3 ms·

I wasn’t really trying to argue. If you mean examples from the bill of rights, of rights that make demands on others: the big examples are trial by jury and th

I wasn’t really trying to argue. If you mean examples from the bill of rights, of rights that make demands on others: the big examples are trial by jury and the right to legal representation. Those rights demand that the government have the ability to compel labor (the accused in a trial has the specific right to compel testimony, even!) at least in certain narrow circumstances, for those rights to have any practical meaning. Unless we want to allow that the government may simply be unable to e.g. prosecute murderers if it can’t find enough volunteers to help, which I doubt was what anyone involved in drafting the document had in mind as an intended outcome, and besides, some parts make it clear that they mean participation may be forced if necessary. So, rights as understood solely from the us constitution & bill of rights (let alone later amendments, which aren’t necessarily concerned with rights per se) do explicitly allow the possibility of a right that makes demands on others, which is why I was surprised that was your basis for the initial claim.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
Completely wrong though. The US Constitution does not mention a free lawyer. I don’t know how many times you need to read this to understand it, so I will try once more: Rights are restrictions on the government, not gifts to the people from the government. The government is not allowed to try you without representation. Read that again, and again once more. It is not a gift to a free attorney. It is a statement saying if the government wants to try you, you will need a lawyer. The state doesn’t have to provide one, because it does not have to try you. No lawyer is sitting around being forced to take pro-bono cases because “this guy has the right to an attorney”. You do not have a right to anything that someone else is forced to provide. Read it again. There is nothing in the constitution that explains “if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you”. That came much later and is a condition to a tax system.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  So the right for the accused to compel testimony is…? Not a right? I think you’ll find the constitution is rather too practically-minded for strict definitions that you’re advancing to be fully consistent in all cases. And that’s looking only at the text, not common law in which it’s wholly couched and assumes as context, or the constitutionally-endorsed and required interpretation of the document by the judiciary. Besides, a right that demands forced labor if the government charges you… but doesn’t prohibit the government from charging you… sure looks like a right to make demands on others, if we’re not doing some hard equivocating. That it only kicks in if a certain choice is made hardly seems material to whether it’s a right that permits one to demand something of others. And all this is beside the point of whether a particular conception of what a right is, is accurate or useful. The constitution’s framers do not appear to have held your definition as useful, which is why I thought it must have some other source.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

Completely wrong though. The US Constitution does not mention a free lawyer. I don’t know how many times you need to read this to understand it, so I will try once more: Rights are restrictions on the government, not gifts to the people from the government. The government is not allowed to try you without representation. Read that again, and again once more. It is not a gift to a free attorney. It is a statement saying if the government wants to try you, you will need a lawyer. The state doesn’t have to provide one, because it does not have to try you. No lawyer is sitting around being forced to take pro-bono cases because “this guy has the right to an attorney”. You do not have a right to anything that someone else is forced to provide. Read it again. There is nothing in the constitution that explains “if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you”. That came much later and is a condition to a tax system.

hotnfresh 3y ago
So the right for the accused to compel testimony is…? Not a right? I think you’ll find the constitution is rather too practically-minded for strict definitions that you’re advancing to be fully consistent in all cases. And that’s looking only at the text, not common law in which it’s wholly couched and assumes as context, or the constitutionally-endorsed and required interpretation of the document by the judiciary. Besides, a right that demands forced labor if the government charges you… but doesn’t prohibit the government from charging you… sure looks like a right to make demands on others, if we’re not doing some hard equivocating. That it only kicks in if a certain choice is made hardly seems material to whether it’s a right that permits one to demand something of others. And all this is beside the point of whether a particular conception of what a right is, is accurate or useful. The constitution’s framers do not appear to have held your definition as useful, which is why I thought it must have some other source.