Discussion of rights — natural, societal, etc. (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    V Chip

    Truth Addict
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    1,396
    Reaction score
    2,523
    Age
    56
    Location
    Outside Atlanta
    Offline
    This deserves its own thread. If other posts can be moved here or copied here that would be helpful.

    Are there such things as “natural” or “god-given” rights? Which rights would qualify? Which rights that are very common wouldn't? Who/what grants or enforces such rights?
     
    I do not disagree with the above. However, if you have any kind of success in life you will be burdened by those that are unsuccessful and need your cash to survive. I have no issues with the concept of wealth redistribution as it is clearly beneficial. There must be an optimal balance between individualism and collectivism.

    Favoring collectivism does not change the nature of the so-called rights. Freedom of speech and assembly happens easily in each system does not cost money. Whereas free health care requires money and collectivism. It is what it is, but at the end of the day the desire to have free food, shelter, and health care is not the same right as free speech.
    Freedom of speach often cost something far more important than money, namely your life or liberty!

    And I still don't get the whole "burdened with" retoric. Success in life is not measured in aquired wealth alone but in fullfilment of goals and finding satisfaction with what you have acchieved
     
    Last edited:
    Freedom of speach often cost something far more important than money, namely your life or liberty!
    I cannot understand how you relate death by speaking freely to the cost if health care. Could you expand on that subject.
    And I still don't get the whole "burdened with" retoric. Success in life is not measured in aquired wealth alone but in fullfilment of goals and finding satisfaction with what you have acchieved
    Success is related to accomplishments and goals, I agree, But that has nothing to do with tights. You are using sophistry again.
     
    I do not disagree with the above. However, if you have any kind of success in life you will be burdened by those that are unsuccessful and need your cash to survive. I have no issues with the concept of wealth redistribution as it is clearly beneficial. There must be an optimal balance between individualism and collectivism.

    Favoring collectivism does not change the nature of the so-called rights. Freedom of speech and assembly happens easily in each system does not cost money. Whereas free health care requires money and collectivism. It is what it is, but at the end of the day the desire to have free food, shelter, and health care is not the same right as free speech.

    Yes, because it's impossible to have the latter without the former.

    And it's been pointed out repeatedly that free speech and assembly costs money. What about the police officers pulling overtime because they're needed at a free assembly? That costs money and time from people who might be in a situation where they have no choice but to be there. Is that an acceptable burden?
     
    That is how they are generally described. However, one could also say the right to life may be biological. We are driven to pass DNA to the next generation.

    In any event I don't care how the rights are called. What really matters is that many cannot tell the difference between a right and entitlement . Free speech is certainly free. Right to housing or health care is not free.

    I explained in detail how "free speech" wasn't really free at all. It takes considerable investment and effort by "others" to get to the point that "free speech" is actually free for a person.

    But you just dismissed that point, as you do with anything that doesn't fit within your framing.
     
    I am happy to give massive credit to a good argument and will gladly lose a point if the argument is strong. However, I will also point out weak arguments that are similar to pointing out a grammar error. That in itself does not refute the argument and is cheap sophistry.

    Do you view these conversations as a way to score points? That's pathetic.
     
    I explained in detail how "free speech" wasn't really free at all. It takes considerable investment and effort by "others" to get to the point that "free speech" is actually free for a person.

    But you just dismissed that point, as you do with anything that doesn't fit within your framing.
    Trust me on this one. When I speak it does not cost anyone any money. The concept of free speech is the assumption that the government is not repressive. Oppression costs money, absence of oppression does not cost money.
     
    And it's been pointed out repeatedly that free speech and assembly costs money. What about the police officers pulling overtime because they're needed at a free assembly? That costs money and time from people who might be in a situation where they have no choice but to be there. Is that an acceptable burden?
    The speech at the assembly remains free of cost. The police is there to prevent violence.
    Violence is not free speech.
     
    Could we please get back to the topic. Namely rigths. The focus on money is not what this thread is about. Every thread seems to evolve into how others become an "economic burden" instead.

    So what rigths do you all consider natural/social ?
     
    It costs money to enforce laws. There is a need for a police force and tribunals. However, basic rights do not cost money. The laws and the rights are different entities. For example to say medical care is a right is wrong because medical care costs money. However, the right to free speech costs no money.
    I didn't show up until page 5 to destroy @Paul's argument, but here I am.

    He says "look up the Bill of Rights," indicating that he believes the Bill of Rights to be natural rights.

    Then he says that you can tell they're natural rights because they don't cost money.

    All of you out here are arguing about the first amendment, when you needed to head down just one more amendment: "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Arms cost money.

    Now, we can discuss the "right to self-defense" not costing money, but that's not the right the Bill of Rights confers. This negates @Paul's argument that the founding fathers listed natural rights as the Bill of Rights, which opens up the door to additional rights that weren't listed in the Bill of Rights, and rights that were listed in the Bill of Rights not being conferred by nature.

    And I'm on ignore so he won't read any of this.
     
    This deserves its own thread. If other posts can be moved here or copied here that would be helpful.

    Are there such things as “natural” or “god-given” rights? Which rights would qualify? Which rights that are very common wouldn't? Who/what grants or enforces such rights?

    No, If a right was natural or god given, men would not be able to take it away.

    All rights exist at the pleasure of the society you live in.
     
    ... as a right in the manner the founding fathers framed it.
    Sure, but as we seemingly agree, that's just a semantics issue over how those guys framed things two hundred plus years ago. IMO, their policy decisions become less and less relevant with each passing decade.

    I think other Western nations benefit from the fact that their Constitutions are relatively modern constructs. You can actually see this a lot in state constitutions. Louisiana's most recent constitution is from 1974. It goes into many specifics and leaves less 'gray-area' for courts to interpret.
     
    @Paul

    Free speech is free!?!?

    you are either intentionally or unintentionally using the two meanings of “Free” interchangeably. The word has two meanings. But you know that. So I think you mean “free” in the philosophical sense.

    So in that case, tell that to the Continental Army. Who, ya know, literally had to defeat the largest standing army the world had ever seen for the right to free speech. Not exactly “free”. And you guys used to tell us all the time that “they hate us for our freedom” is why we need a military of global conquest proportions. Hardly free to keep those right either.

    The other meaning of free, of course is in the monetary sense. Certainly you don’t think “free” is speaking monetarily in that context right? I mean, it would explain ALOT about why you post the way you do, but no one could be that ignorant of English phrasing and have been here as long as you have. As if not receiving a fine makes it free. Ridiculous.
     
    The speech at the assembly remains free of cost. The police is there to prevent violence.
    Violence is not free speech.

    You missed the point entirely. No rights exist without the ability to protect them. No matter the form of protection, it costs a non-zero amount of dollars.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom