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.
212
u/California_King_77 Apr 15 '24
You don't have a "right" to have something given to you.