What are your rights?

[Clementine]

If somebody has to do extra work to provide you your "right", is it a "right" at all? Or is it involuntary servitude impose on that other person?

So, if someone has to fight for your rights, they are not rights? Is this what you are trying to say?

Ie, if a govt infringes your rights for no good reason, they are therefore not rights?

Surely a right is something we as humans deem to be important and expect the govt to leave us alone over, as long as we don't hurt others.

In fact the theory of rights has grown to the point where it means you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Poster didn't say fight for your rights (which is what many, especially military have done to ensure no one takes them away), it was provide for your "rights", which is a screwed up concept where politicians (rulers dictators) decide what rights people may or may not have. It's a question of what some see as rights. Some think they have a right to have others provide for them. How is that not being forced into servitude to the providers? Some say they have a right to free healthcare, but it means someone else has to work to pay for it. How is it a right when your having it is contingent on someone else giving up money?

Rights are inalienable. No one can give or take them. They are equal, meaning all have them. Government's role isn't to provide rights, it's to protect the ones we have. Promoting the general welfare isn't saying people should be forced to provide for the general welfare. Insisting that able-bodied people at least train for a job is promoting the general welfare. Handing them stuff without conditions is just enabling them to remain poor. And government should never force one half to provide for other people. That isn't guaranteeing rights. If we all had the right to free stuff, we'd all get it. As it is, the government steals from some so they can continue offering something to others. It's not a right to be subsidized and the government does it by forcing others to provide it. If they raise taxes to provide freebies, you must pay or face penalties. Well, unless you're Al Sharpton.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If somebody has to do extra work to provide you your "right", is it a "right" at all? Or is it involuntary servitude impose on that other person?

So, if someone has to fight for your rights, they are not rights? Is this what you are trying to say?

Ie, if a govt infringes your rights for no good reason, they are therefore not rights?

Surely a right is something we as humans deem to be important and expect the govt to leave us alone over, as long as we don't hurt others.

In fact the theory of rights has grown to the point where it means you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Poster didn't say fight for your rights (which is what many, especially military have done to ensure no one takes them away), it was provide for your "rights", which is a screwed up concept where politicians (rulers dictators) decide what rights people may or may not have. It's a question of what some see as rights. Some think they have a right to have others provide for them. How is that not being forced into servitude to the providers? Some say they have a right to free healthcare, but it means someone else has to work to pay for it. How is it a right when your having it is contingent on someone else giving up money?

Rights are inalienable. No one can give or take them. They are equal, meaning all have them. Government's role isn't to provide rights, it's to protect the ones we have. Promoting the general welfare isn't saying people should be forced to provide for the general welfare. Insisting that able-bodied people at least train for a job is promoting the general welfare. Handing them stuff without conditions is just enabling them to remain poor. And government should never force one half to provide for other people. That isn't guaranteeing rights. If we all had the right to free stuff, we'd all get it. As it is, the government steals from some so they can continue offering something to others. It's not a right to be subsidized and the government does it by forcing others to provide it. If they raise taxes to provide freebies, you must pay or face penalties. Well, unless you're Al Sharpton.

Who decides what rights are?

I mean, the only country in the world where owning guns is considered a right is the US. Surely someone decided this were the case.

So, if no one can give or take them, then you can demand than anything be your right.
Well technically true, but a govt doesn't have to accept your demands. In the US there are three types of rights. Rights written specifically into the Constitution, rights that the Supreme Court says the Constitution protects and rights that you may think you have but you don't have protected by the government.

But I think there is also something else. People say there's a right to "free" healthcare. No, I don't think it's a right. However it's something that people want in society because it's better, more humane, it's about looking after the people in society to a certain extent.

Like you've said, handing out free stuff all the time isn't the way to go, and I agree. However I do think at times the govt should be spending money to make sure society functions better. No, not food stamps, but things like infrastructure, or dealing with certain problems that do exist, like people paying into unemployment benefits and being able to take out when they're unemployed.

 

[Ernie S.]

If somebody has to do extra work to provide you your "right", is it a "right" at all? Or is it involuntary servitude impose on that other person?

So, if someone has to fight for your rights, they are not rights? Is this what you are trying to say?

Ie, if a govt infringes your rights for no good reason, they are therefore not rights?

Surely a right is something we as humans deem to be important and expect the govt to leave us alone over, as long as we don't hurt others.

In fact the theory of rights has grown to the point where it means you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Poster didn't say fight for your rights (which is what many, especially military have done to ensure no one takes them away), it was provide for your "rights", which is a screwed up concept where politicians (rulers dictators) decide what rights people may or may not have. It's a question of what some see as rights. Some think they have a right to have others provide for them. How is that not being forced into servitude to the providers? Some say they have a right to free healthcare, but it means someone else has to work to pay for it. How is it a right when your having it is contingent on someone else giving up money?

Rights are inalienable. No one can give or take them. They are equal, meaning all have them. Government's role isn't to provide rights, it's to protect the ones we have. Promoting the general welfare isn't saying people should be forced to provide for the general welfare. Insisting that able-bodied people at least train for a job is promoting the general welfare. Handing them stuff without conditions is just enabling them to remain poor. And government should never force one half to provide for other people. That isn't guaranteeing rights. If we all had the right to free stuff, we'd all get it. As it is, the government steals from some so they can continue offering something to others. It's not a right to be subsidized and the government does it by forcing others to provide it. If they raise taxes to provide freebies, you must pay or face penalties. Well, unless you're Al Sharpton.

Who decides what rights are?

I mean, the only country in the world where owning guns is considered a right is the US. Surely someone decided this were the case.

So, if no one can give or take them, then you can demand than anything be your right.
Well technically true, but a govt doesn't have to accept your demands. In the US there are three types of rights. Rights written specifically into the Constitution, rights that the Supreme Court says the Constitution protects and rights that you may think you have but you don't have protected by the government.

But I think there is also something else. People say there's a right to "free" healthcare. No, I don't think it's a right. However it's something that people want in society because it's better, more humane, it's about looking after the people in society to a certain extent.

Like you've said, handing out free stuff all the time isn't the way to go, and I agree. However I do think at times the govt should be spending money to make sure society functions better. No, not food stamps, but things like infrastructure, or dealing with certain problems that do exist, like people paying into unemployment benefits and being able to take out when they're unemployed.

OK cool I'm all for unemployment where your employer contributes to a fund that will pay you enough to eek by should you lose your job due to circumstances beyond your control. Think of it as temporary social security. You pay in now and you collect later as needed. BUT extending the normal 13 (now 26) weeks the system provides for to 99 weeks means the system is broke and tax revenue must make up the difference. I have a job... I'm terribly upset that you don't, but that isn't really my problem. I will do what I can as an individual to help you over a rough spot, but to have the government arbitrarily decide that you should receive an arbitrary amount of my money for an arbitrary number of weeks is not charity. It is larceny.

 

[bripat9643]

If somebody has to do extra work to provide you your "right", is it a "right" at all? Or is it involuntary servitude impose on that other person?

So, if someone has to fight for your rights, they are not rights? Is this what you are trying to say?

Ie, if a govt infringes your rights for no good reason, they are therefore not rights?

Surely a right is something we as humans deem to be important and expect the govt to leave us alone over, as long as we don't hurt others.

In fact the theory of rights has grown to the point where it means you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Poster didn't say fight for your rights (which is what many, especially military have done to ensure no one takes them away), it was provide for your "rights", which is a screwed up concept where politicians (rulers dictators) decide what rights people may or may not have. It's a question of what some see as rights. Some think they have a right to have others provide for them. How is that not being forced into servitude to the providers? Some say they have a right to free healthcare, but it means someone else has to work to pay for it. How is it a right when your having it is contingent on someone else giving up money?

Rights are inalienable. No one can give or take them. They are equal, meaning all have them. Government's role isn't to provide rights, it's to protect the ones we have. Promoting the general welfare isn't saying people should be forced to provide for the general welfare. Insisting that able-bodied people at least train for a job is promoting the general welfare. Handing them stuff without conditions is just enabling them to remain poor. And government should never force one half to provide for other people. That isn't guaranteeing rights. If we all had the right to free stuff, we'd all get it. As it is, the government steals from some so they can continue offering something to others. It's not a right to be subsidized and the government does it by forcing others to provide it. If they raise taxes to provide freebies, you must pay or face penalties. Well, unless you're Al Sharpton.

Who decides what rights are?

I mean, the only country in the world where owning guns is considered a right is the US. Surely someone decided this were the case.

So, if no one can give or take them, then you can demand than anything be your right.
Well technically true, but a govt doesn't have to accept your demands. In the US there are three types of rights. Rights written specifically into the Constitution, rights that the Supreme Court says the Constitution protects and rights that you may think you have but you don't have protected by the government.

But I think there is also something else. People say there's a right to "free" healthcare. No, I don't think it's a right. However it's something that people want in society because it's better, more humane, it's about looking after the people in society to a certain extent.

Like you've said, handing out free stuff all the time isn't the way to go, and I agree. However I do think at times the govt should be spending money to make sure society functions better. No, not food stamps, but things like infrastructure, or dealing with certain problems that do exist, like people paying into unemployment benefits and being able to take out when they're unemployed.

Your theory that rights are whatever the government says they are is obvious bullshit. If it were true, then the government could say you have the right to own slaves, and idiots like you would have nothing to say about it.

 

[VanessaExave]

MEH, I think it is Yiddish but conveys a verbal shrug, as in no big deal. At least in the context I used it.
I am really stressed right now. I dont know what to do. Do I call?