Do you consider healthcare as a right for every citizen a far left position? (fence, income)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if healthcare is a right.....then food is a right and housing is a right. That means the government has to provide food and housing for everyone, rich or poor. The government controls everything.
I apologize for getting feisty, but often times no matter how clear, concise and universal I make something, I still get the "so what about this one specific thing" questions, as if logical consistency is so baffling. You unknowingly got caught up in something where I was already previously annoyed, so again, I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
Glad to know you're consistent though, many people (on all ends of the political lines) aren't.
Logical consistency is the anarchist's toughest challenge. Easy in theory, harder in practice.
And it isn't "many" people who aren't consistent, it's "most" people.
Who says they are natural rights? Who gets to say definitively what's on the list? What if somebody else disagrees with their list of natural rights, thinks some others should be on there?
It’s not “who” says. It’s a conclusion based on logic and deductive reasoning. The only view that doesn’t run into logical errors or contradictions is that every human has the right to live their life as they please, as long as they don’t violate that same right for others (more specifically - initiating force against peaceful people, taking or damaging their belongings, or committing fraud). Everyone can simultaneously have that right...no issues.
That is not true for “positive” rights - rights which place an obligation on other people to do something for you. If one person claims the right to a cheeseburger, that would mean they have the right to force someone else to provide one for them. Human rights need to apply to every human equally, so the question becomes “can every human have the right to force someone else to give them a cheeseburger?”
The answer is no. If you tried to apply that, everyone could sit there claiming everyone else owes them a cheeseburger. If you have the right to force me to give you a burger, and I have the right to force you to give me a cheeseburger....that simply doesn’t work, or make any sense.
So long story short, that leaves negative rights, or what I described in the first paragraph. It’s the only possible answer.
It’s not “who†says. It’s a conclusion based on logic and deductive reasoning. The only view that doesn’t run into logical errors or contradictions is that every human has the right to live their life as they please, as long as they don’t violate that same right for others (more specifically - initiating force against peaceful people, taking or damaging their belongings, or committing fraud). Everyone can simultaneously have that right...no issues.
How about the right to own land, that takes away the rights of others to use that land, something which I would say would appear to be a natural right. For most of human history people could just wander wherever they felt like (in practice that right was sometimes denied by force) and use any land they came across without the positive right to exclude others from it.
Constitution—the Seven Articles—establishes a framework of national government and only incidentally deals with individuals’ rights. the Bill of rights was added to PROTECT the natural rights from the government
Umm, not quite.
The Constitution didn't establish a framework of government. It established the WHOLE of the Federal government. If it named an office, then the government had that office. It wasn't a suggestion. And if it named a Power of Government (such as, to lay and collect taxes), then the govt had that power. And if it omitted a power, then the Fed govt did not have that power, and was forbidden to exercise it. Such as, the power to regulate workplace conditions, or the power to regulate land zoning etc.
As you said, some people were afraid that the original Constitution (before the BOR) didn't do enough to protect people's rights. Other people said nonsense, it does plenty, by not giving the Fed the power to do much of anything except what it explicitly named. Finally they agreed that adding some explicit language naming some of the "most important" rights (freedom of religion, press, arms, jury trials etc.), as a double protection.
(The original Constitution already had a section describing how the people could add or delete more offices, powers of govt etc. if they wanted.)
Two interesting results came from this. Some of those same people, speculated that if the Constitution said that people could peaceably assemble, but did not say that people could ride horses, that the slick lawyers might claim this meant that people were forbidden to ride horses. So the Framers put on another amendment (now #9), saying that the rights of the people named in the Constitution were not necessarily the only rights the people had, there were others.
Then they also started worrying that the ubiquitous slick lawyers might claim that if the people had rights not named in the Constitution, this meant that government also had powers that were not named. So the Framers added one more amendment (now #10), that said the powers of govt listed in the Constitution WERE the only powers the Fed govt had. All other powers were reserved to the states or the people, meaning they were forbidden to the Fed.
you give up your right to life when you invade my private property.....its not me TAKING your rights away..its you giving them up
Let's take this to an extreme to test the point. What if you owned all the land and food production on the planet, would I still be voluntarily giving up my right to life if I entered your property to take some food, or tried to grow some food for myself on your land? Or would your right to own property to that extent be effectively taking away my right to life?
Let's take this to an extreme to test the point. What if you owned all the land and food production on the planet, would I still be voluntarily giving up my right to life if I entered your propertyto take some food, or tried to grow some food for myself on your land? Or would your right to own property to that extent be effectively taking away my right to life?
it is legally my property.... you are entering to TAKE (aka steal) that is not a right, stealing is a wrong (entering to steal is a wrong, it is NOT your right)
it is legally my property.... you are poaching to TAKE (aka steal) that is not a right, stealing is a wrong (by you "using" my land to grow, you are impeding on my right to grow)
so let us twist/spin this some more
you tried to grow some food for yourself on my land, what if then I take your food you grew, as you are taking my right to grow food (life) on my land..see you are impeding MY rights
since you don't seem to support rights, nor private property, my guess is you support communism.....
But the legal right to own all the property in the world was given to you by the legal framework you operate in, it isn't a negative/natural right is a positive right granted to you by government and endive by the government and legal system recognising your title. If that means I physically cannot obtain enough food to live on without entering your property then your positive right to own property granted by government is denying my negative natural right to life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
