4 ms·

> Every government program, every preservation of right, requires taxation and resource allocation. How much does it cost to not arrest and try someone falsely

> Every government program, every preservation of right, requires taxation and resource allocation. How much does it cost to not arrest and try someone falsely? There are situations where the injustice is the thing that requires taxes and government. > You only get to exercise the right to free speech if everyone else knows there are consequences for disrupting it. (Fines, imprisonment, etc) Consequences don't have to run through the criminal justice system. If some people are assaulted, they are allowed to defend themselves. The damage done to assailants in the process is tax-free. EDIT: Besides, rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. Slavery is still a violation of rights even when it is legal.

Kbelicius 5y ago
> Besides, rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. Then there is no reason to discuss rights at all since might makes right.
- humanrebar 5y ago
  Rights show us when the mighty are wrong. An all powerful despot can still be a rapist and murderer.
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> Consequences don't have to run through the criminal justice system. If some people are assaulted, they are allowed to defend themselves. The damage done to assailants in the process is tax-free. But how about those who don't exist in this wild west cowboy world of duels at noon for honor? How do children defend themselves? How do the weak and infirm? Because they are incapable of enforcing their own rights they lose them? How do you stop mob justice? These don't sound like rights at all if you need to personally fight to ensure that you can keep them.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  Parents/guardians should be defending children. For everyone else, I believe the answer you are looking for is: guns. Everyone exists in this world, whether willingly or not. If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    So what I'm hearing is you don't actually believe in any rights. If someone can do something and someone else is not able to stop them that's acceptable because it's a failure to defend themselves. You don't even actually need a right to a gun because if you get one then you can enforce that you have one. Might makes right(s).
    - artificialLimbs 5y ago
      Well you are hearing your own rambling imaginations and tangents then, because I have not said anything related to that conclusion you are drawing. You have completely misinterpreted and I don't believe this comment to be "in good faith", so I will refrain from further.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        You're right that I was overly aggressive in my argument, and for that I apologize, but that questions were asked with genuine curiosity. Please explain the nuance to me - if the only way to enforce rights is "guns" and "If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others." then people don't have rights, they have no guarantee, they only have what they can take or defend by force, and force is the only deciding factor. What am I misinterpreting there?
kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
> How much does it cost to not arrest and try someone falsely? At minimum enough to arbitrate claims of the opposite occurring. You are correct in stating proper adherence to this right will not cost much (if there were ever a theoretical group of people who could agree on what "arrest falsely" meant every time) but merely acknowledging that some amount of resource must be spent should be enough to put to rest the idea that there are a special set of "negative rights" which require no resources to maintain and therefore are the only Real Rights while the others are the Made Up Rights. > rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. I think this may be where our primary disagreement exists. From my perspective a right is relatively useless to establish if enforcement does not accompany said right. You can inform the slave that he has a right to no longer live under subjugation, but if he has no mechanism by which to escape his slavery without loss of life his material conditions do not change. If your argument is that rights exclusively provide the framework for a defense of violent revolution (as this is the only use I can imagine them having without accompanied enforcement) I would still argue for the inclusion of more rights as the capacity of the state expands, as that would be the primary tool by which Citizens can protect themselves against exploitation.
- humanrebar 5y ago
  > You can inform the slave that he has a right to no longer live under subjugation, but if he has no mechanism by which to escape his slavery without loss of life his material conditions do not change. There is value in people knowing a slave has intrinsic worth and deserves freedom. People deserve justice especially when it is out of reach.

Kbelicius 5y ago

> Besides, rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. Then there is no reason to discuss rights at all since might makes right.

humanrebar 5y ago
Rights show us when the mighty are wrong. An all powerful despot can still be a rapist and murderer.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> Consequences don't have to run through the criminal justice system. If some people are assaulted, they are allowed to defend themselves. The damage done to assailants in the process is tax-free. But how about those who don't exist in this wild west cowboy world of duels at noon for honor? How do children defend themselves? How do the weak and infirm? Because they are incapable of enforcing their own rights they lose them? How do you stop mob justice? These don't sound like rights at all if you need to personally fight to ensure that you can keep them.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
Parents/guardians should be defending children. For everyone else, I believe the answer you are looking for is: guns. Everyone exists in this world, whether willingly or not. If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  So what I'm hearing is you don't actually believe in any rights. If someone can do something and someone else is not able to stop them that's acceptable because it's a failure to defend themselves. You don't even actually need a right to a gun because if you get one then you can enforce that you have one. Might makes right(s).
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    Well you are hearing your own rambling imaginations and tangents then, because I have not said anything related to that conclusion you are drawing. You have completely misinterpreted and I don't believe this comment to be "in good faith", so I will refrain from further.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      You're right that I was overly aggressive in my argument, and for that I apologize, but that questions were asked with genuine curiosity. Please explain the nuance to me - if the only way to enforce rights is "guns" and "If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others." then people don't have rights, they have no guarantee, they only have what they can take or defend by force, and force is the only deciding factor. What am I misinterpreting there?

kcatskcolbdi 5y ago

> How much does it cost to not arrest and try someone falsely? At minimum enough to arbitrate claims of the opposite occurring. You are correct in stating proper adherence to this right will not cost much (if there were ever a theoretical group of people who could agree on what "arrest falsely" meant every time) but merely acknowledging that some amount of resource must be spent should be enough to put to rest the idea that there are a special set of "negative rights" which require no resources to maintain and therefore are the only Real Rights while the others are the Made Up Rights. > rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. I think this may be where our primary disagreement exists. From my perspective a right is relatively useless to establish if enforcement does not accompany said right. You can inform the slave that he has a right to no longer live under subjugation, but if he has no mechanism by which to escape his slavery without loss of life his material conditions do not change. If your argument is that rights exclusively provide the framework for a defense of violent revolution (as this is the only use I can imagine them having without accompanied enforcement) I would still argue for the inclusion of more rights as the capacity of the state expands, as that would be the primary tool by which Citizens can protect themselves against exploitation.

humanrebar 5y ago
> You can inform the slave that he has a right to no longer live under subjugation, but if he has no mechanism by which to escape his slavery without loss of life his material conditions do not change. There is value in people knowing a slave has intrinsic worth and deserves freedom. People deserve justice especially when it is out of reach.