• 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
Cephus said:
Sure you can. Commit a crime, you lose your right to freedom. Commit a serious enough crime and you lose your right to vote and own firearms. Rights are revocable by the society which granted them in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, the government uses force to prohibit your exercise of your rights. The rights themselves have not been removed.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Health insurance isn't a right, it's an insurance policy.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Healthcare is meant to reduce morbidity/mortality, and some lack of morbidity is needed in order to enjoy any rights at all.
Click to expand...
"Some lack of morbidity" exists w/o health care, especially w/o health care as a positive right, as evidenced by the ample opportities that existed before the invetnion of said (supposed positive) right.

So it falls under the equality of opportunity umbrella.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.
"Equal opportunity" has to do with the government preventing people from discriminating against you based on your race, etc, when you're trying to exercise one of your rights.

And even then, "equal opportinity" isn't in any way measured by "equal outcome", economic or otherwise.

and is not non sequitur at all
Click to expand...
It is, and very much so, as demonstrated.

Education also costs something, but is required for equality of opportunity.
Click to expand...
And...? Nothing, even under the positive rights model, necessitates that the only way to gain an education is for others to pay for it.

Even right to counsel and police protection require the fruits of somebody's labor, but is required to protect rights.
Click to expand...
These are rights derived -entirely- from our governmental construct, and as such, the nature of these rights -require- that they be provided by that government. For instance, due peocess exists because we created a government to ensure that we receive it; as such, due process can only exist within that construct.

Heath care? Entirely different story, and as such, your example doesnt apply.

And in what way is that self-evident?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- did you have a sound argument that you have a right to have your 'need' fulfulled by someone else, or not? That your 'needs' take precedence over my right to my property, or not?

See, I -earned- my property. If you do not know what I mean by "-I- earned it" when I speak of the right to property and how your 'need' does not take precedence over same, then I'm not sure how I can get it across.

lol, a luxury
Click to expand...
Yes, for exactly the reasons I specified, reasons your response does not counter -- it is only a "need" if you can soundly argue that a certain standard of living is "necessary".
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
Health insurance isn't a right, it's an insurance policy.
Click to expand...
You have a right to buy health insurance, just as you have the right to buy a car, in that both are an example of a freedom that you can exercise under the premise that you have the right to property, and, by extension, the right to use that property to acquire goods and services.
 
Crunch said:
Not to put too fine a point on it..... just exactly what is the penalty for committing suicide?
Click to expand...

In some states suicide might still be a capital offense (I'm pretty sure it stems from the biblical essence of suicide being the unforgivable sin or some jazz, I could very well be wrong on all counts).

Well, Why is that so you ask? well, perhaps because attempted crimes carry the same punishments as if the crime had been committed. So...IF you try to kill yourself, don't mess up...or they'll kill you a bit slower than you had anticipated. Maybe the fact that you'd sit on death row for a few years would deter you from attempting in the first place? lol.
 
Ikari said:
No, the government uses force to prohibit your exercise of your rights. The rights themselves have not been removed.
Click to expand...

Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.
 
Crunch said:
Not to put too fine a point on it..... just exactly what is the penalty for committing suicide?
Click to expand...

Failing to do it properly can result in getting tortured by a flock of state-paid psychotherapists.

More importantly, people who assist suicides are subject to serious criminal charges.

The only issue I have with legalized suicide is that many travelers are merely suffering from depression, a treatable medical condition, or other disorders that can be treated in one form or another. So a legal suicide option that entails medical and psychological review of the suicide would save lives on the one hand, and humanely assist those whose bodies are a true torment to them, and remove the burden on loved ones who find themselves confronted with either breaking laws with serious consequences or endure the suffering of their loved one that has one foregone conclusion.
 
Cephus said:
Presumably, that's not a person rejecting their right. What you're talking about is someone who does not want to be intimidated, they just have no way to stop it. If someone wanted, for example, to be threated by physical threats or intimidation, they ought to be able to do so. You have no right to stop them from exercising their right or rejecting their right.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I was under the assumption that you meant under no circumstances is it our business, sorry about the misconception.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.
Click to expand...
It's the exact thing you didn't understand a few pages ago. Rights exist because we are free, excercising them has limits. Freedom is always in play because you are of a will to do what you feel comfortable with, including accepting the consquences, liberty is the logical end to your protections of feedom, in other words, you as an able bodied person of sound mind can pretty much do anything you damn well please, including things that are illegal......however your liberty to do those things and remain in good legal standing and willingness to abide by those limits is where the line is drawn.
 
My friend just mentioned this to me and I wanted to get your opinions on it:

"You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others. if the health care system is bad now, wait till it's as bad as the legal system. in many jurisdictions you have to be a registered bar member to represent anybody, and more and more attorneys are jumping on the band wagon thinking this is what's needed to keep the legal system in check. fools."
 
EpicDude86 said:
Alright there Captain Semantics, clever interpretation.
Click to expand...

It is indeed part semantics, but I believe in this case that the semantics are important. Since we are placing power within it. Are rights absolute, or are they privilege granted by the State. Functionally, the outcomes may be the same; but the importance placed on the absolute nature of rights is, IMO, a proper distinction to make.
 
EpicDude86 said:
"You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others.
Click to expand...
I addressed this:

This is a right among those derived -entirely- from our governmental construct, and as such, the nature of these rights -require- that they be provided by that government. For instance, due peocess exists because we created a government to ensure that we receive it; as such, due process can only exist within that construct.

In this specific case, due process necessittes that you have adequate representation.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Perfectly.

You didn't work for the property, you have no claim against it.
Click to expand...

Ah and what makes you think work and property are perfectly correlated? Not all wealthy people work hard, and not all poor people fail to work hard. And how would the wealthy acquire their property without the benefit of society?

One could say lots of things. Since the premise utilitarianism is that stealing is okay if you can concoct a really cool sounding argument for it using octo-syllabic words, then it's patently false, because stealing isn't acceptable.
Click to expand...

No utilitarianism is a matter of maximizing the greater good, though I follow a modified version based upon a benefit:harm ratio, not the sum. Utilitarianism would say that some theft is more wrong than other theft. For example, stealing somebody's water bottle who is dying of thirst in the desert and could make it if they had the water bottle is as bad as murder, in a utilitarian sense. But stealing Bill Gates water bottle is still wrong, just not nearly as wrong. Utilitarianism focuses only on the final product of actions, and is path independent. So it would not say that stealing is absolutely always wrong, just that there is usually a better way of maximizing the good.

You must be talking about something I need to preserve my life. Those aren't luxuries, and I provide them. If you're talking about something someone else needs to preserve their life, well, hell, I never signed up to be their father, so they can go begging elsewhere for their luxuries.
Click to expand...

And pragmatism may tell you they might as well start a career burglarizing houses such as yours if they never got the education (another positive right) needed to pursue legitimate opportunities.

Goobieman said:
"Some lack of morbidity" exists w/o health care, especially w/o health care as a positive right, as evidenced by the ample opportities that existed before the invetnion of said (supposed positive) right.
Click to expand...

Social contexts create all rights, and the modern one is not the same as the ancient one. Limited lack of morbidity certainly can exist without clean water, but that doesn't mean clean water isn't a positive right in the context in which it can be fairly distributed.


And even then, "equal opportinity" isn't in any way measured by "equal outcome", economic or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. People who choose to smoke will still do worse even if they did have equal access to healthcare, as healthcare is only one determinant of health.

And...? Nothing, even under the positive rights model, necessitates that the only way to gain an education is for others to pay for it.
Click to expand...

It is if you're a child, and that's who we're talking about when we speak of right to basic education.

These are rights derived -entirely- from our governmental construct, and as such, the nature of these rights -require- that they be provided by that government. For instance, due peocess exists because we created a government to ensure that we receive it; as such, due process can only exist within that construct.
Click to expand...

Government constructs are irrelevant in terms of arguing what is right and wrong. In the case of due process I just happen to agree with the government construct. For healthcare I do not.


I'm sorry -- did you have a sound argument that you have a right to have your 'need' fulfulled by someone else, or not? That your 'needs' take precedence of my right to my property, or not?
Click to expand...

Me? I'll be a med student next year. Just saying that because what I suggest would not benefit me.

My position had nothing to do with me personally, but rather that needs in general take precedence over property. That doesn't mean we should encourage laziness, but no I'm not willing to let people go without their needs being met so that you can buy a nicer car. On the other hand, we do need a mechanism to encourage investment, so it would be ideal to not go overboard on progressive taxation, but some level of progressive taxation is reasonable on utilitarian grounds.

See, I -earned- my property. If you do not know what I mean by "-I- earned it" when I speak of the right to property and how your 'need' does not take precedence over same, then I'm not sure how I can get it across.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is you believe you earned it. We do not exist in a vacuum. Society is interdependent and while success can certainly be catalyzed by effort, there are no guarantees. Successful people are indebted to their parents, customers and, indeed, all of society.

Yes, for exactly the reasons I specified, reasons your response does not counter -- it is only a "need" if you can soundly argue that a certain standard of living is "necessary".
Click to expand...

Yes it is, else they will cost us more money, be less productive citizens, be more likely to turn to crime, be more miserable than is necessary, etc. Why should the poor work hard to improve themselves and society when they do not have a reasonable opportunity to do so? And all of that is beyond the whole matter of being a civilized society rather than a Darwinian economic jungle.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
It's the exact thing you didn't understand a few pages ago. Rights exist because we are free, excercising them has limits. Freedom is always in play because you are of a will to do what you feel comfortable with, including accepting the consquences, liberty is the logical end to your protections of feedom, in other words, you as an able bodied person of sound mind can pretty much do anything you damn well please, including things that are illegal......however your liberty to do those things and remain in good legal standing and willingness to abide by those limits is where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the only laws you are bound by naturally are the Laws of Physics, and that your man named rights are yours, but you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences if the government takes them away or you abuse those rights? i r confus
 
Goobieman said:
I addressed this:

This is a right among those derived -entirely- from our governmental construct, and as such, the nature of these rights -require- that they be provided by that government. For instance, due peocess exists because we created a government to ensure that we receive it; as such, due process can only exist within that construct.

In this specific case, due process necessittes that you have adequate representation.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, I'll pass that along to him.
 
EpicDude86 said:
So what you're saying is that the only laws you are bound by naturally are the Laws of Physics, and that your man named rights are yours, but you'd better be ready to deal with the consequences if the government takes them away or you abuse those rights? i r confus
Click to expand...
Yes, freedom is absolute, liberty is not. This is why someone will say "I am not at liberty to say" when there is a confidentiality agreement, gag order, or specific military maneuvers that cannot be disclosed, yes, we are free to say what we will, this is the natural state of conscience, however there are consequences, and our liberty does not protect us from them.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes, freedom is absolute, liberty is not. This is why someone will say "I am not at liberty to say" when there is a confidentiality agreement, gag order, or specific military maneuvers that cannot be disclosed, yes, we are free to say what we will, this is the natural state of conscience, however there are consequences, and our liberty does not protect us from them.
Click to expand...

Captain Semantics strikes again! I love it.

They won't say "I'm not free to discuss that with you" and if they do they are incorrect?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Ah and what makes you think work and property are perfectly correlated? Not all wealthy people work hard, and not all poor people fail to work hard. And how would the wealthy acquire their property without the benefit of society?
Click to expand...

Oh, it's perfection you people want?

Too bad, this is the real world, with real people in it, and sometimes someone leads a life full of **** simply because that's the breaks.


LiveUninhibited said:
No utilitarianism is a matter of maximizing the greater good,
Click to expand...

With stolen property.

Don't forget that part.

So, **** the greater good, I'm not my neighbor's slave, and I'm not responsible for the greater good, unless I'm paid five orders of magnitude more than I'm currently getting.

Now that we've dispensed with this utilitarian bull**** in fine Anglo-Saxon style, you got anything real to back up your position?


LiveUninhibited said:
Utilitarianism focuses only on the final product of actions, and is path independent.
Click to expand...

Well, you see, the rest of us don't fail to see that the final product of utilitarianism is slavery.

Slavery.

Bad.

Got it?

LiveUninhibited said:
And pragmatism may tell you they might as well start a career burglarizing houses such as yours if they never got the education (another positive right) needed to pursue legitimate opportunities.
Click to expand...

Education isn't a right, welcome to reality again. It's an entitlement. And...federal funding of the entitlement is not allowed by the Constitution.

LiveUninhibited said:
Social contexts create all rights,
Click to expand...

No. Social context defines limits to the power of the collective to enforce it's desires upon the individual.

That's if you want to be accurate in your phrasing.

LiveUninhibited said:
and the modern one is not the same as the ancient one. Limited lack of morbidity certainly can exist without clean water, but that doesn't mean clean water isn't a positive right in the context in which it can be fairly distributed.
Click to expand...

Clean water isn't a right. People that don't have it, and many don't, wind up dying.

It happens.

Seriously, it does.

A right is something that nature can't take away or give. Rights are defined in the context of human relationships with each other, not with the natural world.

LiveUninhibited said:
It is if you're a child, and that's who we're talking about when we speak of right to basic education.
Click to expand...

Oh, is that why so many free-loading socialist slugs pretend the government is their mommy and they want some more time at the nipple?

A child is owed an education by....not total strangers, but his parents.

And only his parents.

LiveUninhibited said:
That doesn't mean we should encourage laziness, but no I'm not willing to let people go without their needs being met so that you can buy a nicer car.
Click to expand...

What part of "its not your money" do you simply refuse to understand?

Personally, I say that all people who support socialised medicine should put their name on a list and when the program is implemented they get hit with the bill, spread out among only those who supported it. Because it's your plan so it's only meet that your money finance it.

LiveUninhibited said:
On the other hand, we do need a mechanism to encourage investment, so it would be ideal to not go overboard on progressive taxation, but some level of progressive taxation is reasonable on utilitarian grounds.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "progressive" taxation, it's totally regressive in it's effects. Call it what it is, socialist taxation.

LiveUninhibited said:
I think the problem is you believe you earned it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, reality works like that.

I worked for it, therefore I earned it.

cause, then effect.

An essential rule in the physical universe

LiveUninhibited said:
We do not exist in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

No, fortunately the planet we evolved on has an atmosphere.

LiveUninhibited said:
Society is interdependent
Click to expand...

And I get paid for my work, thus ending the obligations society owes me and what I owe it.

LiveUninhibited said:
and while success can certainly be catalyzed by effort, there are no guarantees. Successful people are indebted to their parents, customers and, indeed, all of society.
Click to expand...

No, successful people don't owe "society" jack ****. They were paid for their efforts and presumably their efforts were productive, or they wouldn't have been paid. (Clearly I'm exclusing politicians and lawyers from this assessment.)

LiveUninhibited said:
Yes it is, else they will cost us more money, be less productive citizens, be more likely to turn to crime, be more miserable than is necessary, etc. Why should the poor work hard to improve themselves and society when they do not have a reasonable opportunity to do so? And all of that is beyond the whole matter of being a civilized society rather than a Darwinian economic jungle.
Click to expand...

The poor don't have to work, and no one else is obligated to work to feed them. So if the poor don't want to work, they go huuungreee!

Happens.

Seriously, it does.

More seriously, it's not my problem. Their body, their choice, and all that stuff, ya know?
 
EpicDude86 said:
My friend just mentioned this to me and I wanted to get your opinions on it:

"You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others. if the health care system is bad now, wait till it's as bad as the legal system. in many jurisdictions you have to be a registered bar member to represent anybody, and more and more attorneys are jumping on the band wagon thinking this is what's needed to keep the legal system in check. fools."
Click to expand...


Fair question.

Answer: The judicial system is a proper function of all governments, and thus when the accused is hauled into conflict with it, the government has to fulfill it's basic function of protecting the freedoms of the people by ensuring he has an advocate trained in the operation of the system. This descends from the state's presumption of the innocence of the accused until found guilty by trial.

The government is under no obligation to provide health care, and in the United States is Constitutionally forbidden from doing so.

====

IMO, since the judicial system is a branch of the government, all lawyers should be in the employ of the government and their case load assigned randomly so the government and the accused have a chance of parity in legal competence without the wealth or poverty of the accused becoming a factor.

But only because the legal system is in fact an operation of the government itself.

The beneficial effect would be that lawyer scum like John Edwards wouldn't be able to make a fortune "channeling" dead babies in courtroom show trials, funds which were taken from the hospitals struggling to find the funds to save lives.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
No, the government uses force to prohibit your exercise of your rights. The rights themselves have not been removed.
Click to expand...

Which is a common claim but no one has ever been able to justify it. Rights which cannot be and are not exercised are not rights. I don't know where you people got the bizarre idea that rights are these ethereal things that just float around. They are granted. They can be taken away.
 
Cephus said:
Which is a common claim but no one has ever been able to justify it. Rights which cannot be and are not exercised are not rights. I don't know where you people got the bizarre idea that rights are these ethereal things that just float around. They are granted. They can be taken away.
Click to expand...

If they are granted, then they are privilege. Thus you are using the wrong word. Rights are reserved by the people, innate and inalienable to their being. They cannot be granted by government, their exercise can be infringed upon through force.
 
EpicDude86 said:
My friend just mentioned this to me and I wanted to get your opinions on it:

"You say no one has a right to health care, and I agree. why is it though that we're given the "right" to an attorney's time when we're arrested and can't afford our own attorney? you have a right to a defense, not a right to an attorney at a cost to others. if the health care system is bad now, wait till it's as bad as the legal system. in many jurisdictions you have to be a registered bar member to represent anybody, and more and more attorneys are jumping on the band wagon thinking this is what's needed to keep the legal system in check. fools."
Click to expand...

Because the state pays for that attorney's time or has them permanently on staff. You don't have a right to pick an attorney at random out of the phone book and demand to speak to that specific attorney without paying for it. That's just the way the legal system has been set up, although let's be honest, the legal system is one of the biggest disasters we have in this country.
 
Ikari said:
If they are granted, then they are privilege. Thus you are using the wrong word. Rights are reserved by the people, innate and inalienable to their being. They cannot be granted by government, their exercise can be infringed upon through force.
Click to expand...

People can claim anything they damn well please, doesn't make it so. Reserving the right to get laid 5x a week doesn't mean you're going to. So sure, declare you have any right you want to, whole lot of good it'll do you when everyone else ignores you. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
Which is a common claim but no one has ever been able to justify it. Rights which cannot be and are not exercised are not rights. I don't know where you people got the bizarre idea that rights are these ethereal things that just float around. They are granted. They can be taken away.
Click to expand...

Granted by who?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom