• 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!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?


  • Total voters
    38

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The title sums it up pretty well...

If you have the right to X, do you have the right to NOT exercise that right?

Please explain your response.
 
A right is a right. It's yours. You may engage in it at your leisure. The government is to provide no hindered to when and why you choose to exercise your rights; if ever.
 
Certainly you do, if you have a right to do a certain thing, you also have aright not to do it or not to have it apply to you. However, this is a personal thing, you can only make decisions for yourself and perhaps those you are legally in charge of in certain instances, you can never enforce or deny a right for another person. It's not your business.
 
Of course you have the right to not exercise a right. Its not called the bill of requirements. If some liberal wishes to not got to church or have a firearm then that is his business.
 
Of course I do. I have a right to keep and bear arms but I don't own any guns. I have a right to peaceably assemble, but I don't go to political protests.
 
The title sums it up pretty well...

If you have the right to X, do you have the right to NOT exercise that right?

Please explain your response.

A right is there to be exercised to the extent that one is both willing and able to exercise it.
Some people don't even have the ability- let alone the willingness- to exercise all their rights to the fullest extent.
Yet they still have all their rights.
 
Is it the right thing to do for a people to remove a 'right' or freedom if they will it democratically?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I thought this was about mandatory health insurance.
It is.

If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.
 
you can never enforce or deny a right for another person. It's not your business.
I agree with everything else, however, there are some very limited instances where I think that enforcing someone else's right is all of our business, to explain, if someone is being threatened by physical threats or intimidation in my presence, it is my business to enforce their right to life and liberty if I can reasonably stop the threat and it is imminent, as is all of our responsibility, however, this is such a limited scope that it rarely applies and many of us will hopefully never be in such a position. IOW, if someone is being denied an actual right, we protect not only them, but ourselves by backing those rights up.
 
Is it the right thing to do for a people to remove a 'right' or freedom if they will it democratically?

You can't remove rights.
 
1. At this time, the Poll speaks for itself. It's not right to force someone to exercise a right, because then it's not a right it's a requirement, right?
2. I love the Firechicken display picture you've got there
 
It is.

If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.


Really? You have the right to be part of the militia, but you don't have the right to refuse to register for the selective service. If drafted, you don't have the right to refuse to serve, unless given a legal exemption.
 
That what I thought, about this "rights" business..
I voted "other"

The OP is against federally funded health care...a guess ....

The more people misbehave, the fewer rights they will have.
In this case, it is the insurance companies.
 
Really? You have the right to be part of the militia, but you don't have the right to refuse to register for the selective service.
Oooh! Nice try!!!

Here's where you fail:
Selective Service, created under the power to raise armies, has nothing to do with the militia.

Now, tell me how you agree that you cannot force anyone to exercise thir rights, but support mandating that people exercise their right to health care.
 
It is.

If you having a right means you have the right to not exercise said right, and if health care (that is, to buy health insurance) is a right, you must then be against the government requiring you to buy health insurance.

If healthcare were recognized as a right, then single payer would be the only reasonable solution. Of course it's not practical to say we can guarantee absolutely everything in healthcare. Technology will outpace our ability to pay for healthcare more and more over time. So if one recognized BASIC healthcare as a right, the government would provide that to everybody and then things beyond basic could be covered by supplemental, as they have in France.

The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it. Seeing healthcare as an individual responsibility is based largely upon the fact that people are not allowed to collapse and die in the emergency room due to EMTALA. In fact, the ER can't deny care at all. So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.
 
If healthcare were recognized as a right, then single payer would be the only reasonable solution.
On the contrary - its perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to provide their own means to exercise their rights.

The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance.
So you argue that you do not have a right to health care...?
 
f you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.

Isn't Car Insurance required more to protect other people's property from you? (and yes I know it's for unlikely events happening solely to you, like a tree falling on your car)
 
If healthcare were recognized as a right, then single payer would be the only reasonable solution.
How so? Rights are not dependent upon your ability to exercise them, nor can they be exercised at the expense of your neighbor. Rights are there, they are not to be infringed, yet you are responsible for them, thus, single payer is the opposite of a singular reasonable solution. Let's be honest, it's taxpayer subsidized, and government enforced, there is no "single payer" in this, only a single financing method
Of course it's not practical to say we can guarantee absolutely everything in healthcare. Technology will outpace our ability to pay for healthcare more and more over time. So if one recognized BASIC healthcare as a right, the government would provide that to everybody and then things beyond basic could be covered by supplemental, as they have in France.
In other words, everyone will have to live down and accept less, even though it is a right, someone would be able to deny it due to cost, but single payer "is the only reasonable solution" right?:roll:
The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.
As created by law, but you don't HAVE, to own a car.
Seeing healthcare as an individual responsibility is based largely upon the fact that people are not allowed to collapse and die in the emergency room due to EMTALA. In fact, the ER can't deny care at all.
As created by a Federal Government mandate, so the the federal government can "protect" people from their own bad decisions, like a good big brother.
So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.
This is true, but you want the culprit to get the loot in this case.
 
Oooh! Nice try!!!

Here's where you fail:
Selective Service, created under the power to raise armies, has nothing to do with the militia.

Now, tell me how you agree that you cannot force anyone to exercise thir rights, but support mandating that people exercise their right to health care.


Calling Out the Militia

The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1581 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1582 The act of February 28, 1795,1583 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1585

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I


Not every right is absolute; some rights may be constrained, some rights are both a right and a responsibility. Not every right is a responsibility.


There is a question about whether a mandate for health insurance is constitutional; the argument you're trying to make isn't an argument that will prevail.


For the record, I believe a mandate is probably constitutional.
 
The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.

For liability to others, not to yourself. You don't have to insure your car (or yourself) at all unless you're required to by your loan agreement.

You're not even required to carry liability insurance if you can self-insure.


So people who go without insurance can and often do end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.

Uncompensated care makes up a tiny fraction of health care spending, hardly a blip.
 
The idea of individual mandates is not based upon healthcare being a right, but rather being a responsibility, much like carrying car insurance. If you drive a car, you have a responsibility to carry car insurance, not a right to it.
Non-sequitur.
Car insurance is a responsibilty you must accept in order to exercise a privilege granted to you by the state, to ensure that others are protected from your actions.
 
Back
Top Bottom