Is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Contradictory?

Holt and Bissell are making a jump to assume that public education and universal health care excludes the values they are upholding. In fact, in practice, they do NOT.

How the hell does taxation negate anyone’s inalienable rights?

Are you saying people have the right not to pay for their democratically-elected government’s services?

I agree with the quote about Public Education, but good education is about opening minds not closing them down. The second quote seems a bit strong. Money doesn’t have to be ‘confiscated’ to pay for health care, most people accept that taxation raises money for the public good and accept its necessity. Taxation is part of living in society and doesn’t infringe anyone’s inalienable rights unless taken to extremes for example by forcing people into poverty.

Both quotes over simplify, but…

@lawkes Please how these indicate that the UDHR is self-contradictory?

I don’t think it is necessarily contradictory because they have different idea of ‘rights’ from the beginning. I would agree that it contradicts a more rational view of what rights are though.

@cazzie,

Your answer is too vague, can you please elaborate?

@Qingu,

See details.

@flutherother,

If you feel that education is good, then why must your opinion violate another’s right to peacefully follow their own interests? Why won’t you and those that share your interests, personally fund the causes you so very much value?

How do you know how much people do or don’t accept taxation? Furthermore, even if it is a minority that does not accept taxation, then how are their inalienable rights not violated?

@roundsquare,

The details cover your question.

@lawkes, I saw the details. Please answer my question. Why on earth do you think you have a right not to be taxed by a democratically elected government?

If you need me to elaborate you need to because the references you give are much to vague.

@Qingu,

Please answer my question first, and then I will answer yours.

@cazzie,

What is vague?

Compulsory education violates the right of a person to peacefully follow their own interests.

One article allows the right to follow one’s own interest and another article does not. How is this not contradictory?

@lawkes this is going places.

You didn’t ask me a question. Unless you are referring to your original question. In which case my answer is “people do not have a right not to be taxed by a democratically elected government because such a right is nonsensical.”

Perhaps you would care to argue why you think such a right exists? Because it doesn’t seem like you’ve thought this out very much.

I’m not arguing that there is a right to not pay taxes, my concern is the contradiction.

See my reply to cazzie. Do you not see that example as a contradiction?

Oh, I see now.

So there’s this idea in jurisprudence, social theory, ... basically, in every area of life… that kids do not have the same rights as adults. Kids cannot drive cars, for example, or use credit cards, or own property, or vote.

We’re talking about adults, not children.

I think the answer to this question lies in a person’s definition of human right. Should all people have a right to attend school? Yes. Should all people be given free education as a human right? That depends upon the nation, but I will say if it is given to one portion of the population it should be given to all.

Obviously, I have a limited view in what I consider a human right versus a national program.

That’s what the two articles state. All have a right to attend public school and to have health care, but this should not violate one’s right of choice, meaning, if I choose to not attend public school, or benefit from public health care, then the government has no right to tax me for these services as this would be a violation of my right to follow my own interest.

@lawkes, so this is about taxation.

Please explain why you feel you have the right to not be taxed for government services that you do not personally use. That is not how taxation has ever worked in any society.

I understand that is not how it works, which is why I wanted to confirm that it is a contradiction non-the-less.

Where is the contradiction?

When you sign up with a phone plan, you have to pay a certain fee, even if you do not use all the services in the plan.

When you live in a society, you have to pay taxes, even if you do not use all of the services those taxes provide.

Yes, but then that means the right of choice is non-existent?

Quite frankly, i think it is nonsensical to pay for something you don’t use as you pointed out with the cell phone plan.

Why would anyone want to pay for that which they do not use?

What right of choice are you referring to?

And if you think it’s nonsensical to pay taxes for services you don’t use, you are free to move to Somalia. No taxes there. No government regulation (or government). It’s the free market capital of the world. John Galt would truly be proud of you.

You still have the right to move to a country where health care and education are not public and you have to pay for these services.

@lawkes What details?

@Qingu Same train of thought at the same time.

Oh, I forgot to mention. You are also free to participate in the electoral process, thus changing the social “plan” you sign up for by living here.

Though you will probably not succeed because most of the other participants in this democratic process believe it’s worth it to pay taxes for education they may not use personally.

@Qingu

The right to peacefully follow my own interests. If I send my kids to private school, then when the government deducts part of my income to fund public schooling, this is not allowing me to fully exercise the right to follow my own interests. This is the contradiction I wish to confirm. It’s not about taxation, it’s about contradiction.

In the words of Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, “Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that’s what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.”

I am free to move to Somalia, but as you pointed out, I’m free to combat the legal system here as well or to participate in the electoral process.

Please explain how being tax prohibits you in any way from following your own interest. I’ve asked you this several times. You don’t seem to have an answer. That’s a problem if you’re you going to continue this line of argument.

Legality would seem to be a rather important difference when it comes to calling something theft. Though now I’m curious. You seem to believe that you earn your income in a vacuum. May I ask how you earn your living, sir or ma’am?

I’ve be explaining over and over. If I really had a choice, I would be allowed to have the option to not fund public schooling when I have just enrolled my kids to a private school. However, instead, my right is only partial since money is deducted against my will to pay for public schooling which I clearly do not wish to fund. I’m thus forced to pay for both if I choice to not participate in the public.

I’m a business owner (wholesaling). I never claimed I earn my income in a vacuum. I know that I depend on the roads that the government maintains, but you seem to think that only the government is capable of constructing roads, and providing a legal system along with protection, etc.. when in fact, there can be a myriad of market alternatives if given the chance.

Furthermore, If roads, protection, and legal system was the only programs funded through taxes, you would see far less complaining. The problem is with all the other government spendings that don’t have anything to do with how it effects how one earns his/her income.

What you have said to me applies to everyone. If you cannot make it in this country, then you’re free to leave rather then sit on the back of those that have succeeded. No one wants to leave, and thus we vote or take it up with the courts to get out opinions mainstream.

Btw, are you trying to say what is legal is always just?

@lawkes you also have to pay for police and fire protection you may elect not to use, in favor of a private security force, etc. I go to work on trains every day and I have to pay for roads. The idea that your taxes pay for something that is broadly available to society, even if you do not personally use it, really should not be shocking.

And some of those private market alternatives already exist. I understand mafia entrepreneurs run some very nice protection rackets, for example. These sort of structures tend to coalesce naturally in any given group of people—I would prefer if they were controlled by a democratically elected government.

And no, I don’t think legal things are always just. Though we are a nation of laws, and the distinction between legal and illegal things (like stealing) is important. I’m also curious why you would characterize taxation as anything like stealing when you freely admit that your wealth depends on many services paid for by those taxes.

Finally, I’d like to ask you in what sense you think you have “succeeded.” I’m assuming you are one of these successful people upon which you feel poor folks are sitting.

I also consider myself quite successful, in the sense that I have managed to secure a decent income and social stability for myself. Though I certainly wouldn’t say I’ve “succeeded” in any moral/meritocracy sense. In many respects, I was simply lucky. I had very good, relatively wealthy parents and a very good school system. Those weren’t choices I made. It was a situation I was born into, and it has underpinned every bit of my success.

There are certainly people who are luckier than me who end up destitute. And there are very unlucky people that work hard to achieve “success.” But if you think America works as a pure meritocracy where people can “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” to succeed you are simply deluding yourself. I find this to be a convenient fiction that “successful” (i.e. wealthy) people tell themselves so they don’t have to feel guilty about disobeying basic moral lessons about sharing that most of us learned in Kindergarten.

@Qingu,

First of all we’re talking about only a few programs that effects ones income earnings, not many. Also, these programs are not such an economical drain when compared to other programs like defense and welfare which brings me back to my point in health care and education that do not effect my earnings. Now, the difference here is you prefer a government to run some of these programs and I prefer entrepreneurs. At least with entrepreneurs I will pay for what I need when I need it, and I feel it will run more efficiently then any government program can ever dream of. I can choose when I need the service, with a government I cannot as I illustrating with my kids enrolling in private schooling yet I am forced to pay for public schooling simultaneously non-the-less.

Taxation is legal, but that doesn’t mean it is just. Legalizing slavery doesn’t make it justifiable. Likewise, when it comes to taxation, although it is legal, I equate it to theft, as was written nicely by the professor.

Why are you shoving your morality at me as if it is an objective absolute? What I meant by success, is basically what you have written and pulling oneself up by his/her own bootstrap is not a delusion, however, hoping to survive off the backs of others is.

If you don’t like it, then as you said, those that are unsuccessful have the right to leave this country and find shelter elsewhere, or remain here and fight it out.

This is why I have a problem with paying for entrepreneurs providing services.

However, I would not object to a reasonable tax credit (non-refundable) for those who pay private school tuition. Some states already do this.

@lawkes

“I know that I depend on the roads that the government maintains, but you seem to think that only the government is capable of constructing roads, and providing a legal system along with protection, etc.. when in fact, there can be a myriad of market alternatives if given the chance.”

I’m sure Qingu realizes that some private enterprises can build roads, but what means would there to ensure that those roads were built well enough for use, since the primary motive for capitalism is profit, not quality? If we use the market forces model, how would we have access to the myriad of alternate roads that would supposedly be available to us, since there’s usually only one street available to contiguous structures? Where would we put all these alternative streets built by this myriad of private contractors?

@optimisticpessimist,

You can’t just take one example and make a generality out of it.

I can link you a bunch of examples that would make the government look just as bad.

As for the tax credit, that would be great if it can be applied to all those that wish to opt out of any government program.

Doesn’t matter; the UN is not, despite their probable wishes to the contrary, the world government. They cannot (or at least, should not be able to) make laws for countries.

@Brian1946,

Without quality, you don’t get profit. Why would one pay for a road with holes in it, when the next door competition will provide a road that is smooth as butter?

Furthermore, you assume that all roads are great in the US when in practicality, they’re not.

The issue with your claim that taxation is a negation of rights, and that makes the UDHR a contradiction, is that in a society where every life is valued on an equal basis (e.g., a framework for universal rights), basic fundamental rights are privileged above the benefit of enjoying success.

Consider a family. Naturally, the parents provide for the children. Children are, essentially, leeches on the family unit. All they do is consume, and produce nothing for YEARS for the family. We would never argue, however, that a father or mother has the right to enjoy and keep all of the resources that they worked for, and let their children to without, merely because they earned it, and the children did nothing. We sacrifice as a natural tendency, sure…but also, we are investing in people that will grow to, hopefully, produce and care for us as our capabilities become more and more compromised.

That’s the difference between fundamental human rights and the “right” to enjoy the benefits of success. Yes, we impose tax requirements in order to ensure that some fundamental rights are met for everyone. But we do not, hopefully, do so to a degree that there is no motivation to refrain from working, or achieving, so that those who work actually do benefit from it.

The society must be viewed as a family, in that we reasonably expect certain sacrifices from those who can to support the next generation, or those in need, as a loss of life or potential is detrimental in the end to society overall. If we did not support members of society generally, we would not slough off the least productive (as the whole Darwanistic implications of that would suggest in an insidious way) as there is no telling where TALENT will come from. Rather, we are multiplying our general chances of producing good producing members of our society. Those members will push progress and grow production in better and more efficient ways when given the right tools.

Two of those most basic tools are good education and good health. The person who cures cancer may be born in an area where if there were no taxes supporting education and health, he or she would die in infancy, or never learn to read. Meanwhile, the man or woman who was born luckily into wealth gets a business degree, and is stricken with lung cancer at 35. That person would have implemented an investment policy at their firm that would have revolutionized capital growth. But they die instead. Because their parents never paid the taxes, and neither did they, that would have given the person who would have cured cancer the education and health care needed to complete their education and research.

If we do not privilege the basic human rights that provide all the opportunity to succeed over the profit that those who given those opportunities and took advantage of them actually enjoy because of that work, we are more likely to see ourselves worse off.

@lawkes I can do anything I like. This was an example. Yes, the government has many such instances as well, but I can vote the government out.

Does that mean if I choose to opt out of welfare I can get a tax credit from your POV? And what if I opt out and then need the service? Do I then get disqualified and left to starve?

I gather from your perspective on this anyone who does not have school-age children would then also not pay taxes for public education. Then the only people paying would be those with children in school which means they are basically paying tuition for their children to attend public school.

@iamthemob,

Again, you’re shoving your morality as if it is an objective absolute. Does everyone who attend medical school graduate? No. Most are weeded out, and only the most fit graduate. Likewise, for any other system. If you can’t make it here, you don’t impose your moral views on others, meaning, if you see someone is weak, go help him yourself, don’t violate one’s right to choose to help or not. If that one is weak, he/she has the right to leave the country and find shelter where he/she may succeed.

@optimisticpessimist,

You can bankrupt an entrepreneur as well by not buying his/her terrible product. The competition would weed that bad business out.

I don’t know enough about tax credits, all I know is I’m paying for services that I don’t need and I don’t depend on, and that I feel a business man should run, not the government.

That’s right, the only people paying would be those with children in school which means they are basically paying tuition for their children to attend public school.

You basically pay for what you want. You don’t get forced to pay for what you don’t want. I mean think about it, how is it different then forcing one to pay for someones television without ever using it? Nonsense.

If the majority of people felt that black people should remain slaves because if they were ever free, it would be detrimental to society, does that make it okay?

@lawkes

“Without quality, you don’t get profit. Why would one pay for a road with holes in it, when the next door competition will provide a road that is smooth as butter?”

The less money that’s put into the product and the less money that’s used for paying workers, the more profit for the owner. There are numerous corporations that have skimped on quality to maximize profits.
As I alluded in my previous post, if the street by my house has holes, how would I get to the one that’s “smooth as butter”? Drive across my adjacent neighbor’s property? Have it delivered?

@Brian1946,

How would you do it right now, when it is government operated?

@lawkes

If I see a road that needs repair, I submit a report to our Bureau of Street Services, and it gets repaired.

And why couldn’t the same be done with a business owner? When my window got cracked, I had a repair within a half hour come along to replace it.

For one thing, it’s not my private road, it’s a public one. Why should I be the only one to pay for a road that’s provided for any vehicle that uses it? We all have access to it, so the cost should be shared by all who have that access.

@lawkes Ahh! So, children would only get the education their parents could afford to get them. Those who are low income would then have children with little or no education so they would also end up bound to poverty through lack of education or they could just have no children as they could not afford to pay for their education. Then children would be a perk of the wealthy. But wait… they could not afford health care either so no birth control. I guess sex would then also become a perk of the wealthy. I, by no means have socialist tendencies, but I see this type of situation quickly devolving into feudalism.

How about national defense? I doubt you use the military or have the personal power to call them into action when you want them. Do you have to pay for them as well?

@lawkes An example of how a tax credit may work… you pay private school tuition and get to deduct $1,000 per child’s tuition or the entire tuition (the lesser of the two) from your AGI. The effect of this is changing the taxable amount of your income.

@Brian1946,

If a ride breaks down in six flags park, do you pay to fix it, or do you call a tech? You already paid for the ticket to enjoy the park, everything else is included in the price. Likewise, you pay for the road to use it, and if there happens to be a gap on the road, you call the tech to come down and fix it which was already included in the price you paid to use the road. The most important point I wish to bring up here is that you pay for the product and you use it at the time you need it. You don’t have to be forced to pay for the product when you don’t need it or to be forced to buy this product for someone else who does need it, or that it will run anymore or less efficient.

@optimisticpessimist,

That’s correct, the military is no exception. What is your alternative then? Screwing over the rich? I’m all ears on a middle ground proposal.

TL:DR

Your argument against Article 25 seems to overlook Article 23, section 3

“Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.”

Of course, there is a difference between “just and favourable remuneration” and extortion. Where that line is… well, many people consider all of the money in the world to not be enough :/

Nah, @lawkes, I will just let the enemy attack as the troops will have no training, weapons or ammunition whatsoever. They won’t want what I have, but they might want your stuff.

@lawkes

Again, you’re shoving your morality as if it is an objective absolute. Does everyone who attend medical school graduate? No. Most are weeded out, and only the most fit graduate. Likewise, for any other system. If you can’t make it here, you don’t impose your moral views on others, meaning, if you see someone is weak, go help him yourself, don’t violate one’s right to choose to help or not. If that one is weak, he/she has the right to leave the country and find shelter where he/she may succeed.

Hmm. I don’t think that I did anything “again” myself, since this is the first time that I’ve written on this thread.

Aside from that, you’re response isn’t…well, really responsive. You’re taking a random hypo and making it central. You’re also talking about improper aspects of it. Yeah, some people fail in medical school. However, if they fail because they weren’t taught basic biology well enough because they were dirt poor and therefore went to a bad school, that’s not allowing individuals to advance themselves – advancement is based on whether or not your PARENTS were successful, and THEIR parents were successful.

And many people don’t even get into medical school. If you’re provided a good education, work hard, and still don’t do very well – that sucks.

But when we talk about education and health rights, we’re not talking about the elite aspects of them – we’re talking about the fundamentals and the basics, which should be equal availability and equal resources.

You also have to remember that the UDHR covers developing nations where many women aren’t taught to read, whereas boys are. Where certain minorities are never given education at all.

I’m not “shoving” morality in any sense. The UDHR was fairly unique in that the membership of the UN, which is near universal, has adopted it.

Practically, moral relativism has limits in a society defined by laws, and rights. So, something will always be privileged above something else. The UDHR is about balance, not strict acceptance that everything is exactly the same.

I don’t see the contradiction. We are however missing the point on ‘Rights’. Rights can not be granted, they can only be taken away. You have a right to free speech. No ones gives you that speech, you already have it. You have a right to own guns. Nobody gives you a gun, you merely have the right to own one. So when you talk about the right to pursue your education or to be curious about what interests you, it doesn’t mean someone has to provide that. It simply means they can’t take it from you if you go and get it.You may have a right to an education but that doesn’t mean you get to go to Harvard. Acceptance is still thier prerogative and it will cost an arm and a leg.

Same with Health Care. We’re not arguing about who can get it. We’re arguing about who will pay for it.

@Jaxk Yes, we are now talking about who will pay for it, but with education it is not a question of Harvard or not, it is a question of any education starting at Kindergarten. @lawkes seems to feel anybody who does not utilize the service (public education) should not have to pay for it even though it benefits the entire nation to educate the youth of the nation.

@lawkes I have offered at least one idea in the realm of education. A tax credit for those who are paying for private school tuition. This could even be extended to health care. I do not know how realistic the numbers would be but I am also theoretically in favor of flat tax rather than progressive tax. As far as the roads go, does that mean all roads would become toll roads? I mean there are some roads I use everyday and some I may only use once a year.

@iamthemob True. We are not talking elective surgery and Harvard degrees here.

@Jaxk I think that Article 23, section 3 covers healthcare for the working (part of, ”... an existence worthy of human dignity…”) and Article 25, section 1 covers healthcare for those that can’t. As for education, I think it is in the best interest of society as a whole for us all to chip in… unless the goal is a two-tier society. Like I told @iamthemob, I don’t think that the UDHR was talking college here, but merely the basics; the three Rs, stuff that many people around the world do not and are not allowed to learn.

“Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.”

@iamthemob, “But when we talk about education and health rights, we’re not talking about the elite aspects of them – we’re talking about the fundamentals and the basics, which should be equal availability and equal resources.”

Let it be equally available and equally resourceful but only at the expense at those that will it. I don’t want it nor wish to fund it, so that means too bad for me? You call that balance? I have a right to choose, my right is violated and I’m the minority here. I’m being oppressed by a tyrannical majority. This is no different then homosexual rights where a minority group wishes to have equal human rights which the majority denies them – likewise for slavery. These rights are suppose to insure protection to the minority from such cases.

The FBI, NCVS, BJS, criminal statistics as of 2009 in the United States black people and Latino’s make up 30% of the population and are responsible for 65–70% of the crimes as oppose to whites who make up 66% of the population but are responsible for 35–40% of the crime. Should we then deny all blacks and Latino’s all human rights because the majority of them are criminals and just destroy society? According to your logic, yes, because we need to protect the “community” as a whole. How is that fair and balanced?

@optimisticpessimist,

The tax credit is a decent idea if it works. As for the roads, how to purchase the product is up to the entrepreneur. I would assume anything electronic would be easier and more efficient to make use of the product quickly.

I do not think of tax funded education and health care as rights, but I do think that they are appropriate. Let me explain why I think so.

1. Our productivity depends on having a healthy and educated work force. We pay taxes on these items not just for our own direct benefit, but for the general good.

2. Even apart from any indirect benefits that we get from a healthy and educated populace, we have an obligation to provide for those who are unable to care for themselves.

@LostInParadise,

And if I disagree with your ideology and decide to pursue my own, is it tough luck for me? My rights to choose doesn’t matter any more?

My only complaint here is that everyone has such great idea’s but they force feed those idea’s down people’s throats.

If you want to help out and support certain programs, then just go and do it. There is no reason to force someone else to help your moral objective. You’re violating rights for your own rights. This is no different then religious groups that attempt to instill their ideologies as a standard of morality which not everyone agrees too. What makes a liberal ideology any less tyrannical upon those that disagree?

@lawkes I’m of the opinion that the content of said ideology matters quite a bit. Otherwise we get into silly territory pretty quickly.

For example, it’s true that (1) a liberal government taxing people to pay for education they may not use and (2) a Shariah government stoning women to death who don’t dress like ninjas are both examples of a government using its power to force a certain ideology on people. But you cannot seriously say they are equally tyrranical.

If you do, then what about a government that “forces” thieves to not steal, or murderers to not murder? Certainly opposition to murder and theft are simply ideology as well.

Your point is simply a meta-argument. The real argument involves the question of what we think the job of the government actually is, not whether a government can do a job.

@lawkes You still have a right to fight against what you perceive as an injustice. This is the way in many laws changed as they were found to be unjust. Unfortunately, for you, most people do not perceive it the same way nor are they likely too. Partially because it effects more people negatively on a personal level and partially because we are viewing it as what is given to society as a whole not what is being given to or taken from individual people.

I do feel the federal government has taken too big a role in placing restrictions. I think the least restriction should be placed at the federal level with more restrictions added by state, county, etc. as desired. Part of my reasoning for this is that it should be easier to change policy on the local level than the federal level so if people in the local area want changes they can make them. No, I am not talking about completely deregulating businesses or anything that drastic.

@Qingu,

Agreed. There are worse forms of tyranny, but tyranny non-the-less. Rights are being violated for the supposedly “greater good”.

What we think the government actually is depends on the opinions of the majority or through legal battles. In no way does it equate to justice.

I wanted to stay away from this conversation as morality is a highly subjective topic. I just wanted to focus on the contradictions here and so far what I’ve understood from the responses was that a contradiction is present but it does not matter since it’s about the greater good where sacrifices are necessary at the expense of the minority.

@optimisticpessimist,

Alright then.

“If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state – to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others, for his position is a passive one, and while passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will is an infringement of his rights” -Herbert Spencer

Let it be equally available and equally resourceful but only at the expense at those that will it. I don’t want it nor wish to fund it, so that means too bad for me? You call that balance?

@lawkes – Interesting. Wrong, though. If you take any single social issue out of context, and start screaming about how it’s “unfair” that you should have to pay for x when you don’t use x, of course there’s no balance. Of course, there are plenty of things you pay for and never really use, and willingly. Like insurance. Should you get all that money back if, at the end, you never had to rely on it? No.

And taxes aren’t, therefore, the same as you being discriminated against due to sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. Those are static categories, where people are being treated differently because of invidious prejudice. Please, don’t.

The main thing you’re ignoring is that no one who uses the vast majority of public education pays for it while they’re using it – because they’re children. They aren’t really free to make their own decisions, are they?

So let’s just let them fail if their parents fail. Or if they don’t want to send them to school because they want to send them to work.

I really despise when people turn something that’s based on libertarian ideals into this sort of “every man for himself” anarchism. When you start crying oppression because you don’t like taxes to pay for some of the basics, and privilege property rights over everything else, you probably shouldn’t worry about human rights. They don’t apply to you.

I apologize for the harshness. But, I’ve had this conversation before, and there are no practical results that come from it.

I say, flat out, that the right of everyone to be educated and have health care, at the most basic level, is more important than people’s rights to keep every cent they make.

@iamthemob,

What article says that the right to peacefully follow my own interest and the sexual orientation rights are not equal?

Are you trying to tell me that I don’t have a right to “scream” about how my right of choice is being violated?

What empirical tools are you using to outweigh one violated right over another?

From what I understand it seems to me that you value compassion for the weak. That’s very noble of you, but why do you insist on violating someone’s right of choice in order to push your objective morality? Your logic is just a less form of tyrannical evil when compared to, for example, radical values of religious groups.

This is Robin Hood style. Steal from the rich, and give to the weak. “Fair and Balanced” according to you.

Interesting, what gives you the right to tell me that human rights don’t apply to me?

This question is not about practical results. This conversation got drifted from the questions intent which was to focus on contradictions. Arguing morality is pointless. If I want something passed or accomplished I’ll lobby it, vote on it, or hire some fancy lawyers.

And after comments like yours, you’re still surprised why the rich do whatever they can to defend themselves?

BTW, to maintain your logical consistency, I can provide you with an ample amount of evidence for why homosexuality is harmful to society, as I have already shown with the criminal statistics of blacks and Latinos when compared with whites. Now, since the majority of all of them are detrimental to society, according to your logic, the minority that are good don’t matter anymore, and we now must get rid of all of them so that we maintain the important basic right of a safe society so that we can continue the “greater good”.

@lawkes

Are you saying the requirement that you have to pay any taxes at all constitutes tyranny?

I.e., if you had to pay even 1 cent in taxes over the course of your entire life, that would amount to tyrannical oppression?

”...I have already shownthe criminal statistics of blacks and Latinos when compared with whites. Now, since the majority of all of them are detrimental to society, according to your logic, the minority that are good don’t matter anymore, and we now must get rid of all of them so that we maintain the important basic right of a safe society so that we can continue the “greater good”.

The majority of criminals are detrimental to society, not the majority of blacks and Latinos, and criminals are a small minority of our general population.

If I am forced to pay for something I do not wish to pay for, then even 1 cent is a violation of my rights. You start of small and then you end up completely dismantled.

Didn’t you read the evidence I’ve shown? The FBI, NCVS, BJS, criminal statistics as of 2009 in the United States black people and Latino’s make up 30% of the population and are responsible for 65–70% of the crimes as oppose to whites who make up 66% of the population but are responsible for 35–40% of the crime.

FBI – Arrests by Race, 2009

Hispanics Crime Report

Hispanics labeled as whites in statistics, rise of crime

Gangs – Blacks and Hispanics Statistics

@Jaxk, actually, you don’t have the right to bear arms in a vacuum. If we are living in a governmentless state of nature, you find yourself a gun, and I sneak up in the middle of the night with my posse and take it away from you… that’s that. You can say you have the “right” to your weapon all you want, but if I decide it’s mine and I can take it, it’s mine.

Rights do not exist without a government to enforce them.

Blacks did not have the right to vote or own property until the government enforced their ability to go to the polls. It took quite a bit of force too.

@lawkes, I don’t think you get it.

You don’t earn your money in a vacuum. You even seemed to recognize this. Your business depends on a vast amount of government infrastructure. That infrastructure is paid for by taxes. You would not earn an income if there was not this infrasturcture. You would not be able to keep your income were it not for government services (police protection, legal system).

It is absolutely absurd, then, for you to continue to assert that taxing your income is “stealing.” It’s like saying Apple Inc. is “stealing” the 30% they take from developers who release apps on their platform. If those developers do not want to pay Apple 30%, they can find another platform to develop and release their products on.

If you don’t want to pay your 35% (is it even that now?) in taxes then you can find another country in which to start, expand, and secure a lucrative business. Good luck, you’ll need it.

You also don’t really seem to internalize that the government is not the only entity that can take people’s freedom away. Private corporations are quite capable of doing so; after all, slavery is cheap.

Let me ask you a question: who do you think has more “freedom”: you, a wealthy businessman who has to pay slightly higher taxes, or an impoverished single parent who has to work 2 jobs to support her kids and pay rent? If you seriously think you have less freedom because you are taxed more, I think you ought to consider what the word “freedom” actually means.

@Qingu

And how did I respond to you? I said that I do recognize it, but it is also wrong for the government to have a monopoly over such services and I’m willing to have my business suffer in order to make a transition from government infrastructure to entrepreneurial. This transition would now allow me to earn my money in a vacuum. The problem is you don’t want this transition to happen and thus I’m forced to depend on government infrastructure to earn my money. This is tyrannical as it still violates my rights which makes it ultimately theft.

In regards to your question of who has more freedom, certainly I do, but you left out the main point, she used her freedom of choice to put herself in slavery. Under a tyrannical government (compulsory taxation), your freedom of choice is gone.

And again, just because my right of choice is violated does not mean I need to leave this country. I will do whatever I can within the system to achieve my results. If you haven’t noticed, the rich have been dominating the legal system, votes and lobbying so there is reason for me to leave. If anything, the weak should have a clear incentive to leave or go to charity organizations.

Typo ^^

there is no reason

@lawkes

“If I am forced to pay for something I do not wish to pay for, then even 1 cent is a violation of my rights. You start of small and then you end up completely dismantled.”

So you wouldn’t mind if you were denied the direct and indirect benefits of any government supported or provided service that you don’t want to pay for?

“Didn’t you read the evidence I’ve shown? The FBI, NCVS, BJS, criminal statistics as of 2009 in the United States black people and Latino’s make up 30% of the population and are responsible for 65–70% of the crimes as oppose to whites who make up 66% of the population but are responsible for 35–40% of the crime.”

I didn’t have to read the evidence to refute your misinterpretation of the data.

The statistics that you’ve posted don’t prove that a majority of the people in those groups are criminals.
According to an extrapolation of this, the known US criminal population is about 9 million.

The demographics that you posted indicate a combined black and Latino population of about 92 million, so even if every known criminal was a black or a Latino, that would mean that less than 10% of them are criminals, which is WAY short of a majority,

@Brian1946,

I wouldn’t mind at all.

How can you know I “misinterpreted” data if you didn’t read the data? How can you know what the statistics prove or don’t prove if you didn’t read the data? Furthermore, I’ve linked you to official government agencies that provide this data and instead you link me to an unsourced wiki picture? You have got to be kidding me…

Please don’t manipulate the facts especially when you don’t provide any credible of your own and ignoring mine.

According to the facts, 92 million of them which is around 30% are responsible for 65–70% of all the crime in America, while whites which make up 65% (200 million) of the population were only responsible for 30–35%.

They barely make up the population but dominate in crime while whites make up most of the population, and barely dominate in crime.

Now, let’s stay consistent with @iamthemob‘s logic (violate rights for “greater good” rights) by ignoring the minority that are good amongst these groups, and instead just get rid of all blacks and Latinos because they’re just to detrimental to society and are keeping us from focusing on the “greater good”.

Crime is tied to income distribution. Most of those in inner cities are black. One percent of the nation have 25% of the wealth. This is the most skewed distribution since the great depression. Those at the top have a moral obligation to come to the aid of those in need.

I haven’t heard so much illogical doublespeak that is coming from @lawkes since I read 1984. What a great way to justify prejudice and greed.

@LostInParadise,

Those that are at the bottom have a “moral” obligation to behave properly in a civilized society.

@cazzie,

What part is “illogical” ?

Why are you passing judgment on me over moral issues as if you know what the right answer is?

I’m not going to be ashamed of my morals because you have a problem with them.

You would not earn your money in a vacuum if private enterprise took over police, fire, roads, utilities, the legal system, etc. You would then need to pay off those private enterprises for using their services and I would wager they’d charge you a lot more than you’re getting taxed.

Please explain how the single mother used “her freedom of choice” to put herself into slavery. What choices did she make? And what choices are actually being taken from you by taxing your income progressively? Your freedom to buy an iphone 4 instead of holding on to your iphone 3 for another year?

@Qingu,

That’s right, I’m dependent on the service I pay for, but I would be paying for it when I actually need it and only for myself as oppose to paying for it constantly and paying for others (freeloaders). Why would you think they would charge more?

As for the single mother, for example, why would she have children when she’s barely able to support them? Why would one have two children if one is a handful? Why didn’t she think of the possible trouble she might run into in the future? It’s a given that if you have children without the income to support them, you will land yourself in to slavery.

First of all, progressive tax is nonsensical because it kills the incentive of being rich and is a violation of equality under the law. Also if you notice, the more progressive tax, the more you see tax avoidance and loopholes. A equal tax for everyone would make more sense and again, you want to progressively or regularly tax someone who doesn’t want or ever will participate in these government services (yes, I’m aware of the vacuum argument, you know where I stand).

As for taxation in general, I’ve explained how my freedom of choice is not really free because of it. Again, If I chose to send my kids to private schools, why am I forced to pay for public school as well? If I was able to choose freely, I would not pay for public schooling. Obviously the government says I don’t have a say in the matter, thus I’m forced to pay double. I could have made a lot more useful investments with the money that was deducted. Money makes money.

Perhaps she is poor because of circumstances beyond her control, like many people in the recession. Or perhaps she’s simply not intelligent enough tor has mental problems, or was raised by poor parents, or was sexually assaulted, or many other factors that happen to people. If you really and truly believe that everyone who ends up in hard straights “deserves” it because of choices they made, you are living in a fantasy-land, and I hope for your sake your luck never runs out.

As for progressive tax killing the incentive of being rich… walk me through this. Let’s say I make 200k. But according to you, I won’t want to make any more than that because I’ll only end up getting 70% of it? LOL Truly one wonders why millionaires and billionaires in America even bother.

The way you are asking these questions, and your worldview, really just strikes me as childish and borderline sociopathic. “Why do I have to contribute to social goods”? Because you live in a society. Because you are a human being, and human beings depend on one another. Because the well-being of others who live in this country is not only important for its own sake but for the stability that allows you to enjoy your riches. Again, these are things most of us learned in kindergarten. If you don’t understand why you might be expected by society to share the wealth that you have managed to gather by using tools provided to you by that society, I think you need to grow up. Most of us get over the Ayn Rand phase in college.

@lawkes wrote ‘I’m not going to be ashamed of my morals because you have a problem with them’. That’s true. It’s pretty clear you have no shame.

@Qingu,

Again, you’re passing moral judgment as if you know what the absolute objective morality is. I’m not living in a fantasy world, you’re. You can sit and mourn all day long for all the “poor and unfortunate” in this world, but don’t expect people to share your moral values. I honestly don’t give a shit what her situation is. Her problems are not my problems just like my problems are not your problems. If I want to help her, I’ll do so upon my own free will, not because you think I should. You’re a bully without even realizing it. You think she needs help, then go give her a piece of your 200k salary, but that’s not enough for you, no, instead you want to steal my income as well by using the government as a tool (forced taxation) to bully me into supporting your “moral” objectives even though I made it clear I don’t care about her or you.

Are you sure you’re not being childish? Violating my rights to support your dogmatic views? Crying about how the rich make too much and don’t care about the poor and unfortunate? And now I’m sociopathic? What are you taking an intro course in amateur psychology?

Really, how do I depend on the bum on the street, or the welfare collector? A government monopoly forcing me to use it’s infrastructure and to pay for others who can’t afford it, is tyranny, not freedom. I will not be grateful for tyranny.

@cazzie,

Just like you have no shame in violating human rights.

@lawkes really? I have violated human rights? Well…. I did ground my 6 year old today for lying to me…. But if you have any special examples you’d like to give, I’m all for your ‘freedom of speech’. one of my favourite… because when you give them enough rope, they usually end up hanging themselves.

@cazzie,

You’re supporting an ideology that violates human rights. Or do you not agree with liberal views?

I should be clear: I don’t make anywhere close to 200k.

You seem uncomfortable with the topic of morality. That’s odd, but fitting based on your worldview. Maybe we should talk about how I understand morality. I see morality is, quite simply, a “code of behavior.” Laws are simply morals that are enforced by a government. So to say that morals should not enter into government or a discussion on rights is nonsensical.

Now, you claim that the poor woman’s problems are not your own, so why should you care? The obvious answer to this is “empathy,” something which separates normal people from sociopaths, but I’ll be charitable and assume you mean in an economic sense. My answer is that her problems intersect your life in complex ways, possibly ways that are impossible to measure, because human societies are complex systems .

I hope you’ll actually read that article, because I think this idea really underpins a basic divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives (and libertarians) tend to see society as reduceable to the actions of “rational actors.” Humans are independent agents that act in their self-interest. The market follows simple rules. It is a beautiful machine that runs itself and the government’s job is simply to polish it every now and then.

Liberals, on the other hand, see society as a complex system, like an ecosystem. Humans are deeply interdependent agents, connected in many ways and on many levels, some more predictable than others. Some make rational decisions; others are swept up in propaganda, trends, fraud, or just ignorance. The market is deeply chaotic (in a mathematical sense). The market’s relation to society yields all kinds of feedback loops, for example bubbles (short term) and poverty cycles (long term). The market is a force of nature, and the government’s job is to harness its power to improve humanity when possible, but also to save people who end up drowning in the market’s inevitable turmoil.

Ayn Rand made the former view almost into a cult. Libertarians strike me as having a religious faith in the market, a machine-god that must be appeased, that doles out rewards and punishments justly. Not only does this strike me as insane, it also strikes me as obvious propaganda emitted from those who are able to control the market most effectively—which is why Randianism tends to be so popular amongst wealthy businesspeople.

Liberals can have their excesses too (obviously communism is a poor solution to dealing with the market’s turmoil), but this conception of the market’s role in society, and the nature of society itself, seems to be much more rational and based on evidence and history.

Well then, you summed it up. I’m a sociopathic libertarian worshiping the market-god and I aim to control people through market dominance.

this wasn’t a question it was a quest. I’ll be talking to the mods.

@lawkes

“Furthermore, you assume that all roads are great in the US when in practicality, they’re not.”

Where is your proof that I made that assumption?

Based on your questions, I assumed it was implied. If not, my mistake.

@Qingu,

I’ve something for you to read, History & Evidence as you say. It’s long, but you mentioned you were lucky enough to receive a good education, then reading this won’t be that difficult.

After reading this, let me know if your world view remains the same.

Yeah… just because someone is lucky to be literate and well-educated doesn’t mean they’re necessarily going to waste their time reading a 1,900-page suicide note rant by a guy who shot himself in front of a Harvard tour group.

Skimming it, it seems to cover many ideas that interest me. It also reminds me a bit of Ted Kazcinski, who also made some actually good points about the role of technology in human society, despite taking it to the wrong conclusion. I’m not really sure why you think I should read this, or why you think it’s important.

@Qingu,

We’re discussing morals and politics here. I feel that what this sociobologist had written, will show the error in your views. I don’t want you to focus on the technology, but Part II is what mainly relates to what was discussed, and if you feel the conclusions are wrong, then by all means, critique away. I recommend reading it all as it builds on itself, but for discussion sake, only Part II is necessary.

I don’t see how history & evidence is a waste of time, but you don’t have to do anything, it’s a request. You obviously willing to waste time on message boards discussing topics with no practical application, so I don’t see how reading this would be any more or less unhealthy.

Maybe you can summarize his argument, if you find it so convincing?

Skimming through the religious scholarship (my own area of study) ... pretty damn sloppy and rather stupid. The Jewish star of David as a pyramid plus an inverted pyramid? The star of David wasn’t even the Jewish symbol until the 1600’s. The ancient Jews used twin lions.

I probably shouldn’t read much more of this or I will be compelled to nitpick all night.

If I was willing to summarize it, I wouldn’t be requesting you to read it. I think it’s easier for you to read it as is, in its original form. You seem to be interested in the how’s and why’s, so I don’t see why you’re so resistant to reading it.

Because what I’ve read so far is sloppily thought and not very compelling, so I’m not sure why I should invest hours of my time just because someone on the Internet thinks they can outsource their arguments instead of making them in their own words.

Why would I need to repeat what was written in my own words?

What does the Star symbol have to do with the date? He makes no inference of date or that it’s the only symbol.

Written in your own words? The person who wrote the document you linked to committed suicide last year.

Whoa that was a bad typo, I mean why would I need to repeat what was written by someone else.

Freudian slip.

If you asked me to explain why I generally support liberal policies, or the theory of evolution, or any given subject, I would give you a summary. I wouldn’t ask you read the entire works of John Rawls or Charles Darwin.

Alright, so don’t read it then, what can I tell you. I’m not willing to paraphrase a 1900 page book, just like you’re not willing to read a 1900 page book.

I’m not willing to read a 2,000 book without some compelling reason, especially when the parts I’ve skimmed of said book are demonstrably nonsense.

Give me an example. I hear a lot of claims of “nonsense” from you but you’ve not given me one example of what exactly is “nonsense” or have shown me evidence of how it is “nonsense”.

Fails to acknowledge the contingency of all thought and rationality on existence (as opposed to death), fails to acknowledge previous monotheistic cults and ideas similar to Yahweh before the Jews, or that the Greeks were the ones who described an “unmoved mover,” not the Jews… I mean, every part I skimmed struck me as sloppy.

Please give me a summary of why you think his argument is compelling, otherwise, I’m afraid I have better things to do.

Very well, better things it is.

Could you guys hold on a minute while I go get some more popcorn?

So… when I read and take advice I always consider the source. I like to take advice by successful human beings not those that would kill themselves in front of a crowd. That is certain proof that the person who wrote it is mentally unstable and has an addled mind.

Like Qingu said, nonsense.

Hah, this coming from a person who thinks a question is not a quest?

Mind you, there is a 290 page bibliography, so when you say his work is “nonsense”, you’re saying that people like Richard Dawkins (who he quotes) has no idea what he’s talking about.

wow… no logic being applied here. I think you should get some sleep.

“If my hypothesis is correct, this work will be repressed. It should not be surprising if justice is not done to the evidence presented here. It should not be unexpected that these arguments will not be given a fair hearing. It is not unreasonable to think that this work will not be judged on its merits.”—Mitchell Heisman

I can write a whole lot of ranting bullshit, reference who I want, and then claim it will never be hailed for the genius work it is too. Doesn’t make it so.

“As a logical fulfillment of the enlightenment founding of liberal democracy, this work puts liberal democracy on trial. It is a test of liberal democratic justice; if based on its own standards of justice, the evidence can be judged on its merits, unmarred by political interests. It is a test of whether America can be true to itself.”—Mitchell Heisman

You’re looping your logic.

‘I’m a great thinker, so it must be so.’ is not evidence that I am a great thinker.

But it’s logical to say that because he killed himself his argument is invalid?

If I make an economical argument and you yell out that I cheat on my taxes, does that make my economical argument any less logical?

It’s the same thing homosexuals do when you call them out on their bullshit, you get called a homophobe. What does homophobia have to do with a logical argument? Might as well just say it in reverse, you’re a heterophobe.

I’m saying that when I read things, I consider the source. If someone is giving me advice about life, they should be able to demonstrate they are successful at what they’re talking about. This guy wasn’t a very successful human being. Suicide is evidence that his mind wasn’t working properly.

Cheating on taxes and killing oneself is quite different.

and where did the ‘homophobe’ argument come from. I can’t even follow that one.

I enjoy reading Virginia Wolfe, but I’m not going to take life coaching from her.

This isn’t an advice about life. This is a critique on liberal democracy through a nihilistic experiment. This isn’t a fairy tale piece, it’s history and science. He just compiles the data and pieces it together. You’re equating suicide to unsuccessful and to a mental disorder. A mental disorder is a subjective viewpoint. There is no empirical tool to measure one’s mind. There is only speculation. And again, if something is flawed in the evidence, then point it out and demonstrate how it’s different.

You’re missing the point I was making. You’re attacking a person personally, not intellectually. If I make valid arguments against homosexuality, or certain economical topics, and you say well I’m ugly!, so what does my ugliness have to do with my argument?

‘You’re equating suicide to unsuccessful and to a mental disorder. A mental disorder is a subjective viewpoint.’ Yes.. and apparently logic is too….. You’re not asking this question. You wrote this to practice making a point.

I emphatically do NOT agree with the philosophical conclusion you and your idols make about society and individual rights. Arguing about this with you is a waste of my time because you are using this forum to make points, not ask questions, if you haven’t notice, no one is buying it.

@cazzie,

Ah, so you’re finally catching on, everything is subjective. If everything is subjective, then if you say empathy, I say apathy, yet you seem to be compelled to shame me for my apathy, and you go further by supporting the liberal ideology that violates my rights of being apathetic, of choosing, etc..

Being a liberal is tyranny because you’re shoving your morals down people’s throats.
Being an anarchist, you allow all forms of morals to coexist because morals are subjective.

This question was about contradictions. You and others took it off-topic and I just went with the flow. Now, we’re arguing morals vs no morals, and discussing morality is stupid because neither side has enough evidence of an absolute objective morality.

I don’t have an idol’s because I don’t have any morals. You’re an idol worshiper though, submissive to the liberal morals you set to rule over you and to oppress others and this is why I don’t expect you to agree as most tyrants don’t. You learn the hard way through self-destruction, or from some other external force.

Screw morality, the reason taxation exists is that most societies have taken the hard headed decision that they will be better off with some forms of enforced collectivisation, and that this is worth a small loss of liberty. Your business depends not just on you consuming goods services, but also on your workforce’s, suppliers’ and customers’ consumption. If there were no public education provision, inevitably less people would be educated. This would have an impact on the economy as a whole. You may well feel that you’re fine with your business suffering for the principle of personal liberty, but others aren’t so sanguine. They also realise that there is a streak of short-termism running through humanity that makes compulsory payments towards such a system a better way of achieving public goods. This isn’t tyranny,as you’re perfectly free to agitate against such a system and get it changed, but most people prefer it this way as they are pragmatists rather than ideologues.

I’ve argued for a long time that “goods and services” can’t be equated to “rights”.

Rights to free speech, assembly and religion, and the other rights articulated in the US Bill of Rights are not a “provision of” anything by anyone else. That is, a right to free speech is not equivalent to a right for “a free newspaper subscription of your choice” (though now that I’ve broached the idea, I’m sure some enterprising publisher will be bending the ear of ‘his’ or ‘her’ personal representative in Washington and pushing that as a way to “save the newspapers”). But I digress. And it’s not like anyone pays attention to what I say, anyway.

For one to have a “right of access” to something is not the same as demanding that others accede to the demand to provide the thing itself as a right. People have a right to have access to medical care. I think we can all agree on that – and as far as I know we all do have that. It doesn’t follow that we can all afford all of the medical care that we would like or could use, nor should it. Nor should ‘society’ expect to afford all of the medical care that everyone can use. That’s simple economics, but far beyond the grasp of most in this forum, I’m afraid. Wanting a thing very much, or even needing it desperately, is not the same as having a right to the thing.

The same goes for education. I’m all in favor of everyone being educated. Hip, hip, hooray! (Just not the educations that so many are receiving now, though, to allow them to think so muddle-headed as they seem to.) But it doesn’t follow that a “right to an education” is realistic or proper. We all have a right to educate ourselves (and how few avail themselves of even that basic right!), but it doesn’t mean that teachers are indentured servants to the State any more than doctors are. And it certainly doesn’t mean that teachers and doctors have an exalted place in the State that is somehow more worthy of support (and tax dollars) than any other.

Another way of putting it: we all have a right to feed ourselves. But one’s right to feed oneself stops at the point of demanding that others sow, harvest, process, cook and serve one’s meals “because it’s my right to be fed”. I don’t have a right to be fed. No adult does.

@WasCy I agree with you. If you look at my original post in this thread, I did try to distinguish the difference; however, not nearly as well as you did. The access to education (not being turned away because of gender, race or any other characteristic) is a right. The free distribution of a certain level of education is a national program. We, as a nation, decided that a certain level of education given to the population regardless of ability to pay for the education was beneficial and worth all of the nation paying the price. Do I think people would have a deeper appreciation for their education if they had to pay for it? Yes. My MIL is not from the US. When and where she grew up, the family had to pay for basic education. Families (parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, older siblings) would contribute together to pay for the child(ren) within the family to attend school. The children and the adults took learning and achieving more seriously because everyone knew two things 1) they were paying for the education (people tend to have a higher appreciation for things they pay for versus things they get for free) and 2) the education was an asset not only for the individual, but for the entire family.

This does not mean I want to continue or discontinue public education. Do I think public education to a certain level is beneficial to society as a whole? Yes. Do I think the current system is working? No.

Is it a benefit to society as a whole to make sure that a large percentage of our population isn’t starving in the streets?

@jerv If this was directed at me, I said,“Do I think public education to a certain level is beneficial to society as a whole? Yes.” Just because I feel it is an important even necessary program/service, does not mean I think free education is a right.

@jerv

If any of our population (note that I didn’t temper that with “any threshold percentage”) is starving in the streets, then we have ways to aid that person, both with existing government programs and private charity. Does that mean that people have “a right” to be taken care of? No, it doesn’t. We do a lot of things in and with government that aren’t related to “rights”. Or ‘right’, either.

This argument strikes me as semantic, rather than substantive.

Whether or not something qualifies as a “right” is an argument about words. The real question is what the government should do, what its role is. Re: “civil rights,” you can reframe this as saying the government’s role is to ensure that all citizens have the same ability to vote, to travel, to get an education for their children, etc.

@Qingu And that was my point with my last comment; there are rights, then there are rights, so it inevitably goes into semantics.