• 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
Goobieman said:
No, it states that the freedom to do so exists.

That some may or may not be able to do it, or that some can do it better than others, in no way changes the fact that the freedom to do so exists.

Same thing with living.
Click to expand...

The freedom does not exist if there is no capacity. No amount of willing or doing enables one to achieve something if there is no capacity for that outcome in existence.

If the capacity is lacking, then you know from the very beginning there is no freedom. It's when somebody realizes they lack the capacity to do something that they recognize they are not free; just as the Americans who realized they lacked the capacity to give input on American domestic policy in Parliament came to the conclusion they were not free for that reason.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
The freedom does not exist if there is no capacity. No amount of willing or doing enables one to achieve something if there is no capacity for that outcome in existence.

If the capacity is lacking, then you know from the very beginning there is no freedom.
Click to expand...
You seem to think the liberty to do someting is necessarily attached to the actual ability to do something. This is unsupportable, as having the freedom to do something in no way grauantees that you will be able to do it.

You have the freedom to own a million acres of real estate on Maui You do not have the ability to do so. That you do not have the actual ability to own that much land on Maui in no way means you do not have the freedom.

Of course, you also have the freedom to own whatever gun (or guns) you might choose to own -- do you believe that if you do not have the means to buy them, they should be provided to you?
 
Iwa said:
well technically there are, sorry i have to disagree with you, but everyone has the right to anything they want to own, have, or acchieve, MOST people just arent lucky enough to acchieve their goals.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Funny thing is, you dont believe this.
You'd be the first to scream like a stuck pig if someone tried to take your inalienable rights away.
Click to expand...


What inalienable rights? Who issues and enforces inalienable rights?
 
Catawba said:
What inalienable rights? Who issues and enforces inalienable rights?
Click to expand...
What would you think of being forced by the state to attend a church of its choosing?
 
Catawba said:
What inalienable rights? Who issues and enforces inalienable rights?
Click to expand...

nobody does. but those are rights upheld by yourself. if you hold onto those, noone can take them away, thats why the death penelty is a controversy, everyone has the right to LIFE liberty and the persuit of happiness.
 
Iwa said:
... thats why the death penelty is a controversy, everyone has the right to LIFE liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
Except when removed by due process.
 
You seem to think the liberty to do someting is necessarily attached to the actual ability to do something. This is unsupportable, as having the freedom to do something in no way grauantees that you will be able to do it.
Click to expand...

You're emptying your sense of freedom to the point its becoming an empty notion. It's just the word 'freedom' now - it doesn't refer to, or mean anything.

Anyway, 'able' has two interrelated senses, and you are confusing them. One refers to skills (like writing), specifically, the other to the minimum-maximum spectrum of being able to perform that skill (like writing a few sentences and writing a novel).

As far as the government is concerned, it only has the obligation to provide me with the minimum capability to perform a right, and the only a certain set of rights; if it can do more economically, great, but that is not a condition of our 'agreement' (me, being a loyal, taxpaying citizen, them, being a good government).

You have the freedom to own a million acres of real estate on Maui You do not have the ability to do so. That you do not have the actual ability to own that much land on Maui in no way means you do not have the freedom.
Click to expand...

I have the freedom to own property. Because it must secure that freedom for me, the government must ensure it to the utmost extent it can. However, its responsibility is very minimal; at its lowest, to make sure I have shelter during weather that puts me in mortal jeopardy (like a blizzard during winter) and nothing more than that. In this case, I don't actually own property, but the shelter the government provides for me simulates it well enough to get by; basically, it is compensation to ensure I remain loyal even though I don't have any possessions for the government to protect which would compel me to be loyal. If I didn't get that shelter, I would have to break into somebody else's home in order to live.

I'm actually not free to own millions of acres of real estate on Maui or anywhere else because I lack the resources; however, that lack of freedom is not important to government, because its responsibility for my property extends only so far.

Of course, you also have the freedom to own whatever gun (or guns) you might choose to own -- do you believe that if you do not have the means to buy them, they should be provided to you?
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc), because it was not economical (say I was too far way and there were too few people in my area) then I would probably require a gun in the absence of that infrastructure. If the government could not provide even that, then it is no government to me (and indeed, even if I transgress its laws, it has no power in the region with which to punish me). Buying me -- or rather, making sure I have --a gun would be the most minimal security provision it could make and still be my government.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
You're emptying your sense of freedom to the point its becoming an empty notion. It's just the word 'freedom' now - it doesn't refer to, or mean anything.
Click to expand...
Sure it does.
That you may never have the means to own a million acres of Maui in no way means your freedom to own eproperty is meaningless.

Anyway, 'able' has two interrelated senses, and you are confusing them.
Click to expand...
No... YOU are confusing them.
YOU take it to mean a physical capability, not a political or legal capacity as the term is used when related to "freedom" or "liberty".

As far as the government is concerned, it only has the obligation to provide me with the minimum capability to perform a right
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- its complete obligation lies in protecting you exercise of your rights from those that would infringe upon them.

The means for exercising those rights are up to you to provide.

I have the freedom to own property. Because it must secure that freedom for me, the government must ensure it to the utmost extent I can.
Click to expand...
The protection of that right from others, yes, not that you will have the means to exercise said right.

Depends on the situation. If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc), because it was not economical (say I was too far way and there were too few people in my area) then I would probably require a gun in the absence of that infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that you require that gun regardless, as said security cannot ever exist.

If the government could not provide even that, then it is no government to me (and indeed, even if I transgress its laws, it has no power in the region with which to punish me). Buying me -- or rather, making sure I have --a gun would be the most minimal security provision it could make and still be my government.
Click to expand...
No... the most minimal security provision it could make is to ensure that your right to that gun is not infringed upon. The means to obtain that gun are up to you.
 
Goobieman said:
What would you think of being forced by the state to attend a church of its choosing?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with inalienable rights? That is determined by the law of the land, which we made up and can change!
 
Iwa said:
nobody does. but those are rights upheld by yourself. if you hold onto those, noone can take them away, thats why the death penelty is a controversy, everyone has the right to LIFE liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were just made up by us, that is all. There is nothing inalienable about them.
 
Catawba said:
What does that have to do with inalienable rights? That is determined by the law of the land, which we made up and can change!
Click to expand...
Just answer the question.
 
Catawba said:
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were just made up by us, that is all. There is nothing inalienable about them.
Click to expand...
And yet, you fully buy into the idea that these rights -are- inalienable.
Explain the dichotomy.
 
Sure it does.
That you may never have the means to own a million acres of Maui in no way means your freedom to own eproperty is meaningless.
Click to expand...

No. But it does not extend so far that I will be able to own millions of acres in Maui, like I said.


No... YOU are confusing them.
YOU take it to mean a physical capability, not a political or legal capacity as the term is used when related to "freedom" or "liberty".
Click to expand...

Political and legal capability are compartamentalized into physical capability. They are smaller senses in a single larger sense.

All 'senses' are experential in nature. In reality, only 'physical' things exist.


On the contrary -- its complete obligation lies in protecting you exercise of your rights from those that would infringe upon them.

The means for exercising those rights are up to you to provide.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court has not consistently agreed with either of us.


The protection of that right from others, yes, not that you will have the means to exercise said right.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution only makes that specification in the Second Amendment, to prevent the government from banning possession of firearms. Nowhere else does it make that specification regarding any right, and if it does, it would have to read in its proper context.

I'd argue that you require that gun regardless, as said security cannot ever exist.
Click to expand...

It has to exist to some extent, or police stations would be pointless; they would never be of any help to anyone in any way.


No... the most minimal security provision it could make is to ensure that your right to that gun is not infringed upon. The means to obtain that gun are up to you.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution invests the government with the authority and responsibility to ensure domestic peace, one of which is providing me with a weapon when it is unable to provide me with police services. It does not specify anything like what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
And yet, you fully buy into the idea that these rights -are- inalienable.
Explain the dichotomy.
Click to expand...

I don't buy into the idea they are inalienable. I maintain the opposite position, that there is nothing inalienable about them.
 
Catawba said:
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were just made up by us, that is all. There is nothing inalienable about them.
Click to expand...

So the non-existent right to "health care" is inalienable, and some else's formerly inalienable right to life and property are now discarded if by doing so we can promote Messiahcare.
 
Morality Games said:
No. But it does not extend so far that I will be able to own millions of acres in Maui, like I said.
Click to expand...
You WILL be able to -- if -you- supply the means.
You have the freedom to do so.
Political and legal capability are compartamentalized into physical capability. They are smaller senses in a single larger sense.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
That you do not have the physical capability to march in a political protest in no way means you do not have the political or legal freedom to march in said protest.

That you do not have a church that youcan atend in no way means that you do not have the political or legal freedom to freely exercise your religion.

et cetera...
All 'senses' are experential in nature. In reality, only 'physical' things exist.
Click to expand...
Obviouly not - see above.
That's your interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court has not consistently agreed with either of us.
Click to expand...
Good thing neither of us rest our position on the supreme court.
The U.S. Constitution only makes that specification in the Second Amendment, to prevent the government from banning possession of firearms. Nowhere else does it make that specification regarding any right.
Click to expand...
Not just protection from banning, but infringement, period.
Not sure how you think this applies to what I said.
It has to exist to some extent, or police stations would be pointless.
Click to expand...
You said "If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants...".

The government can NEVER supply so much security that 'non compliants' can NEVER act against you, which would b enecessary to "ensure" the free exercise of yoru rights.
The U.S. Constitution invests the government with the authority and responsibility to ensure domestic peace, one of which is providing me with a weapon when it is unable to provide me with police services.
Click to expand...
Ths is absolutely unsupportable.
The consitution specifies that it will provide for very few things, and the means for you to maintain your personal protection is not among them. It specifies that the government will 'ensure domestinc tranqulity', a statment was made in a specific context -- to end the sqaubbles amoing the states resulting from the inefficacy of the Articles of Confederation - not related to your argument in any way.
 
Catawba said:
I don't buy into the idea they are inalienable.
Click to expand...
Yes you do.
Disagree?
Answer the question:
What would you think of being forced by the state to attend a church of its choosing?
 
Goobieman said:
Yes you do.
Disagree?
Answer the question:
What would you think of being forced by the state to attend a church of its choosing?
Click to expand...

In America, it would be wrong because we have determined that we have freedom of religion. In other countries, if they chose to do things differently, that's their business and I'd have no problem with them doing things differently.

Rights are not inalienable or universal, period.
 
Cephus said:
In America, it would be wrong because we have determined that we have freedom of religion. In other countries, if they chose to do things differently, that's their business and I'd have no problem with them doing things differently.
Click to expand...
No disrespect, but I thnk you'd very much take exception to being forced to ahdere to the tenets of a religion that you dont want to adhere to, and this exception would exist regardless of where it happened.

I am -positive- this is true for Catawaba.

Why is that?
Because you both believe that freedom of religion is an universal, inalienable right, and that being forced to adhere to a religion not of your choosing violates that right.
 
Goobieman said:
No disrespect, but I thnk you'd very much take exception to being forced to ahdere to the tenets of a religion that you dont want to adhere to, and this exception would exist regardless of where it happened.

I am -positive- this is true for Catawaba.

Why is that?
Because you both believe that freedom of religion is an universal, inalienable right, and that being forced to adhere to a religion not of your choosing violates that right.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you'd be wrong. I just said that I do not believe for a second that freedom of religion is a universal, inalienable right and now you're telling me that I do? That particular right applies only within the society where it has been granted. In a society where it has not been granted, such as parts of the Middle East, you *DO NOT* have freedom of religion. They *CAN* ostracize you or kill you for practicing a religion that you are not, by law, allowed to practice. You might not like that, but it doesn't change the fact.

The reality is, you're looking at reality through American-colored glasses, but there's a whole wide world out there that doesn't give a damn what American law, culture or society says.
 
Cephus said:
Sorry, but you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...
So.... you're stating that if you found yourself forced to practice some religion not of your choice, you'd take no exception to it at all, you'd not complain, even to yourself, and you'd happily accept it.
Right?

The reality is, you're looking at reality through American-colored glasses, but there's a whole wide world out there that doesn't give a damn what American law, culture or society says.
Click to expand...
Reality is that -you- believe that you have rights and you will not be happy when they are violated, regardless of where or how.
Thus, you DO buy into the idea of 'universal rights'.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So the non-existent right to "health care" is inalienable, and some else's formerly inalienable right to life and property are now discarded if by doing so we can promote Messiahcare.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say health care was an inalienable right?
 
Goobieman said:
No disrespect, but I thnk you'd very much take exception to being forced to ahdere to the tenets of a religion that you dont want to adhere to, and this exception would exist regardless of where it happened.

I am -positive- this is true for Catawaba.

Why is that?
Because you both believe that freedom of religion is an universal, inalienable right, and that being forced to adhere to a religion not of your choosing violates that right.
Click to expand...

Well you would be wrong, because I do not believe freedom of religion is an universal, inalienable right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom