5 ms·

The point is that it is inaccurate to use the word 'right' because the government is providing a product not a right as a right is something that you would have

The point is that it is inaccurate to use the word 'right' because the government is providing a product not a right as a right is something that you would have inherently without the government there anyways.

keanzu 7y ago
The water is muddied somewhat by things like: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. People conflate these rights with human rights but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.
- AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
  Those are restrictions on what the government can do to you, not requirements that you be provided something. The government cannot prosecute in secret after keeping you locked up for years. The government cannot prevent you from obtaining counsel. The government cannot choose a jury on the basis of its bias against you. The government cannot shield whoever accused you from scrutiny. The government must tell you of what you are accused.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  The problem I see with every discussion like this is despite this talking about experiences in Finland and applicability to Canada, Americans always assume that the CORERCT way to view government and the role of government is how it was laid down in the American constitution. I am surprised so few Americans seem to realize they are imposing an entirely American centric view of the role of government and the rights of citizens. Every country has different traditions and understanding of the role government should play. There is no right answer to this. One must be able to argue this philosophically, without attempting to settle the matter as some sort of legal battle in court where one can "win" the argument by presenting legal text from the American constitution.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    >I am surprised so few Americans seem to realize they are imposing an entirely American centric view of the role of government and the rights of citizens. I'm not the least bit surprised actually.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    There is always a right answer. It's jut not guarenteed that you know if it a the right answer.
    - socialdemocrat 7y ago
      There is no right answer because it is not like a math question. It is a question of values. What is the correct answer depends on what you value. What you think society should be optimized for, and assumptions you make about human nature.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        But even then, there is a correct answer. You just don't know which it is. Or are you suggesting that opposing value systems are both correct? Going a step back and looking at what you think society should be optimized for is also just a question. The interesting part is figuring out the correct answer. Possibly the questions themselves are wrong, because you answered a preceding question wrongly. But none of that changes that there is always a right answer, even if you ask the wrong question.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  The reason why the 6th amendment exists is because we're about to take away a bunch of your other rights by locking you up in a cage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > People conflate these rights with human rights No, they are human rights, or, at least, they are in their framers view an articulation of a subset of such rights essential to call out in a particular context. > but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" No, they are essential components of Liberty in the context of the existence of government. > which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect. Governments, more often than not, are not created for the purpose or protecting the particular vision of natural rights held in mind by the authors of the Declaration of Independence (in fact I would go so far as to say that since visions of natural rights are at least as varied as the people that believe in natural rights as a valid concept, and that even those individuals have their concepts shift over time, the only government that might ever have been formed for that purpose would be one formed at the exact time of the DoI by the same people.)
coldtea 7y ago
Nobody has anything "inherently". A bare human in nature is barely human even - he/she has no language, no family, no nation, no history, no culture, etc. Same for his rights. There's no freedom guaranteed to him by nature - anybody can enslave him. There's also no right to life or property: anybody can kill him, get his valuables, etc. Rights are what we declare/determine that our collective organization (i.e. a government in modern terms) must help establish, secure, and guard. "Natural rights" is a way to say "We believe that the government should protect and secure this and that "right", and that it is the obvious and natural thing to do". Otherwise "natural rights" means nothing, it's an empty wish, and has no basis without anyone to enforce it. People do have natural gravity. The have mass, weight etc, just because they exist in nature as people. Nobody can take that away from them. But they don't have "natural rights" given by any kind of nature, those are things that somebody must establish and enforce for them (including themselves, either because they are stronger than anybody else, or because they group together and enforce them for one another).
Hamuko 7y ago
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." You don't really have an inherent right to security and security is not really even possible in a state of nature.

keanzu 7y ago

The water is muddied somewhat by things like: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. People conflate these rights with human rights but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.

AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
Those are restrictions on what the government can do to you, not requirements that you be provided something. The government cannot prosecute in secret after keeping you locked up for years. The government cannot prevent you from obtaining counsel. The government cannot choose a jury on the basis of its bias against you. The government cannot shield whoever accused you from scrutiny. The government must tell you of what you are accused.
socialdemocrat 7y ago
The problem I see with every discussion like this is despite this talking about experiences in Finland and applicability to Canada, Americans always assume that the CORERCT way to view government and the role of government is how it was laid down in the American constitution. I am surprised so few Americans seem to realize they are imposing an entirely American centric view of the role of government and the rights of citizens. Every country has different traditions and understanding of the role government should play. There is no right answer to this. One must be able to argue this philosophically, without attempting to settle the matter as some sort of legal battle in court where one can "win" the argument by presenting legal text from the American constitution.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  >I am surprised so few Americans seem to realize they are imposing an entirely American centric view of the role of government and the rights of citizens. I'm not the least bit surprised actually.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  There is always a right answer. It's jut not guarenteed that you know if it a the right answer.
  - socialdemocrat 7y ago
    There is no right answer because it is not like a math question. It is a question of values. What is the correct answer depends on what you value. What you think society should be optimized for, and assumptions you make about human nature.
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      But even then, there is a correct answer. You just don't know which it is. Or are you suggesting that opposing value systems are both correct? Going a step back and looking at what you think society should be optimized for is also just a question. The interesting part is figuring out the correct answer. Possibly the questions themselves are wrong, because you answered a preceding question wrongly. But none of that changes that there is always a right answer, even if you ask the wrong question.
Consultant32452 7y ago
The reason why the 6th amendment exists is because we're about to take away a bunch of your other rights by locking you up in a cage.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> People conflate these rights with human rights No, they are human rights, or, at least, they are in their framers view an articulation of a subset of such rights essential to call out in a particular context. > but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" No, they are essential components of Liberty in the context of the existence of government. > which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect. Governments, more often than not, are not created for the purpose or protecting the particular vision of natural rights held in mind by the authors of the Declaration of Independence (in fact I would go so far as to say that since visions of natural rights are at least as varied as the people that believe in natural rights as a valid concept, and that even those individuals have their concepts shift over time, the only government that might ever have been formed for that purpose would be one formed at the exact time of the DoI by the same people.)

coldtea 7y ago

Nobody has anything "inherently". A bare human in nature is barely human even - he/she has no language, no family, no nation, no history, no culture, etc. Same for his rights. There's no freedom guaranteed to him by nature - anybody can enslave him. There's also no right to life or property: anybody can kill him, get his valuables, etc. Rights are what we declare/determine that our collective organization (i.e. a government in modern terms) must help establish, secure, and guard. "Natural rights" is a way to say "We believe that the government should protect and secure this and that "right", and that it is the obvious and natural thing to do". Otherwise "natural rights" means nothing, it's an empty wish, and has no basis without anyone to enforce it. People do have natural gravity. The have mass, weight etc, just because they exist in nature as people. Nobody can take that away from them. But they don't have "natural rights" given by any kind of nature, those are things that somebody must establish and enforce for them (including themselves, either because they are stronger than anybody else, or because they group together and enforce them for one another).

Hamuko 7y ago

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." You don't really have an inherent right to security and security is not really even possible in a state of nature.