Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Why are some rights subsidized, while others are not?
  #1  
Old 06-23-2017, 11:16 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,196
Default Why are some rights subsidized, while others are not?

Let's get your take on it, forum.

I recently saw this question asked, and I thought it was a good one. If "Fundamental Rights" (i.e. those spelled out in the Constitution) aren't subsidized, why are other "rights" subsidized?

The basic premise was as follows:

Constitutionally I have free speech. The government won't just give me money to start a magazine, talk show, or whatever.

I have the right to bear arms. The federal government isn't going to buy me a pistol.

I have a right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". The federal government isn't going to pay for paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps for me to write my Congressman and Senator.

I have the right to free exercise of religion. The government won't build me a church.

But then, other things that are considered "rights", are subsidized.

So, what's your take, forum?

Last edited by mjr; 06-23-2017 at 11:20 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 06-23-2017, 09:05 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,208
Default

There's- by and large- a simple explanation.

Some rights are what i term "rights of limitation"- "Shall not" rights in other words. These rights are those that restrict another party. These need no subsidy outside enforcement of said right.

Other rights, however, are what i term "rights of entitlement"- where the right is to something. For these, it depends on the right. (the government doesn't HAVE to buy you a house, for example, but it's generally accepted they have to rent you one- not a specific house, mind- at a price you can afford if the alternative is you ending up on the street,)
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 06-23-2017, 09:14 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Constitutionally I have free speech. The government won't just give me money to start a magazine, talk show, or whatever.

I have the right to bear arms. The federal government isn't going to buy me a pistol.

I have a right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". The federal government isn't going to pay for paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps for me to write my Congressman and Senator.

I have the right to free exercise of religion. The government won't build me a church.
Because none of those things cost money. Speaking freely costs $0.00 so why should you get paid for it? If you choose to use a form of communication that costs money, that's your decision but no one is stopping you from or charging you money for standing on a street corner, protesting your heart out.

Same thing with the right to bear arms. No one is forcing you to exercise that right. You have to choose to. And there are free weapons out there so if you want to buy a gun, that's your decision to use a more expensive form of bearing arms.

You have a right to petition. No one is charging you to petition. Thus why should you get paid to do something that is free?

Do you NEED a church to practice freedom of religion? No. So why should you get paid for it? You have a freedom to practice religion without interference from the government. There's no religious requirement to spend money.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 06-24-2017, 05:54 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
You have a right to petition. No one is charging you to petition. Thus why should you get paid to do something that is free?
Is a protest a form of "petitioning the government"? If it is in some cases, why to a lot of areas require permits (which must be purchased, and therefore cost money) in order to protest?
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 06-24-2017, 08:40 PM
smileyeagle1021 smileyeagle1021 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
There's- by and large- a simple explanation.

Some rights are what i term "rights of limitation"- "Shall not" rights in other words. These rights are those that restrict another party. These need no subsidy outside enforcement of said right.
This is probably the best point I've heard yet. If you actually read the Bill of Rights, none of them are actually conferring rights on citizens, they are all restricting the rights of the government.
__________________
"I'm Gar and I'm proud" -slytovhand
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 06-24-2017, 09:10 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smileyeagle1021 View Post
This is probably the best point I've heard yet. If you actually read the Bill of Rights, none of them are actually conferring rights on citizens, they are all restricting the rights of the government.
Except for the fact that sometimes those rights are restricted. Look at the 2nd Amendment. It ends with "shall not be infringed".

Yet, there's a constant debate about what the 2nd Amendment actually means.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 06-25-2017, 12:11 AM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Is a protest a form of "petitioning the government"? If it is in some cases, why to a lot of areas require permits (which must be purchased, and therefore cost money) in order to protest?
Because you are costing the government and other people money in those instances thus you have to cover those costs. Doing a march? That means closing down streets. Who's going to do that? The police. Who's going to pay them for extra time? The people forcing them to close off the street for their march. Etc. etc.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 06-26-2017, 03:18 PM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 890
Default

@OP: what rights do you see as being subsidized?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
Because you are costing the government and other people money in those instances thus you have to cover those costs. Doing a march? That means closing down streets. Who's going to do that? The police. Who's going to pay them for extra time? The people forcing them to close off the street for their march. Etc. etc.
Is that really so? You don't get a permit for a protest march in the US unless you can cover the cost for police etc? Because if so, that seems like a splendid way to keep poor people from exercising their right to protest - just give 'em a bill they can't pay.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 06-26-2017, 04:33 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canarr View Post
Is that really so? You don't get a permit for a protest march in the US unless you can cover the cost for police etc? Because if so, that seems like a splendid way to keep poor people from exercising their right to protest - just give 'em a bill they can't pay.
Is marching in the street, stopping all traffic, drastically increasing the amount of trash produced, etc. etc. the only way to protest?
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 06-27-2017, 07:36 PM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 890
Default

No, of course not the only one; but a fairly important one. And one option for protest that poor people could conveniently be excluded from by placing a bill on that.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.