4 ms·

Yes, on a surface level, these are framed as "stuff the government has to do for the people," but the root issue is still making sure the government doesn't tak

Yes, on a surface level, these are framed as "stuff the government has to do for the people," but the root issue is still making sure the government doesn't take away the rights and freedoms people naturally have. Written a different way, this would say "the government can't take away your freedoms by arresting you, accusing you of a crime, but then delaying or denying a fair trial to figure out if you're actually guilty."

shusson 7y ago
I think I see your point broadly, but some things don't really fit. Like how is, a person has the right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense", linked to the government not taking away the rights of people. I guess I'm more focusing on the `fair` part in the rights, which to me seems more connected with something like housing.
- dbatten 7y ago
  Ensuring you have counsel is intended to make sure that the government can't unfairly imprison/punish a person who is ignorant of the legal system and incapable of defending themselves. The end goal is still to be a check on government power. That's still far different from the government being obligated to provide you housing. (To be clear - I'm not taking a position on universal housing. It might be a great idea! I just think it's a different class of right, and I think the distinction is worth preserving.)
  - shusson 7y ago
    > The end goal is still to be a check on government power I see, I always thought that those amendments were about equality between people, but in this context it makes more sense.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Putting together an effective legal defense in the face of myriad laws is a difficult task. The government agrees to not abuse its power of incarceration against the citizenry. Your right to freedom is what's at stake. If the government wants to take it they agree to make their case, not do so capriciously.
Miner49er 7y ago
By this logic, you can say "the government can't take away your freedoms by evicting you and then denying you the right to find housing elsewhere."
- dbatten 7y ago
  Right... but that's still different from "the government has to pay for you to have a house."
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    They need to leave an alternative to not pay and must pay for enforcement. No home? Sleep on their doorstep. They want you off? Then left sleeping on the street. If they want you out of the street and so on. Eliminate all other viable alternatives and they either get stuck with the bill of enforcement or cede the claim effectively to thr Nth last step because say they cannot stop you from sleeping on a park bench without also pissing off elderly voters who dose in parks. Throwing you in jail at any step in the process is just a spiteful way of providing housing that is less productive for everyone. The harsh logical truth is you /always/ pay for other people in some way. Choice only affects the cost and outcome.

shusson 7y ago

I think I see your point broadly, but some things don't really fit. Like how is, a person has the right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense", linked to the government not taking away the rights of people. I guess I'm more focusing on the `fair` part in the rights, which to me seems more connected with something like housing.

dbatten 7y ago
Ensuring you have counsel is intended to make sure that the government can't unfairly imprison/punish a person who is ignorant of the legal system and incapable of defending themselves. The end goal is still to be a check on government power. That's still far different from the government being obligated to provide you housing. (To be clear - I'm not taking a position on universal housing. It might be a great idea! I just think it's a different class of right, and I think the distinction is worth preserving.)
- shusson 7y ago
  > The end goal is still to be a check on government power I see, I always thought that those amendments were about equality between people, but in this context it makes more sense.
keanzu 7y ago
Putting together an effective legal defense in the face of myriad laws is a difficult task. The government agrees to not abuse its power of incarceration against the citizenry. Your right to freedom is what's at stake. If the government wants to take it they agree to make their case, not do so capriciously.

Miner49er 7y ago

By this logic, you can say "the government can't take away your freedoms by evicting you and then denying you the right to find housing elsewhere."

dbatten 7y ago
Right... but that's still different from "the government has to pay for you to have a house."
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  They need to leave an alternative to not pay and must pay for enforcement. No home? Sleep on their doorstep. They want you off? Then left sleeping on the street. If they want you out of the street and so on. Eliminate all other viable alternatives and they either get stuck with the bill of enforcement or cede the claim effectively to thr Nth last step because say they cannot stop you from sleeping on a park bench without also pissing off elderly voters who dose in parks. Throwing you in jail at any step in the process is just a spiteful way of providing housing that is less productive for everyone. The harsh logical truth is you /always/ pay for other people in some way. Choice only affects the cost and outcome.