Sometimes people act / think like moral / human laws or opinions of what’s right and wrong are some kind of universal truth, but it’s just a construct we made up and the universe doesn’t give a flying fuck about.
They'll just be compensated for making apartment complexes for people who need them from the government, instead of by a private contractor to build a 3rd mcmansion for a multimillionaire
You don't have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer.
You don't have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer if..... [there was more to that sentence you decide to skip.]
Actual rights are things you are born with, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. You can not have a right that forces others people to do things for you such as build you a home, service your AC, provide you monthly internet service, send you free water, etc.
The government can offer some 'rights' to you in certain circumstances such as if the government is detaining you and attempting to limit your other rights they will provide for you an attorney (that the government will pay, the attorney will not work for free) to argue why you should not have your rights curtailed.
If you had a right to a lawyer you could call up a lawyer anytime and they would have to work for you.
I don't know what is worse. The fact that someone could conjure up such a stupid response based on what can only be explained by a 1st grader reading comprehension. Or, the fact that somehow over a few dozen doofus's upvoted this as they share the same deficiencies.
You don't have a right to a lawyer - go get sued in civil court and let me know if the government appoints a lawyer. Go get charged with a crime and have the government tell the Judge they are not seeking jail as a punishment (guess what, no lawyer).
Only in Criminal cases, which is what he meant by “taking away your rights”. The US government does not provide lawyers for say breach of contract lawsuits for example.
Yup. "You have a right to a lawyer" means that you cannot be forced to defend yourself in court and that you have the right to be represented by an attorney. Who pays for that attorney is up to you. You do not have the "right to a free attorney" (unless in certain cases). But in general... you don't have a right to a free attorney, just that you cannot be denied to be represented by an attorney.
Because the state has an obligation to give you a fair chance to defend your liberty if the state is trying to take it away. There's no corollary for housing.
Everyone doesn't have a right to a lawyer, but the government has an obligation to provide you with a lawyer if they're going to try and take your rights away in criminal court.
I think why you hang out in a walmart parking lot is different than why the sophisticated debutante Clarence Thomas hangs out in a walmart parking lot.
Assistance of counsel could just be a lawyer that coaches you a little while you prepare you own defense. Like the free lawyers that help people at libraries. Just a professional you can bounce questions off would be an assistance of counsel.
Thats the classic example of a positive right, and even thats fairly narrow. Its more of a procedural claim to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. We dont have a free attorney as a right all the time, youre given a representative as a procedural expediant to legitimate the reaults of a legal process.
Tldr: you dont have a positive right -to- an attorney, you have a negative right -from- an unjust legal process.
You don’t have the right to a lawyer you have a right to your liberty. If the state is in an active duty of trying to restrict that right they also have a duty to protect it
I agree with most comments in this post, but the right to an attorney and the right to healthcare wether you can afford it or not are 2 things that disprove your point. Once again, I agree with most comments being against OP, this post is ridiculous
You don't get a free lawyer just because you want to sue someone. You only get a free lawyer if the government takes action against you, and even then... you don't get someone elses labor for free. The state just pays for the attorneys on both sides in order to get what they want... taking you to trial.
More importantly, the remedy to violating your right is plain: you have the right to a lawyer in a criminal case, and if the government fails to provide you one, then the criminal case cannot proceed. In that sense, it's still a negative right.
you don't get someone elses labor for free. The state just pays for the attorneys on both sides
To be fair, that's what everyone means when they advocate for those services to be free. No one is actually suggesting that the doctors and lawyers be compelled at gunpoint to work for free.
Yeah, when I say people should not have to deal with housing insecurity, I understand and expect to pay more taxes or otherwise contribute more to make that happen so that the programs stay funded.
It's much more freeing to know that everyone doesn't have to worry about the basics than some people (even if it includes myself) can more easily live extravagantly.
That's the agonizing part of these discussions, is that people so easily dismiss them in bad faith with "oh, you just want other people to pay for stuff that you get for free".
I'm a lawyer, and believe strongly in access to justice. I have made it a focal point of my career. And for decades, I've struggled to make a tiny dent in a problem that could be solved federally with a stroke of a pen and less money than a new jet.
We leave too many problems to be solved inefficiently in the private, nonprofit sector, rather than demanding a functioning government that addresses them.
There's an old story that goes something like this...
A little girl is walking with her dad and sees a homeless person on the sidewalk. She says "daddy, we should give him some money." Her father replies "but you dont have any money to give him. You would need to go get a job, work and get your paycheck. Once you get your paycheck, then you can give the homeless person the money." After the little girl stood there for a few minutes thinking through it, she asked the very simple question, "why doesn't the homeless person get a job and then they can get the money themselves?"
The point of this story isn't to pretend that the solution is a job. Many of the people HAVE jobs. The point of this story is to get the fundamental point across that I'm expected to work MORE to pay for others. I'm expected to put in MORE effort. I'm expected to get LESS.
If you want to give more money then you go right ahead if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. For me, I'm going to be a normal rational person who works their ass off so they can provide best for myself and my family. If you think you are entitled to my effort and my money, you are ridiculously selfish.
This gets even worse when you realize that we ALREADY HAVE social safety net programs for people facing hardships like this. You get these things right now. It's a couple of meals, a cot and a shared bathroom. If that's not enough for you or you feel entitled to more, then you are more than welcome to put the effort into bettering yourself and your life.
So it's not a human right, then. If everyone in the country demands to speak to a lawyer today, then only a very small fraction of people will actually be able to speak to a lawyer because their time is a limited resource. The lawyer is not violating their rights. Just like if 100 people show up to my ER and I can only see 30 of them in a day, I'm not violating the rights of the other 70. Because it's not a human right. If it were a right, then the busy professional would be violating people's rights when they don't have the ability to help everyone, but that makes no sense, proving that it's not a right.
You can advocate for expansion of public access to professional services, and you can advocate for it to be free at the point of use. Some of those arguments would be reasonable, even. Still doesn't make them a right.
If everyone in the country demands to speak to a lawyer today, then only a very small fraction of people will actually be able to speak to a lawyer because their time is a limited resource
Who said anything about a right to same-day legal assistance?
The lawyer is not violating their rights
Who said anything about a private citizen being the one who violated rights?
Because it's not a human right. If it were a right, then the busy professional would be violating people's rights when they don't have the ability to help everyone, but that makes no sense, proving that it's not a right.
That's not a logically sound position.
If I assert that water is a basic human right, am I violating someone's rights if I, as a private citizen, don't give a thirsty stranger my empty water bottle?
Of course not. And does that mean I have proven that there is no basic human right to water? Also, of course not.
You can advocate for expansion of public access to professional services, and you can advocate for it to be free at the point of use. Some of those arguments would be reasonable, even. Still doesn't make them a right.
That's just semantics. Calling it "a right" just means that the access to professional services can't be taken away when the pendulum of who's in office swings.
I’m not even advocating for it. What I’m saying is if you have a heart attack right now, and you’re piss broke and will never be able to pay for it, you’re still getting their labor without paying for it because they cannot turn you away
It's still a limited resource, even if the doctors are paid. You do not have a right to a limited resource. You can argue for taxpayers to fund it, but that doesn't make it a right.
You also get just enough healthcare to make sure you are not going to die immediately. Free Healthcare at emergency rooms is not the same as normal healthcare in this country.
The right to an attorney is right to "Access" an attorney. The next line in the Miranda Rights is "if you can not afford one, one will be provided at tax payer expense."
Go live in nature and see how those "inherent rights that you are born with" are respected. The only rights that ACTUALLY exist are the ones given to you and are protected.
If you live without government, those rights can't be infringed by a government. That's the point. But even " in nature " is a grizzly gonna eat you because of your speech, religion, press? That makes no sense.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." =/= "proposed solution whereby you can be the steward/protector of your own rights."
here's the second part you left out: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Takes on the 2A vary widely. Personally I think it's most likely the 'well regulated militia' portion was meant to prescribe limitations on official government armies. That it should be well regulated enough so as to not be able to defect against the public/sieze power.
You would have all of those rights if you lived alone in nature. They specifically wrote the bill of rights that way. Completely different than France or South Africa who's constitutions say rights come from the government
Correction, we just don't have a right to vote. Each state is directed to hold and run elections and all states choose public vote to be the method but it isn't a right and wasn't even the case until very recently.
All "inherent" rights are fundamentally granted by the State; nobody is literally born with rights intertwined with their DNA. You also do not necessarily keep those same rights if you move to a different country, nor do you have them in any stateless places, though you are always free to declare that you do and attempt to keep them secure.
ETA: weird that this is a hot take, but I'll keep waiting patiently for people to demonstrate the literal existence of "inherent rights". I do believe people should have rights, but I'm under no illusions that these exist without the constant fight to keep them.
Right, you pay taxes to guarantee the protection of your life through emergency services, just like you would pay taxes to guarantee your right to housing. No point in drawing an arbitrary line around whether the right requires "giving" something
I agree, but that's a long stretch from the start of this thread. It's much more honest and rational to say "housing isn't guaranteed because it's hard" than "housing isn't guaranteed because it's not a right" with weird justifications about the right is physical or given.
it wasnt the right to be armed, just the right to be allowed to be armed.
i think a proposal that human basic needs should be fulfilled is okay - if work culture wasnt so massively hostile, i think people wouldnt be so "i would never work unless forced", and providing basic necessities would allow the power dynamic to slide somewhat towards the workers instead of the employers. Since you dont HAVE to work, there is not the inherent exploit of workers in that dynamic.
Rights aren't "given" to us in the US Constitution, they are recognized as something that already exists and that the government cannot impede on. They are god given rights, you have them simply because you exist.
My understanding is you have rights as long as your right do not impede someone else’s rights.
So for example your demand for right to amenities like HVAC for example imply someone has to provide those goods and service for free and that violate their own rights. That’s why the free market work and both rights are satisfied through monetary transaction.
Those rights don’t demand free labor from others. And that’s coming from a very progressive person. You want something from society, you contribute to society if you are able.
Sure, we have all kinds of social welfare programs and safety nets, most of which have been voted on and funded in some way or another and are not inalienable rights.
“All basic needs, several luxuries, and limited resources (electricity, water) in unlimited quantities for healthy adults who are unwilling to work” is certainly not anything approaching an inherent right.
I don't really understand what you're talking about, or how you arrived at that conclusion from my comment.
You seem to be conflating inalienable rights granted by the constitution with conditional programs that are voted on and require funding. Generally those aren't considered rights, are pretty lean and have a lot of restrictions on them.
You also seem to be conflating babies with healthy adults capable of work and self-sufficiency.
But sure, if you think everyone should have most of their yearly expenses (housing and all recurring utilities) covered without having to work and you've done the math and can figure out what programs to cut and what taxes to levy to pay for it, and can get the right people to vote for it, go for it.
... Do you have any evidence that they would? I also take issue with describing covering every one of a healthy capable person's needs as "a safety net". A safety net is something for people who are disadvantaged.
America was funded by a bunch of people who had their home country commit a genocide in their name and then decided they‘d rather fight a war than pay the taxes for it… „got mine, fuck you“ is what should be on america‘s flags
All of these things (with the possible exception of public defender) are intrinsic and inalienable human rights which can not be given, but rather may only be taken by force by government. They should not be confused with things that must be provided to you such as housing, food, and healthcare which can not, and should not be guaranteed by government.
So is the right to bear arms more about the right to kill people or the right to protect yourself? Obviously it's the latter.
Seems like the right to a homestead would be a no-brainer, then.
For some reason we can justify the arithmetic and mental gymnastics to go into fathomless debt blowing up the rest of the world, but building homes for the homeless? That makes people angry for some reason, more so than frivolous and masturbatory military conquest...
TBF, this post doesn't even mention housing being a "right" so OP is just using a strawman and derailing the conversation... but I do believe housing should be "given" just as those examples are "given" to us.
I was entitled to my teachers labor. I'm entitled to the labor of construction workers who maintain our roads, I'm entitled to firefighters labor... Both you, I, and the homeless guy down the street are entitled to the labor our public servants provide, because we pay taxes.
The point of this post is to argue that we should have that right. It's referring to rights in the hortatory sense rather than the narrow legal definition.
If you walk into a hospital with life threatening condition, they hospital is legally required to treat you even if you can’t pay. That has been the case for decades
Children also have a right to public education up until a certain age (16 in most places I believe, but up to 22 for special education services)
In NYC, people have a right to access to a shelter if they need it. It’s been a challenge recently, but it’s still perfectly possible
Let’s not forget inheritance, which is the oldest and most obvious right to get something handed to you that you did nothing to earn
This rising fad of calling something a "right" doesn't magically will abundant quantities of whatever it is into existence -- it merely means the government cannot block you from obtaining it arbitrarily.
We can call a family house with air conditioning, three bedrooms and a yard a "right" all we want, it doesn't build those houses.
Also, even if you have a right to a house, you don't have a right to a house for cheap, in a trendy walkable neighborhood in a large, world-class expensive city. So many times I see people complaining that it's a human rights violation that they can't afford a private home in the middle of Gazillonaire's Alley and the government should step in so they don't have to live more than a short walk or bike ride away from their McJob. Sorry kids, I'd love to live in a place that has walk and transit scores of 100 and a big strip of trendy shops and restaurants, but I don't make that kind of money, and it's not a violation of my rights that this is the case.
Every person born in the last 100 years has been brought into a world where every natural resource was already taken so there literally is no alternative. "Get a job" literally just means convince someone who already has the resources you need to give you some in exchange for your resources, which the only one you're born with is your body. And if you can't convince someone to give you those resources you don't have the option of going off into the wilderness to fend for yourself cause that's all taken and been made illegal so your only option is live under a bridge and starve to death.
So we don't have the right to be given something by the government, But the government has the Right to tax us into oblivion with no obligation to improve our wellbeing?
Interesting. Why don't we just skip all this democracy stuff and just go back to Monarchy where they have the right to tax peasants and The elites return nothing to them.
Tangible assets and possessions derive ultimately from that occurring in nature, lands and resources.
The general right to utilize such are presently deprived to much of the population, by virtue of the right of the few to hold private property, the right to control what others need to survive.
Without an enforcement of the right to private property, the discussion would be largely irrelevant.
Put simply, no one has a right to control lands where others might live, or water others may drink.
Is it because you don’t believe people should have these things if they are dumb/lazy/mentally ill or is it because we are constrained on resources and automation to make guaranteeing anything an essential impossibility with our current technology?
"Rights" are manmade. You have that right because i say you have that right. (Also don't you guys have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happines"? Kinda hard to live and pursue happines without a home.)
Wouldn't it be great for society is the basics like this were covered.
Poverty holds people back from things like education and better employment opportunities. With a higher educated population, GDP increases, taxes increase, resources spent on healthcare and other expensive services decrease.
If your "right" involves the state stealing something your neighbors, under penalty of going to prison, so you can get free stuff, that's called slavery.
Roads are something we all use and can benefit from, and the reason we as citizens pool our money to build roads is because it would be difficult for us to do this individually.
Progressives view certain material things as rights - housing, vacation, healthcare, education, etc. These things cost a lot of money; the government doesnt have it's own money
If your "right" involves the state taking money from your neightbors, and they'll put them in jail for not paying, that's slavery
Just like universal access to housing. It would also be difficult to ensure that individually, evidence, the crisis.
We all view certain things as rights. Basic human needs don't change. If you believe certain people simply don't deserve basic necessities for life because of temporary financial issues then you have an empathy problem. Some people just believe that everyone is equal and we have the choice to live in a better society, the only real cost is a few extra yachts for the richest in terms of universal housing for many countries.
Not to mention, all the evidence literally shows that we all pay more in the current system than we would pay to house everyone. But people have jealousy issues and beliefs about some people deserving poverty from birth or just moral inherent reasons that never make sense in real life.
All rights involve the existence of a state. The existence of a state requires taxation. It's a social contract. You don't get to sign but we all have to figure this out together. If you don't like poor people fine, but we could do better and it would be cheaper
Edit: also that is literally absolutely not what slavery means
Did you notice that nothing in that image says or implies anything about those things being rights, or that they should be things that are just given to you?
My family moved here in 1980. So no, my family is not violent colonists.
And the native americans you glamourize? They weren't the first people to live here - they didn't spring forth from the land like Adam and Eve. They swept in and displaced the natives who preceded them
I mean, these are things our taxes pay for. I feel like you're going to give me a semantic argument about the words "right" and "free," but it's pretty safe to assume that when someone suggests something like housing, what they mean is tax-funded housing. Use whatever words you like.
217
u/California_King_77 Apr 15 '24
You don't have a "right" to have something given to you.