[quote=pri_dk][quote]anything that costs money can’t be a right[/quote]
This claim is so flawed it is not even worth debating.
Jury trials certainly cost money, and I’m pretty sure they get mention is the “rights” section of the Constitution.[/quote]
This is a very interesting comment. Had to think about it for quite a bit. The real answer is very long. Too much to discuss here.
A trial is a useful tool to manage the problem of people violating others’ rights.
To an ultimate freedom idealist, you don’t really have a right to trial, but anyone punishing someone who has not committed a crime is then guilty.
A better way to look at it is this – in the overall scheme of “logically consistent rights” as I see it (and I have studied this ad-infinitum) a trial is required but whoever loses the trial has to pay for it, even if you have to borrow the money to pay for it and work it off. But the process has to happen so rights aren’t violated.
So, you don’t really have a right to a trial paid for by others but if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is paying for the trial. Certainly, it creates a burden on society and somehow has to get paid for. Either the jury volunteers, or charities fund trials.
Not being the ultimate idealist, I have always said the gov. should be limited to cops and courts and a very small set of laws.
The claim made in the earlier post is still an excellent claim. The it’s a simple way of insisting that the definition of “rights” is logically consistent across society. You can’t grant rights to some without taking them away from others. You have just chosen as your example about the only necessary infringement of rights that I see as useful.
