• 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
Renae said:
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.
Click to expand...

What part do you disagree with? Just saying "wiki article" does not advance the discussion you started.
 
vegas giants said:
In practice it is what a right is
Click to expand...

What kind of person decides they want to allow government to take away what it pleases? Why not just put the manacles on yourself and be done with it.

People don't seem to realize we live in one of the few times in which life is not necessarily brutish and short. Why do you suppose that is?
 
vegas giants said:
Yep. In practice
Click to expand...

This show you completely fail to understand the Constitution, how it came to be and what it actually does. It does not grant Rights, it tells Government where it cannot interfere in the lives of the citizens.

Wikipedia has a good short article on the distinction between negative and positive rights. "A negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion)." To use Justice Brandeis' famous phrase more broadly than he used it, negative rights are "rights to be left alone." All civilized legal systems beyond the village or tribal level have been systems of negative rights. For example, Anglo-American common law defines spheres of personal space which other persons must not invade -- especially spheres involving the body, residence, possessions, and property. The only way to create positive rights in traditional common law is to personally agree to them -- i.e. to make a contract.

The United States Constitution was drafted by people who, at least for amendments made before the 1930s, defined rights as negative rights. Thus, when the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the "life, liberty, or property" and "equal protection of the laws" to "any person," it is referring to acts which government must refrain from doing, not to any positive duty of the government to act. The only time the government has a positive duty to act is when it has already deprived a person of liberty (e.g., prisoners, and arguably children compelled to attend public schools). Unfortuneately, the Court since the 1940s has departed sharply from this basci tenent of civilized law. It has read positive rights into the Constitution, thereby depriving citizens and other persons of negative rights to which we are entitled.
Click to expand...
Unenumerated: Negative rights and the United States Constitution

Just a nice summary of the situation you are failing at here.
 
Redress said:
Why do you reject definitions you do not like, and then avoid answering questions?
Click to expand...

When you start accepting opinions you disagree with we can talk Redress. I didn't avoid anything. You don't like my answer that's on you, this line of discussion is over as far as I am concerned.
 
haymarket said:
If the government does not recognize what you claim as a right - then you don't have it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Slaves had the right to be free. That freedom was abridged, but that doesn't take away their right to be free. Your statement above allows government the authority to prescribe what is a right. The Declaration of Independence does not support your point of view.
 
vegas giants said:
That’s nice. It is still a right paid for by the state
Click to expand...

Is it always a right paid for by the state? Is it through the decision of the person being charged? Can they defend themselves? Can they seek their own counsel?

Your oversimplification is fairly bad in that it doesn't address the right at the heart of it, due process.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Is it always a right paid for by the state? Is it through the decision of the person being charged? Can they defend themselves? Can they seek their own counsel?

Your oversimplification is fairly bad in that it doesn't address the right at the heart of it, due process.
Click to expand...

Not always. But it is a right paid for by the state
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

It all hinges on when we decide what is within the mother is a life. Adjudication on rights occurs when there if conflict on whether harm to another is occurring. Its a decidedly tough business to decide on abortion both judicially and philosophically. I don't know for sure so I don't engage in abortion arguments.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It all hinges on when we decide what is within the mother is a life. Adjudication on rights occurs when there if conflict on whether harm to another is occurring. Its a decidedly tough business to decide on abortion both judicially and philosophically. I don't know for sure so I don't engage in abortion arguments.
Click to expand...

But most people who claim a fetus has a right to life think that right is inherent. We get no part in that decision. I was just pointing out one case, and there are plenty of others, where arguing that claimed rights cannot infringe on others simply isn't true.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Due process is the right. I see you didn't discuss that at all. I smell a fake argument that is agenda driven.
Click to expand...

Due process requires the courts, which in turn, are paid for by taxes and thus, we all pay for them.
 
Renae said:
You live in a fantasy world, what you call rights are entitlements, a different animal altogether.
Click to expand...

Nope you have the right to an attorney. The right. It can not be clearer
 
In an ideal world rights are inalienable but that’s not living in the real world.

It doesn’t matter that any of you wish to talk of rights bestowed by gods or enshrined on a piece of parchment the fact is, is that if the citizenry largely decides that those words and rights no longer mean anything, they will quickly cease to be rights at all as politicians will mirror those feelings.

This is why in the end, as an example the 2nd amendments absolutists will eventually fail because eventually, the citizenry will no longer see the value in Joe blows being able to buy at will, high military grade weaponry.
 
Renae said:
If society says you have a right to a car, that means someone else has to pay for your car.
Click to expand...

Has any society claimed that as a right?
 
LesGovt said:
I disagree. Slaves had the right to be free. That freedom was abridged, but that doesn't take away their right to be free. Your statement above allows government the authority to prescribe what is a right. The Declaration of Independence does not support your point of view.
Click to expand...

Where would I find the slaves right to be free in 1800?

The Declaration of Independence is a Public Relations announcement that even many of the signers did not believe in.
 
Jetboogieman said:
In an ideal world rights are inalienable but that’s not living in the real world.

It doesn’t matter that any of you wish to talk of rights bestowed by gods or enshrined on a piece of parchment the fact is, is that if the citizenry largely decides that those words and rights no longer mean anything, they will quickly cease to be rights at all as politicians will mirror those feelings.
Click to expand...

That's literally un Enlightened. Rights are social agreements. Among equal before the law people, some agreements are universal: life, expression and self defense. Because these agreements are universal, as a matter of species preservation, they are considered socially natural (from nature/creator). They are a part of mankind and cannot be removed by any authority. They can be violated by authority, but they are always a part of us as people. This is the foundation of The Enlightenment, The American and French Revolutions, The Constitution and the Western World. It would behoove anyone to grasp the concept.

Self evident: you agree to observe those rights to preserve your own.

Inalienable: the agreement to observe rights to life, expression and self defense are part of mankind as a matter of species survival. Inalienable does not mean inviolable. Inalienable rights have been and always will be violated by governments and individuals.


Welcome to The Enlightenment. We don't need a king or other authority to tell us our rights; science, sociology, can do that. Government exists to serve, not to grant rights.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Has any society claimed that as a right?
Click to expand...

It's an example. How is that different than "You have a right to healthcare?" Someone else has to lose something for you to have your healthcare.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same logic, mother has no right to an abortion if she requires the fetus to die.
 
Renae said:
It's an example. How is that different than "You have a right to healthcare?" Someone else has to lose something for you to have your healthcare.
Click to expand...

If you need an attorney someone else has to pay for it
 
Renae said:
It's an example. How is that different than "You have a right to healthcare?" Someone else has to lose something for you to have your healthcare.
Click to expand...

Its comparing apples to cinderblocks. One needs healthcare to continue life. One does not necessarily need a car to continue life - although they sure come in handy in many places.

Plus I think its absurd to introduce such a thing which cause me to think there is an ulterior motive in doing that..
 
vegas giants said:
Another right paid for by the government
Click to expand...

So is prison. Is incarceration a right? Your stubborn sticking point is ignoring the basis in equal treatment under the law which costs nothing as an idea but costs as government to ensure it is carried out.
 
Cephus said:
Due process requires the courts, which in turn, are paid for by taxes and thus, we all pay for them.
Click to expand...

Does equal justice under the law cost anything? The process of carrying out equal justice does cost, but is not the basis for the right but a side effect from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom