6 ms·
Hmmm, how about my right to a fair and speedy trial? That requires the labor of others, doesn’t it?
by danhak 7y ago
Hmmm, how about my right to a fair and speedy trial? That requires the labor of others, doesn’t it?
- throwaway17_17 7y agoThat is a right exercises against the government. Specifically the Courts which are created by Federal and State statures. The labor in question is on behalf of the government.
- SkyBelow 7y agoIt is a cost that the government has to provide you if they want to try you. Put another way, it is saying the government has the right to try someone only if they can provide a fair and speedy trial (with lawyers for those who can't afford one). If they cannot provide this, they cannot try you for a crime. Thus, by choosing to try someone, they consent to the payment required to provide these services. At least in theory, this does not involve you receiving someone else's labor without their consent.
- the_gastropod 7y agoI think you're drawing a distinction where one does not exist. The government pays for these services with tax money (which you seem to be suggesting is "receiving someone's labor without their consent")
- SkyBelow 7y agoI think the distinction still exists, just in a slightly different form. Let's take two alternative government. One that works by having volunteers and one that prints money to pay people. Right to a speedy trial: Government 1 cannot charge you unless they have enough volunteers to guarantee a speedy trial. If there aren't enough volunteers, you still have this right by the government not charging you (even if you really deserve it). Government 2 cannot charge you unless they have printed enough money and found enough people willing to accept it as payment to guarantee you a speedy trial. If they can't find enough people willing to do this job, they can still provide this right by not charging you. Right to health care: Government 1 cannot provide this right unless it has enough volunteers. If there aren't volunteers, then it cannot provide you the basic health care. Government 2 cannot provide you this right unless it has enough people willing to accept money to do so. If people aren't willing to, for what ever reason, you aren't going to get health care. This is a fundamental difference between rights that say "The government cannot X unless they Y" (in some cases the Y exception may not exist at all) and that say "The government must Z". Logistically you might be able to have the second kind of right functioning with a near 100% up time, due to how the sorts of people are recruited to do the work needed to provide that right, but it is still a fundamental difference from the first kind.
- geddy 7y agoHow is that, in any remote capacity, the same thing? One is being forced to give my money to someone else for reasons of "fairness", the other is a right to not be locked up for a reasonable amount of time after being accused of a crime. One of those involves taking my freedom, the other, my money.
- the_gastropod 7y agoIt's simply the other side of the ledger. The process requires labor, paid for by the government via taxation (taking other people's money). It's precisely the same thing.
- exabrial 7y agoYou completely missed to grep anything valuable out of a fairly obvious response. Is there judge there under duress?