What is a right?

[ecoli]

From: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49916

 

 

I should have the right to live and fulfill the requirements necessary for me to live. If I can't get a job (low mortality rate job) to feed myself or go somewhere to get food, I would consider the governing system to be corrupt.

I have to disagree. If we agree that it's a government's role to protect rights (and I think that we do) and if we agree that we all have the right to "live and fulfill the requirements necessary for life" how does it follow that the government should provide a job for you?

 

Holding a job (in the modern sense) is not necessary to survive. Humans can survive by foraging and hunting.

 

I disagree that it's government's job to provide or care for anyone (and call this a ''right"). That gives the government too much power, in my opinion. After all, most jobs are still, necessarily, private sector. What right does the government have to force a firm to hire another person? The firm's right to act for itself is clearly violated here.

 

The government should protect it's citizen's ability to try and fend for themselves, free from unreasonable coercion to conform or enslavement. I have the right to pursue a job, certainly, but I also have the right to panhandle for a living if I choose.

[Genecks]

I didn't say that the government should provide a job for me. I am saying that it should not act in preventing me from getting a job that allows me to gather resources to survive.

 

Also, the hunting idea is limited if you consider that there is not enough hunting land for everyone.

I would have to say the government has prevented people from getting jobs and allowing them to hunt.

This can be from accidental intervention or neglect of the running system. As such, corruption is on part of the government's inefficiency.

Fishing is still a good way to survive at the moment, though.

 

Also, some places don't allow panhandling.

 

Humans can survive by foraging and hunting.

In the primitive sense, yes.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Genecks

[ecoli]

I didn't say that the government should provide a job for me. I am saying that it should not act in preventing me from getting a job that allows me to gather resources to survive.

fair enough... it didn't sound like this in the OP though. You said if you couldn't get a job, you'd consider the gov't to be corrupt. You didn't say that the gov't was actively preventing you from seeking work.

 

Also, the hunting idea is limited if you consider that there is not enough hunting land for everyone.

well yeah, modern tech means that land access isn't a limiting factor anymore

But along the same lines as above, the government that exists in this scenario wouldn't prevent competition for land resources (though private purchases of hunting ground), just that nobody could steal your land without buying it from you.

 

 

I would have to say the government has prevented people from getting jobs and allowing them to hunt.

This can be from accidental intervention or neglect of the running system. As such, corruption is on part of the government's inefficiency.

 

Can you be more specific, I just don't see how this is true, given your clarification above.

 

Also, some places don't allow panhandling.

Yes, the NYC subway for example. This rule is not enforced.

[pioneer]

A right gives one the ability to pursue some end, without public or private intervention that would inhibit this.

 

For example, the right to bare arms, is something one can chose or not chose. Neither the private sector nor the government can alter that decision for you. Once either makes that decision for the individual, we no longer have that same right.

 

The right to internet already exists, unless there are countries where the private sector or the government sets up laws or obstructions that prevent access.

 

An entitlement is different than a right. A right exists if there is no public or private obstruction. An entitlement requires that one of these groups will pick up the tab. The right to bare arms is a right and not an entitlement since the government does not buy guns for us. All it does is stays out of the way, and lets the individual make that choice. If it decided we all need guns and wanted to pay the tab, then we have the entitlement to bare arms.

 

Say the government bought everyone guns to change the right to bare arms into the entitlement to bare arms. Not everyone will agree with that use of their tax dollars. The government takes way my right to decide how I wish my tax dollars are spent. If everyone had that right, after we add up what we give to the IRS, and how we wish it is spent, there may not be enough money for this entitlement. But we would still have the right to bare arms.

[Mr Skeptic]

A right is a liberty that is considered so important that it is allowed to restrict other liberties. The right to life, for example, restricts the liberty to randomly shoot people.