• 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!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...

  • Total voters
    84
Jerry said:
I could prove with purely objective evidence that I have various rights.
Click to expand...

That's problematic, sorry. All you can demonstrate is that you have been allowed, in the past, to exercise certain rights. That doesn't guarantee that tomorrow, you will be able to do the same thing. At best, you can say you've *HAD* rights, not that you *HAVE* them.

That's really the point though, rights can and do change over time, meaning they are products of society, not ethereal things that float around out there that people have whether they want them or not.
 
If the only real right is the right to fight for what we want, then that would seem to reinforce this truth:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU"]YouTube- Starship Troopers Scene Citizens vs Civilians[/ame]


"..force is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.....naked force as resolved more issues throughout history then any other factor."

Hence the need for private gun ownership.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I'd call those rights. But some of that (like healthcare and such), can be implemented through the government if we wish to account for things like aggregated effects and such. I fear that sometimes maybe people will say things like "healthcare isn't a right" to remove it from debate. Well it may not be a right, but it's not like we can't still use the government to get better, more affordable, more available healthcare.
 
Jerry said:
If the only real right is the right to fight for what we want, then that would seem to reinforce this truth:

YouTube- Starship Troopers Scene Citizens vs Civilians


"..force is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.....naked force as resolved more issues throughout history then any other factor."

Hence the need for private gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Robert Heinlein gave me my political foundations. I didn't mind the co-ed showers either. But the idea that only veterans can vote is a great idea!
 
Ikari said:
I fear that sometimes maybe people will say things like "healthcare isn't a right" to remove it from debate.
Click to expand...

The problem is both sides do this.

"Heath care isn't a right" is not an argument against Health Care being provided by the government...

That said, it IS an argument against someone saying "Health care IS a right", a typical argument used by those trying to push for the government providing health care.
 
reefedjib said:
Robert Heinlein gave me my political foundations. I didn't mind the co-ed showers either. But the idea that only veterans can vote is a great idea!
Click to expand...

At drill I caught one of the guys taking a look...I said "I won't ask if you don't tell", he blushed real bad and turned away :lol:

***
I like the idea of earning citizenship. Instead of attaining automatic citizenship by birth, a child of citizens would have to go through the same course immigrants have to, including taking the oath.

If you're a poor immigrant coming to America for a better life, etc, then instead of forking over the money and waiting the time to take the course, you can sign up for the military and earn citizenship automatically after completing a few years.

If you don't want to, that's fine, you're free to live here and pay a higher tax rate, not vote...maybe you should have to be a citizen to buy land.

I think it's a win/win.
 
Last edited:
I guess one of the problems I have with the argument is context. Rights can either be a legal construct or they can be natural rights.

If they are a legal construct, anything could be made to be a right. I don't see anything wrong with this, even though any right should be balanced with any burden it could potentially introduce, as a practical matter.

If we are talking about natural rights, well don't really have any rights. Do you think a tiger cares about your rights when it is hungry and you are the only thing in sight? We have the right to try to stay alive and use force to accomplish our goals, but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
The problem is both sides do this.

"Heath care isn't a right" is not an argument against Health Care being provided by the government...

That said, it IS an argument against someone saying "Health care IS a right", a typical argument used by those trying to push for the government providing health care.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Health care is not a right, but we should have various programs like SS and medicare with appropriate insurance regulation, tort reform, etc.
 
Jerry said:
At drill I caught one of the guys taking a look...I said "I won't ask if you don't tell", he blushed real bad and turned away :lol:
Click to expand...

We had a guy in our squad that had a 12" dick. We all took a look! We named him Trout. All his brains were in his johnson, cause he was a class 4 dumbass. You gotta love the communal showers.
 
Jerry said:
Exactly.

Health care is not a right, but we should have various programs like SS and medicare with appropriate insurance regulation, tort reform, etc.
Click to expand...

I have it all: gov't funded co-op healthcare for the old, poor and sick, tort reform, ins company allowed across state lines... I haven't heard you comment on my healthcare proposal: http://vawhigs.org/dp/County Cooperatives.pdf
 
Zyphlin said:
The problem is both sides do this.

"Heath care isn't a right" is not an argument against Health Care being provided by the government...

That said, it IS an argument against someone saying "Health care IS a right", a typical argument used by those trying to push for the government providing health care.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's important for people to understand what a right is, and that just because something isn't a right doesn't mean we can't use government to solve a problem.

The facts are clear on healthcare. We pay more and have less access to healthcare than any other industrialized country. Isn't that insane? We pay MORE and have LESS access to healthcare. With a bit of government we can overall pay less money and have more access to healthcare. If you do it right, which is always the rub. But that's part of the argument; how to do it right. But instead we have "it's not a right" and other deflect statements meant to take the argument out of the realm of intellect and logic and into the realm of propaganda and sensationalism.
 
Cephus said:
That's problematic, sorry.
Click to expand...

It's ok big guy, don't cry, everything will be alright :2razz:


Cephus said:
All you can demonstrate is that you have been allowed, in the past, to exercise certain rights.
Click to expand...

Right, exactly, that's all your challenge asked for, that's all I said I could demonstrate.

Cephus said:
That doesn't guarantee that tomorrow, you will be able to do the same thing. At best, you can say you've *HAD* rights, not that you *HAVE* them.
Click to expand...

Well no I have them right now and I could prove it. Even if I don't have them in an hour, I have them as I make this post.

Cephus said:
That's really the point though, rights can and do change over time, meaning they are products of society, not ethereal things that float around out there that people have whether they want them or not.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, perhaps more than you agree with yourself.

Even if we look at Christianity's claim of universal rights, those rights exist within the Christian social construct. Christians claim that everyone has them because of a world view that everyone ultimately belongs to the same social construct under the same authority.

Anyone outside that construct and not under that authority do not have those rights.

"Universal rights" only exist because an authority says so, and they only apply to those who meet the criteria.

If you meet the criteria for a right God says exists, then you get it regardless; meaning a right it won't be denied you arbitrarily. A right will be denied if you don't qualify or if it doesn't exist, but never just because God is having a bad hair day.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
"Universal rights" only exist because an authority says so, and they only apply to those who meet the criteria.
Click to expand...

What is the authority for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What are the criteria?
 
reefedjib said:
What is the authority for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What are the criteria?
Click to expand...

I've never tried to itemize those criteria before. I'll have to give it some thought and get back to you.

My starting place is that all rights are biological imperatives, which living obviously is one. Everything an organism does is to live. Liberty and pursuit of happiness would apply to complex social structure...I don't see how we could find those rights among earthworms...so I'm not sure.

I think starting with the right to fight for whatever you want, and then create sub-rights defining what exactly it is that we want, is the best way to go. Those sub-rights would be human specific according to human needs for social structure and interaction, but would still ultimately serve human-specific biological imperatives.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The facts are clear on healthcare. We pay more and have less access to healthcare than any other industrialized country. Isn't that insane? We pay MORE and have LESS access to healthcare. With a bit of government we can overall pay less money and have more access to healthcare. If you do it right, which is always the rub. But that's part of the argument; how to do it right. But instead we have "it's not a right" and other deflect statements meant to take the argument out of the realm of intellect and logic and into the realm of propaganda and sensationalism.
Click to expand...

I think you're arguing this fully from your side and giving no honest evaluation of the other side.

For every person on the side against Government Healthcare that goes "Its not a right" there's someone on the other side whose using no other argument then "Every citizen has the right to health care"

Both sides use the term to leave the realm of logic and intellect and enter the one of propoganda and sensationalism. Caching it as if its primarily one side is being blind to the reality of it.

One side uses it as a reason to not have it, one side uses the opposite as a reason TO have it, and neither are less guilty than the other.
 
VanceMack said:
Some do. (pay taxes) I guarantee you...many if not most don't.
Click to expand...

Do you have information telling you that most recipients of benefits are not taxpayers? Or are you talking about illegals because they tend to have their taxes removed from their checks and they pay taxes on all their purchases in the US.
 
People do not have rights to the work of others.

Period.

That's it.

End of discussion.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think you're arguing this fully from your side and giving no honest evaluation of the other side.

For every person on the side against Government Healthcare that goes "Its not a right" there's someone on the other side whose using no other argument then "Every citizen has the right to health care"

Both sides use the term to leave the realm of logic and intellect and enter the one of propoganda and sensationalism. Caching it as if its primarily one side is being blind to the reality of it.

One side uses it as a reason to not have it, one side uses the opposite as a reason TO have it, and neither are less guilty than the other.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm trying to say is that there is really a problem. There is a problem we could possibly solve with government. And to solve it with government, we need to have open and honest debate about possibilities, time scales, differing government actions, etc. Both sides do try to politicize and spread their own propaganda; and all of it is detrimental to actual debate. But in the end, we honestly do have a problem and we're gonna have to solve it at some point. That or keep paying way too much money for no access.
 
digsbe said:
Doctors would be paid by the government. It wouldn't be right to force them to provide a service and not be compensated for it. However, a doctor doesn't have the right to discriminate against the poor. What if someone can't work because they have a medical condition? Should we just let them die because their condition prevents them from working and their lack of income denies them healthcare?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

Generally speaking, if you're so concerned about the well being of the poor, you're perfectly free to spend you money for your cause, but you're not free to spend my money for your cause.

You don't have a right to my money, you see. The poor don't have a right to my money, either.


digsbe said:
You would be denying them your food. That food belongs to you, not them. They don't have a right to your food, but they do have a right to food.
Click to expand...

And they have a right to get medical care, but they don't have the right to take my money to pay for it, and they don't have the right to demand services from the doctors and hospitals.

You're kind of deliberately missing the point that nothing is free and "giving" something to someone requires "taking" it first from someone else.

But then you want to say that the taking part is wrong.

Well, the taking part is wrong, hence so is the unearned giving.
 
SE102 said:
Im saying they pay taxes... you're jumping the gun.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not jumping anything.

No one has any right to demand services they can't pay for. The service providers are not slaves, the tax payers are not slaves, not in a free country.

there are specific limits on what the federal government is allowed to do. Providing almost all services listed in the poll are banned.
 
mbig said:
I only voted for a living wage.. not even food.

IF you do get a job (and you're a citizen), you are entitled to a minimum or fair wage.
Slave/near slave labor isn't fair.
-
Click to expand...

People that don't like the wages offered for the job have the right to refuse employment and seek other lines of work.

They don't have a right to command wages from their employer. It's not their money until they do the work to earn it, at a rate mutually agreed upon before work commences.
 
SE102 said:
Lets apply the concept in an inverse manner... can we withhold people from having food?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's called "ya don't work, ya don't eat". And it has historical basis in the history of the Jamestown colony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom