Rights?

[MtnBiker]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

[manu1959]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

is that other person also a US citizen?

[MtnBiker]

Yes.

[5stringJeff]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

The popular answer for this is that 'your rights stop when my rights are affected.'

However, I suppose I'd have to know the entire situation before I could give a good answer.

[MtnBiker]

The popular answer for this is that 'your rights stop when my rights are affected.'

However, I suppose I'd have to know the entire situation before I could give a good answer.

I didn't have a specific situation in mind, but just in general.

Can you think of a situation where a person has a right to something at the infringement of another?

[Birdzeye]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

I think that, in general, your rights (or mine, for that matter) stop when it becomes at the expense of the other.

Reality is often different.

[MtnBiker]

I think that, in general, your rights (or mine, for that matter) stop when it becomes at the expense of the other.

Reality is often different.

Reality certainly does differ.

I suppose we should clarify, forceable expense, not charity.

If you believe a right stops at the expense of another, does a person have a right to housing?

[darin]

I didn't have a specific situation in mind, but just in general.

Can you think of a situation where a person has a right to something at the infringement of another?

People have the right to avoid harassment/hate speech which infringes upon the right to freedom of speech.

[MtnBiker]

People have the right to avoid harassment/hate speech which infringes upon the right to freedom of speech.


A person has the right to free speech, but not necessary to be heard.

[darin]

A person has the right to free speech, but not necessary to be heard.

I'm saying if somebody is saying something harassing my 'right' not to be harassed trumps their right to free speech.

I'm not saying I'm in agreement - just saying it happens.

[Mr. P]

I didn't have a specific situation in mind, but just in general.

Can you think of a situation where a person has a right to something at the infringement of another?

A stretch, but yes. Someone breaks into my home and intends to do me harm by taking my life. I shot em middle chest and remove their right to life before they can do it to me. I did infringe on their right to life but only to protect what they would have taken from me.

[MtnBiker]

A stretch, but yes. Someone breaks into my home and intends to do me harm by taking my life. I shot em middle chest and remove their right to life before they can do it to me. I did infringe on their right to life but only to protect what they would have taken from me.

Well certianly there are going to be gray areas and judgements to be made. It could be argued that the intruder put his right to life at risk because he broke into your house.

[manu1959]

Yes.

then no.....

[Hobbit]

A stretch, but yes. Someone breaks into my home and intends to do me harm by taking my life. I shot em middle chest and remove their right to life before they can do it to me. I did infringe on their right to life but only to protect what they would have taken from me.

He infringed first (taking your right to own private property), justifying your act to violate his civil rights right back in an effort to protect your own rights. Those who intentionally violate the rights of others forfeit their own rights.

As for the right to housing...NO, you do not have the right to have a roof over your head. If you have a roof over your head, and you didn't pay for it, it's not because you're entitled to one, it's because another individual, either through an act of charity or due to the force of law, paid for that roof for you. You have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, meaning you have the right to buy housing, but you do not have the right to have it if you can't buy it.

[Mr. P]

Well certianly there are going to be gray areas and judgements to be made. It could be argued that the intruder put his right to life at risk because he broke into your house.

I said it was a stretch. But IMO an intruder leaves ALL their rights at the point of entry. I'm sure some would argue otherwise, in fact it has been and does happen. I just heard today some state REQUIRES you leave your home if someone breaks in instead of defending it. The perp gets rights but not the property owner.

[MtnBiker]

I said it was a stretch. But IMO an intruder leaves ALL their rights at the point of entry. I'm sure some would argue otherwise, in fact it has been and does happen. I just heard today some state REQUIRES you leave your home if someone breaks in instead of defending it. The perp gets rights but not the property owner.

Agreed on the intruder losing their right at point of entry. Requiring a home owner to leave is absurd.

[MtnBiker]

As for the right to housing...NO, you do not have the right to have a roof over your head. If you have a roof over your head, and you didn't pay for it, it's not because you're entitled to one, it's because another individual, either through an act of charity or due to the force of law, paid for that roof for you. You have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, meaning you have the right to buy housing, but you do not have the right to have it if you can't buy it.

That seems reasonable.

[Abbey Marie]

Two examples where the rights of one are allowed though at the infringment of another:

1. Eminent domain
2. Abortion

[MtnBiker]

Two examples where the rights of one are allowed though at the infringment of another:

1. Eminent domain
2. Abortion

Good examples.

1. Eminent domain; some may use this as an answer.



Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

2. Abortion; the abortion advocates will argue that there is only one person involved not 2.

[MtnBiker]

What about transportation or communication(electronic)? are those rights that US citizens should enjoy?

[Hagbard Celine]

What about transportation or communication(electronic)? are those rights that US citizens should enjoy?

I was thinking about this in traffic today. I'm tired of paying such a high fee every year to register my vehicle. It should be more reasonable. 60 bucks for a sticker with the year on it is a rip off. And I'd like to see free wireless Internet and cellular communication too. It's time for that. Everyone should be able to access those things. I don't know how and I don't care to debate jobs and corporate rights and all that. I just want to see these things.

[MtnBiker]

I was thinking about this in traffic today. I'm tired of paying such a high fee every year to register my vehicle. It should be more reasonable. 60 bucks for a sticker with the year on it is a rip off. And I'd like to see free wireless Internet and cellular communication too. It's time for that. Everyone should be able to access those things. I don't know how and I don't care to debate jobs and corporate rights and all that. I just want to see these things.

Well does wireless internet and cellular communications or even transportation come at a cost? You mentioned free, would it be true to say that it may not cost the users however someone would eventually need to pay for such services?

[Hagbard Celine]

Well does wireless internet and cellular communications or even transportation come at a cost? You mentioned free, would it be true to say that it may not cost the users however someone would eventually need to pay for such services?

Maybe there could be a government membership fee that tax payers (members) could pay yearly. These fees would go to the providers. It'd raise your taxes, but then it would just be as if instead of paying your provider directly you paid indirectly through the government so you'd break even. Or maybe a government provider plan would actually lower fees. I don't know.

Does anyone know what our license registration fees go toward?

[MtnBiker]

Maybe there could be a government membership fee that tax payers (members) could pay yearly. These fees would go to the providers. It'd raise your taxes, but then it would just be as if instead of paying your provider directly you paid indirectly through the government so you'd break even. Or maybe a government provider plan would actually lower fees. I don't know.

Does anyone know what our license registration fees go toward?

Well some may suggest such a system, would it be required for all people to pay this fee or would it be optional? Right now you choose to pay a license registration and gasoline tax or your cell phone and internet company. You could choose not to pay for those thing but then you would either be violating the law or not enjoying those services but again it is your choice.

I cannot say what exactly a registration fee goes towards, likely a bloated government transportaion bureacracy. And the same would surely happen if an internet and cell phone bureacracy was established as well.

[avatar4321]

Reality certainly does differ.

I suppose we should clarify, forceable expense, not charity.

If you believe a right stops at the expense of another, does a person have a right to housing?

Im not sure they do have a right to housing. The only reason anyone has housing is because someone has put the work in to build said housing. Should someone who has put in no effort have a right to benefit from the effort of others? Im not entirely sure.

Should we help them out? heck yeah! but do they have a right to it? I dont think they do.

[MtnBiker]

Im not sure they do have a right to housing. The only reason anyone has housing is because someone has put the work in to build said housing. Should someone who has put in no effort have a right to benefit from the effort of others? Im not entirely sure.

Should we help them out? heck yeah! but do they have a right to it? I dont think they do.

Yup I would concur. If someone chooses to offer housing to another out of charity to another that is fantastic. I would not agree that a person has a right to housing at the expense of another.

[avatar4321]

Two examples where the rights of one are allowed though at the infringment of another:

1. Eminent domain
2. Abortion

The Constitution has always provided for the lose of rights through due process. I can accept Eminent domain because of that. I just think the government should only exercise it for actual public purposes and not to give it to some other private purpose as it was supposed to be originally.

Abortion on the other hand gives absolutely no due process. Even if it did im not sure it could be justified.

[5stringJeff]

There is no (and there ought not be a) right to housing, transportation, or electronic communications. Or health care, for that matter. These are things that people should be free to obtain, but not things that everyone should be guaranteed by the federal government to have.

[MtnBiker]

There is no (and there ought not be a) right to housing, transportation, or electronic communications. Or health care, for that matter. These are things that people should be free to obtain, but not things that everyone should be guaranteed by the federal government to have.


How many politicians campaigning will promise these things to people, such as health care? The only way the government or politician could grant rights such as health care is by forceably taking away from someone else.

[Hagbard Celine]

How many politicians campaigning will promise these things to people, such as health care? The only way the government or politician could grant rights such as health care is by forceably taking away from someone else.

How do you figure? Sounds like you're using scary tactics to support you own opinion to me.

[MtnBiker]

How do you figure? Sounds like you're using scary tactics to support you own opinion to me.

No not scare tactics just reality. Explain how the government can grant a right to housing or health care. If your answer includes tax that is a forceable expense of one person in order to give to another.

[Hobbit]

First off, nothing is free anymore. Air is taxed via the EPA. A nice view is taxed via the National Park Service. The only thing you don't get taxed on is existing, but you do get taxed on everything required to continue existing. That being said, the assertation that 'free' internet access is possible is more of a myth than the tooth fairy, since leaving a tooth under your pillow actually will get you a quarter, while internet access will always cost you in the end. First off, consider the cost. There's a reason people in the boonies don't get access to cable modems or DSL...it's damn expensive. That's the price you pay when you choose to live out in the boonies. It has its advantages, but you have to take the good with the bad, and that includes sucking it up and settling either with dial-up or the low upload speeds of sattellite internet. For you to not ask, but DEMAND that the federal or even the state government to, through force of law and threat of violence and incarceration, seize the money that I worked long hours to earn just so you can live in the middle of nowhere and not have to pay the tens of thousands of dollars for DSL is the height of self-centered childishness. If you want faster internet than is available in your area, you have to decide what's more important, staying put or getting faster internet. You can't have it both ways.

Second, what would happen if the government took over internet access? Think about the last time you went to have your car registered, or when you went to the DMV, or the Social Security office, or even the Post Office. Chances are, you had to take a day off work so you could wait in line for four hours just to have some lazy, uneducated, unmotivated retard tell you that you have to start all over again because there's a smudge on the paper. This is the nature of ALL government organizations, barring the military. That is how internet service will be run. Think a 15 minute wait time for a technical problem is bad? Wait until the government takes over your internet access. You'll have to be on the phone overnight just to find out that your modem has a short, and the government beauracracy will ensure that you are REQUIRED to spend 30 minutes navigating their travesty of an automated system (which will almost certainly be bilingual, if not more) before you are permitted to be put on hold for a live person, who, in all likelyhood, will be intentionally incompetant because his boss has told him that if the higher-ups figured out they could actually do a good job, they might have to.

Now before you hand down your final verdict, tell me ONE THING the government can do better and for less money than the private sector. It doesn't count if the private sector isn't allowed to do it, like the police or the military.

Oh, and Jeff, the state you are thinking if North Dakota (could be South, but it's definitely a Dakota). In North Dakota, you are only allowed to use force against an intruder if you have no reasonable escape option. You are required by law to, if possible, abandon your home and allow the scumbag to rifle through your possessions.

[avatar4321]

How do you figure? Sounds like you're using scary tactics to support you own opinion to me.

Because the government is telling people they are give them the benefit of other peoples work. And the goverment by definition does everything it does through force.

[5stringJeff]

No not scare tactics just reality. Explain how the government can grant a right to housing or health care. If your answer includes tax that is a forceable expense of one person in order to give to another.

Exactly. When your right to health care infringes on my right to dispense with my income in the manner I see fit, then it ceases to be a right.

[manu1959]

How do you figure? Sounds like you're using scary tactics to support you own opinion to me.

easy....you tax me.....take my money and give it someone else because they have a right to free internet servcies but can not afford a computer so the govt. buys them one so they can enjoy thier right of free internet servcies....

see govt. housing for the poor ....

[MtnBiker]

So far there is not someone in this thread that advocates heath care should be a right. Hmmmm???

[Mr. P]

So far there is not someone in this thread that advocates heath care should be a right. Hmmmm???

A right to purchase perhaps, but not a right to take or be provided at others expense.

[glockmail]

The way I see it the Constitution doesn't guarentee rights for anyone. What it says is that the guv'mint has a lot of restrictions, and we all have rights by default, granted by God. Healthcare and crap ain't even part of the equation.

[Gunny]

So far there is not someone in this thread that advocates heath care should be a right. Hmmmm???

Sure there is ...

You have the right to care for your health.:)

[Insein]

A person SHOULD have the right to anything so long as no harm comes to another individual.

"Harm" is often where the discrepencies come.

[Hobbit]

A person SHOULD have the right to anything so long as no harm comes to another individual.

"Harm" is often where the discrepencies come.

Freedom is the right to do, not to have. Having the right to have is an abandonment of freedom.

[glockmail]

A person SHOULD have the right to anything so long as no harm comes to another individual.

"Harm" is often where the discrepencies come. Drive 100 on the interstate late at night?

[SassyLady]

I was thinking about this in traffic today. I'm tired of paying such a high fee every year to register my vehicle. It should be more reasonable. 60 bucks for a sticker with the year on it is a rip off. And I'd like to see free wireless Internet and cellular communication too. It's time for that. Everyone should be able to access those things. I don't know how and I don't care to debate jobs and corporate rights and all that. I just want to see these things.

So you think you have the right to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor? Typical lib. Wants everyone else to work hard so they can have "free" access.

And, regardless of what you "don't want to hear" - that's typical liberal also. "Don't tell me what people or corporations have to do to get the resources to support themselves"..........."I just want everything to be free to me".

Your type makes me ill.

[SassyLady]

How do you figure? Sounds like you're using scary tactics to support you own opinion to me.

Not scare tactics.......reality.


Are you really this dense? Do you think the government has a magical wand it waves in the air and they just aren't waving it in your direction?

In order to provide "free" services, the government uses tax monies.

And, if you don't know where taxes come from, you probably haven't had a job yet.

[Insein]

Freedom is the right to do, not to have. Having the right to have is an abandonment of freedom.

True. Let me clarify.

People should have the right to be able to do anything so long as they don't cause harm to others.

[Insein]

Drive 100 on the interstate late at night?

Drive 100 on the interstate during the day as long as you can handle it.

[Hagbard Celine]

Drive 100 on the interstate during the day as long as you can handle it.

I don't know. I really try to keep it under 80 for gas mileage.

[glockmail]

Drive 100 on the interstate during the day as long as you can handle it. Whaadabout the old lady who also pays taxes and drives 55? Isn't that dangerous for her?

[glockmail]

I don't know. I really try to keep it under 80 for gas mileage. Depends on what you're driving. Your Prius would prolly get 10mpg at that speed. My old Mustang GT would get about 20 or 22. :wink2:

[Hobbit]

Whaadabout the old lady who also pays taxes and drives 55? Isn't that dangerous for her?

And for everybody else. If you're driving faster, the burden is on you not to hit anybody. If you're driving too slow, the burden is on everyone else on the road.

[Hagbard Celine]

Depends on what you're driving. Your Prius would prolly get 10mpg at that speed. My old Mustang GT would get about 20 or 22. :wink2:

My 5-speed 1997 BMW 318i with 240,000 miles on it gets ~30 mpg at that speed.

[glockmail]

And for everybody else. If you're driving faster, the burden is on you not to hit anybody. If you're driving too slow, the burden is on everyone else on the road. She's old, she's having a difficult time seeing, she's not quite sure where her exit is.... Doesn't she have a right to be there?

[glockmail]

My 5-speed 1997 BMW 318i with 240,000 miles on it gets ~30 mpg at that speed. That's a teenager's car. Get yerself a 7 series.:p

[Hagbard Celine]

That's a teenager's car. Get yerself a 7 series.:p

Can't afford to yet. I'll upgrade to a 5 or 7 series in a year or two. Right now all my extra money is being pumped into my "investment property." :D

[Hobbit]

She's old, she's having a difficult time seeing, she's not quite sure where her exit is.... Doesn't she have a right to be there?

It's a fine line, but the road is, in fact, publicly owned. The government can't stop her from buying a car and driving it on privately made roads (farm roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). However, there are sight qualifications for having a driver's liscence. If she can't see well enough to drive, then the government is well within their power, as the builder of the road, to deny her access.

Problem is, they won't, because old people vote.

[avatar4321]

Do people have a right to marriage?

How about a right to sex?

[5stringJeff]

Do people have a right to marriage?

How about a right to sex?

Such things fall under the umbrella of liberty. One is free to enter into marriage and/or have sex with people, but the government is not on the hook to ensure everyone gets married and/or have sex partners.

[avatar4321]

Such things fall under the umbrella of liberty. One is free to enter into marriage and/or have sex with people, but the government is not on the hook to ensure everyone gets married and/or have sex partners.

Shouldnt rights be inherent? Why does the government need to ensure any of the rights so to speak?

[Hobbit]

Do people have a right to marriage?

How about a right to sex?

Sex requires two people. You do not have a fundamental right to sex because of that. However, if two people agree that they want to have sex, then they may do so, provided they don't infringe on the rights of another. Popular wisdom has it that for a child to see people having sex at a young age is harmful to that child's psyche, as the child is incapable of comprehending what is truly going on, and the image will probably haunt him. As such, it is not your right to have sex wherever you want.

As far as marriage, that right depends on how marriage is defined. First off, marriage requires two people, just like sex. If marriage is a state of being involving two people pledging the rest of their lives to each other, then there's nobody stopping you from marrying. If it is a religious ceremony, then you do not have a right to it, as forcing a religion, a private organization, to accept you against their will infringes on their right of free association. If marriage is a legal contract that combines to total resources of two persons into a single, jointly owned household and grants certain other legal priviledges based on that combination, then it is also not a right, as the government has the right to limit the scope of legal contracts, so long as those limitations do not violate any other rights or provisions of the law.

[Hobbit]

Shouldnt rights be inherent? Why does the government need to ensure any of the rights so to speak?

The purpose of the government involving rights and liberty is not to grant those rights, but to protect those rights. Without a higher legal structure, it would be possibly, say, for me to infringe upon your rights, and if I infringed upon them thoroughly enough, I wouldn't suffer any consequences. The government is there to ensure that I do not infringe upon your rights, or that I am punished if I do.

Back to the umbrella analogy, if your clothes are your rights, government is the umbrella. The umbrella didn't give you your clothes. Its sole purpose is to protect those clothes.

[avatar4321]

Ive always said if there is a right to sex then women are denying vast amounts of men their rights every day.

[glockmail]

Can't afford to yet. I'll upgrade to a 5 or 7 series in a year or two. Right now all my extra money is being pumped into my "investment property." :D That's a much better use of your wallet padding. Give me a well-used but dependable midsize SUV with 4WD that gets tolerable gas mileage any day over a luxury car, and I'll use the money I save to take ski vacations and make more money. :wine:

[glockmail]

Ive always said if there is a right to sex then women are denying vast amounts of men their rights every day. I've heard women who talk the other way. "Talk" being the operative word. :(