4 ms·

Society has no duty to protect you either. See Lozito v. New York City. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozit

by bhawks 5y ago

Society has no duty to protect you either. See Lozito v. New York City. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito. (Edit: spelling)

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Somehow we're reducing rights down to "things I can get people to arbitrarily agree to or that I can claim by force", which doesn't much seem like rights to me.
- bhawks 5y ago
  Human rights are things that another person/entity violates through their actions. Getting internet or health care is more of an expectation of citizenship.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Well then, if rights are only there to be pointed out when violated, and there is zero expectation that your rights should be defended except by your own exertion of force, what's the point of them? You can exert force however you want and if successful you can generate new rights at whim, and at failure lose rights.
kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
Society/Government Enforcement as we have it structured now does not have a duty to prevent harm. It mostly acts as an enforcement/reaction arm to respond once harm has been done. In some ways the response acts as a deterrent to future by others being done, but the primary aim is to punish infringement of the structure put in place or to assist a citizen once harm has been done. I'm not sure how this relates to the conversation about rights. To talk about the inclusion of Healthcare as a right for instance, no one would propose that the government prevent people from getting injured. Or to, while being injured, intervene and stop it. My understanding is that healthcare provided as a right would be healthcare provided in response to an injury a Citizen has experienced.

4 ms·

Society has no duty to protect you either. See Lozito v. New York City. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozit

by bhawks 5y ago

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Somehow we're reducing rights down to "things I can get people to arbitrarily agree to or that I can claim by force", which doesn't much seem like rights to me.
- bhawks 5y ago
  Human rights are things that another person/entity violates through their actions. Getting internet or health care is more of an expectation of citizenship.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Well then, if rights are only there to be pointed out when violated, and there is zero expectation that your rights should be defended except by your own exertion of force, what's the point of them? You can exert force however you want and if successful you can generate new rights at whim, and at failure lose rights.
kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
Society/Government Enforcement as we have it structured now does not have a duty to prevent harm. It mostly acts as an enforcement/reaction arm to respond once harm has been done. In some ways the response acts as a deterrent to future by others being done, but the primary aim is to punish infringement of the structure put in place or to assist a citizen once harm has been done. I'm not sure how this relates to the conversation about rights. To talk about the inclusion of Healthcare as a right for instance, no one would propose that the government prevent people from getting injured. Or to, while being injured, intervene and stop it. My understanding is that healthcare provided as a right would be healthcare provided in response to an injury a Citizen has experienced.