[sdduuuude]

So – you used to weigh 600 lbs and you are down to 400 now ? Good for you ! Keep up the good work !

Mine is also the same as the last 10 years:
“No more New Years resolutions.”

[sdduuuude]

So – you used to weigh 600 lbs and you are down to 400 now ? Good for you ! Keep up the good work !

Mine is also the same as the last 10 years:
“No more New Years resolutions.”

[sdduuuude]

So – you used to weigh 600 lbs and you are down to 400 now ? Good for you ! Keep up the good work !

Mine is also the same as the last 10 years:
“No more New Years resolutions.”

[sdduuuude]

So – you used to weigh 600 lbs and you are down to 400 now ? Good for you ! Keep up the good work !

Mine is also the same as the last 10 years:
“No more New Years resolutions.”

[sdduuuude]

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]

That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.

[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]

Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”

[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]

Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.

Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]

That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.

[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]

Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”

[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]

Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.

Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]

That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.

[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]

Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”

[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]

Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.

Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]

That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.

[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]

Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”

[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]

Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.

Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=qwerty007]Somebody must have agreed to it, or not disagreed for it not to be so. [/quote]

That makes no sense.
If someone decides to kill someone, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to live.

[quote=qwerty007]Health care is a right if the majority of the population deem it so.[/quote]

Not a bad point but off the mark a bit. You might say “Health care is a right if enough of the population voluntarily decide to fund it.” The key word being “voluntarily”

[quote=qwerty007]the strong arm of the government is clearly needed to control them[/quote]

Likely, the strong arm of the govt is the reason costs are so high in the first place.

Your comments about “moral duty” make sense, but punishing people for not upholding their moral duty is unethical as your morals and theirs are different. Lots of republicans feel it is society’s moral duty to be not gay, for example.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right.[/quote]

I would add to this “anything that costs money or takes someone’s time can’t be a right.”

For example – I don’t have the right to a daily massage, which costs the masseuse no money.

People just don’t seem to understand this basic concept – that as soon as you say “everyone has a right to x” that you are actually taking away inalienable rights from the whole of society. Providing health care to all is, in effect, unconstitutional, as I see it.

Providing health care to all is a lovely thought, and surely done with good intent, but also done out of ignorance and at the expense of freedom.

People misunderstand free markets for this exact reason. Free markets are not unregulated markets where everyone is free to do whatever they want.

Free markets are markets where you are free from others infringing on your property rights and personal freedom.

Those personal freedoms have to take precedence.

[Author]

Posts