Posted on 05/16/2013 3:42:29 PM PDT by d_focil
One of the problems with positive rights though, which conservatives and libertarians tend to point out, is that in order for them to mean anything in practice, someone else will inherently have to provide the means by which they are given. For example, if you have the right to health-care, then a doctor or nurse will have to at some point, render that care. Either the medical practitioner will have to be paid for his or her rendering of care, or he or she will have to be compelled to render it. This is manifestly different from a negative right such as the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure, where all that is needed for the right to be in effect, is for the government not to search you without a warrant.
From a social contract point of view, all government is established in order to save people from having to protect each and every right themselves through their own wills, wills that if met with superior force, would likely be unable to stop private assaults upon their liberty. Yet it is plausible that in extending this social contract beyond the most basic of rights, we run into complications that are not easy to resolve.
(Excerpt) Read more at shadowreview.blogspot.com ...
the rights existed long before the govt.
the governmental framework was established to help sort issues between citizens and promote an orderly society.
you have a ‘right’ to a speedy trial as the govt is expected to sort out the issues as part of its duties.
in this case, the ‘right’ is expecting the govt, an entity we all pay for, to do its job.
“the rights existed long before the govt.”
Are you saying that the inhabitants of the Americas had ...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... before Columbus arrived in the Americas? Before the Americas were known as the Americas?
Are you saying that the Jews who wandered in the desert for 40 years, led by Moses, had ...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...?
Are you saying that the people who built Stonehenge 4-5 thousand years ago had ...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...?
if you believe in the US Constitution ... yes
the rights existed... they were just denied / repressed by the govt at the time. this would also be true today in other countries
again... if you believe in the Constitution... which doesn’t sound like you do
“again... if you believe in the Constitution... which doesnt sound like you do”
I believe in the Constitution; I don’t believe you.
really.
were you endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights? do you think he just started dishing them out in 1776?
of course not... and that’s the whole point.
“were you endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights?”
Yes
“do you think he just started dishing them out in 1776?”
No
“of course not... and thats the whole point.”
Disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.