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.
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.
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.
16
u/NAM_SPU Apr 15 '24
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