7 ms·

I 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 "receiv

• SkyBelow 7y ago
  I 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.