn't mean the government is going to pay for the firearms.
Click to expand...
Not access. Paid for you by the state. That is your right.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So, if a simple majority decides housing is a right, they can deprive others of property to pay for the shelter of others?

A right is something that does not harm another to exercise. Basic rights like speech, assembly, religious worship, and others that government could not suppress or take away without sacrificing their ability govern legitimately. That is, they would need to use excessive force and be tyrannical and lose consent of the governed.

That is why healthcare isn't a right, its something society has decided people should have for the betterment of that country or group of people, it is not a right. It has a societal cost, whereas free speech has no cost, unless and until it harms another.
Click to expand...

But by that standard, a fetus cannot have the right to life because it requires force on the mother to provide it. So thanks for proving that fetuses have no right to life.
 
OpportunityCost said:
We are talking about philosophically and the basis for government to make decisions on what they do and do not recognize as a right. That's your definition and I am sure you are happy with it, until government decides to take those rights away and you have no recourse; which, of course, is the point.
Click to expand...

In practice it is what a right is
 
Zyphlin said:
A natural right is an action an individual, within the state of nature, is able to engage wholly under their own power.

A legal right is any action, status, or privilege than is granted to an individual under the law of the society in which they reside.

Natural rights are independent of any other person, and while an individual is capable of choosing or being forced to limit their exercising of this right it is impossible to permanently remove this right permanently.

Legal rights are dependent on the rest of society, and while an individual can be granted wide ranging latitude in this regard it is impossible to permanently endow the individual with such a right.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are also imaginary.
 
Renae said:
Does the Constitution grant rights?
Click to expand...
By my measure, the Constitution defines boundaries beyond which the Government may not step.
So the Constitution does not grant rights in so much as it limits what the government may regulate.
 
vegas giants said:
Not access. Paid for you by the state. That is your right.
Click to expand...

You do realize its for those that cannot afford an attorney? Exercising rights for due process has become both through court decisions, its not necessary to have the government pay for the attorney but has been adjudicated as necessary as part of due process to ensure people have a thorough defense.

They can be, they are not forced to be.
 
Renae said:


VERY Smart man, and I advise you take a watch, it might open your eyes.
Click to expand...


Why do you reject definitions you do not like, and then avoid answering questions?
 
Redress said:
So anything that does not fit your definition is not a right?
Click to expand...

I did not say that, I said that was a wikipedia article, that I disagree with. I am allowed to find your answer to be in error.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You do realize its for those that cannot afford an attorney? Exercising rights for due process has become both through court decisions, its not necessary to have the government pay for the attorney but has been adjudicated as necessary as part of due process to ensure people have a thorough defense.

They can be, they are not forced to be.
Click to expand...

That’s nice. It is still a right paid for by the state
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom