• 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!

Freedom = Entitlement to means?

Do you agree with the statement in the OP?

  • Total voters
    11
megaprogman said:
They are handouts and they are rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. :shrug:
Click to expand...

not to a socialist

to me there is a clear difference
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't. It only increases dependency and the left has proven it wants to expand the needy so as to get more votes
Click to expand...

Well, I think there are other ways to supply a social minimum that do not require dependancy. For example, requiring work or work training for most welfare benefits. Or maybe an earned income tax credit. Give people help so they can grow and become completely self dependent.

I don't care about the votes. I just think it is something we should do.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
playing dumb doesn't cut it with me
Click to expand...

I am not playing dumb, I am disarming you. You have a tendency to use buzz words in place of actual logical argument.
 
megaprogman said:
I am not playing dumb, I am disarming you. You have a tendency to use buzz words in place of actual logical argument.
Click to expand...

you flatter yourself too much and you really aren't that good

you want to call entitlements rights
 
Morality Games said:
Then voting should not be paid for collectively.
Click to expand...
This illsutrates a distinction between kinds of rights.

Some legal/polotical rights, like that od due process, the right to trial, the right to vote, etc, can -only- be exercised thru the action of and interaction with the cogernment, which is a 'means' paid for by everyone.

But other rights - free speech, right to arms, right to religion - do not fall under that same pretext.
 
TurtleDude said:
you flatter yourself too much and you really aren't that good

you want to call entitlements rights
Click to expand...

I bet you won't try calling me a buzzword again. :2razz:

Yes I do, I state that explicitly on the last page. Keep trying.
 
megaprogman said:
A party benefiting has nothing to do with intent. If you are a lawyer, you should know this.
Click to expand...

motive is a key ingredient


Lets see if you are honest enough to answer a few easy questions

1) do you agree that parties tend to push policies that will help that party maintain or gain power

2) What party pushes for the expansion of welfare, income redistribution and handouts?

3) what would happen if far less people were dependent on governnment handouts?
 
Goobieman said:
This illsutrates a distinction between kinds of rights.

Some legal/polotical rights, like that od due process, the right to trial, the right to vote, etc, can -only- be exercised thru the action of and interaction with the cogernment, which is a 'means' paid for by everyone.

But other rights - free speech, right to arms, right to religion - do not fall under that same pretext.
Click to expand...

Akhil Amar made a distinction between collective rights vs individual rights

he attempted to walk a line between the statists and the standard model on gun control saying it is a right to be exercised by individuals collectively like jury duty.

Of course you don't technically have an absolute right to serve on a jury

You have to be called by the government and survive Voire Dire

You as an individual have no recourse (ie no right) if you are dismissed for cause or through a preemptory challenge

in criminal cases the defense can execise a batson challenge if they think you were excluded due to race but that isn't your call
 
TurtleDude said:
motive is a key ingredient
Click to expand...

Yes, so please show it. Cite something. Again, being a lawyer, you should be familiar with the concept of evidence.

TurtleDude said:
Lets see if you are honest enough to answer a few easy questions

1) do you agree that parties tend to push policies that will help that party maintain or gain power
Click to expand...

Yes. But they also push policies that they think are morally right and they also push policies that their donors want.

TurtleDude said:
2) What party pushes for the expansion of welfare, income redistribution and handouts?
Click to expand...

Yes, but again, this does not automatically mean that they are trying to buy vote. I am a liberal, I tend to vote democrat and I think it is the right thing to do. Many politicians have also gone on record stating that they believe entitlements are the right thing. I believe as an example there was a flap about Obama "wanting to spread the wealth around"

TurtleDude said:
3) what would happen if far less people were dependent on governnment handouts?
Click to expand...

Union membership would probably skyrocket. There would be more street crime as there would be more desperation. The death rate would rise. In general, society would function less well.
 
Last edited:
Rights debates never end up anywhere because a common ground is never found.
 
This is a chat board

not a court of law



tell us why are rights just claims on the wealth of others

morally right has no value--it is just as moral to say that using government force to take the property of some to pay for those who vote for the politicians in power is thuggery

and I think it is ignorant to think that people who are politicians are doing something detached from keeping or gaining power. if dems really wanted to help people they wouldn't be proposing impeding private charity by not allowing 1 to 1 tax deductions for charitable contributions
 
TurtleDude said:
Akhil Amar made a distinction between collective rights vs individual rights
Click to expand...
That's not really the distincction here.

SOME rights can ONLY be exercised thru some interaction with the government -- there is no protection from self-incrimination if there is no government to prosecute you; there is no right to trial when there is no goverment to hold said trial. In this case, the means must be provided because the rights, by their nature, cannot exist w/o it.

But, as noted, this differs from the right to the free practice of religion, the freedom of moveement, the right to arms, etc -- these rights can be, and almost exclusovely are, exercised absent any necessary involvement by the government. As these rights can so exist, there is no entitlement to means.
 
megaprogman said:
Union membership would probably skyrocket. There would be more street crime as there would be more desperation. The death rate would rise. In general, society would function less well.
Click to expand...

how so, the global economy is going to destroy unions in everything but the public sector and a few trades that are necessarily local

the street crime might rise for a few years but it is the dependency cycle that creates broken homes. Illegitimacy -fatherless homes is the single greatest factor for the production of criminals. Black illegitimacy was not any different than whites before the Great Society and other welfare programs.
 
Goobieman said:
That's not really the distincction here.

SOME rights can ONLY be exercised thru some interaction with the government -- there is no protection from self-incrimination if there is no government to prosecute you; there is no right to trial when there is no goverment to hold said trial. In this case, the means must be provided because the rights, by their nature, cannot exist w/o it.

But, as noted, this differs from the right to the free practice of religion, the freedom of moveement, the right to arms, etc -- these rights can be, and almost exclusovely are, exercised absent any necessary involvement by the government. As these rights can so exist, there is no entitlement to means.
Click to expand...

true-but its the left that seems to be confused

not me. the collective rights-voting-does not take from one specific group and give to another. same with the right of "common defense" provided by the military.
 
TurtleDude said:
This is a chat board

not a court of law
Click to expand...

I know, but the rules of productive debate are largely the same. Use logic and cite your premise.

TurtleDude said:
tell us why are rights just claims on the wealth of others

morally right has no value--it is just as moral to say that using government force to take the property of some to pay for those who vote for the politicians in power is thuggery

and I think it is ignorant to think that people who are politicians are doing something detached from keeping or gaining power. if dems really wanted to help people they wouldn't be proposing impeding private charity by not allowing 1 to 1 tax deductions for charitable contributions
Click to expand...

Because I think it makes society work better as I have stated and as I have stated before, I think natural rights are a good general principal but I do not think they should be set in stone. Keep up.

You may interpret it as thuggery, but that is because you have a different definition of morally right based on a different set of standards. Oh wait you just declared that to be invalid. Oops you just contradicted yourself.
 
megaprogman said:
I know, but the rules of productive debate are largely the same. Use logic and cite your premise.



Because I think it makes society work better as I have stated and as I have stated before, I think natural rights are a good general principal but I do not think they should be set in stone. Keep up.

You may interpret it as thuggery, but that is because you have a different definition of morally right based on a different set of standards. Oh wait you just declared that to be invalid. Oops you just contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

I think welfare socialism has made society far worse. we are breeding a nation of losers, dependents and destroying what made this nation the greatest in the world
 
TurtleDude said:
I think welfare socialism has made society far worse. we are breeding a nation of losers, dependents and destroying what made this nation the greatest in the world
Click to expand...

Changing the argument again I see. Can you back up your two assertions here? Also, are you ever going to back up your statement that liberals make people dependent to buy votes?
 
megaprogman said:
Changing the argument again I see. Can you back up your two assertions here? Also, are you ever going to back up your statement that liberals make people dependent to buy votes?
Click to expand...

liberals create dependency

liberals get the votes from that group

so either its a lucky coincidence or intentional

I tend to think dem leaders know what they are doing



you can pretend it doesn't exist because you claim I cannot prove it
but we all know that its true

you won't admit it because you lose if you do
 
TurtleDude said:
liberals create dependency

liberals get the votes from that group

so either its a lucky coincidence or intentional

I tend to think dem leaders know what they are doing

you can pretend it doesn't exist because you claim I cannot prove it
but we all know that its true

you won't admit it because you lose if you do
Click to expand...

Yay, now you are resorting to talking points. Keep going, this is fun.
 
megaprogman said:
Changing the argument again I see. Can you back up your two assertions here? Also, are you ever going to back up your statement that liberals make people dependent to buy votes?
Click to expand...

that is an opinion

a society that is full of dependent people who need a nanny state government probably appeals to you

you also probably don't think AMerica is the greatest nation in the world-again that is an opinion

but the fact is, more people are dependent on the government now than at any other time in the nation's history.

and right now a majority of people in the usa are net tax consumers meaning they pay less to the government in federal taxes than what the government spends on them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom