Can the government force you to exercise a "Right"?

[baldgriff]

I was discussing this yesterday with a friend. In my mind - if I have a right to do or not do something - I dont think that the government should have the ability to force me to exercise my right.


Any thoughts on this?

[DMT]

I was discussing this yesterday with a friend. In my mind - if I have a right to do or not do something - I dont think that the government should have the ability to force me to exercise my right.


Any thoughts on this?

Do you think the government should be able to force you to do anything?

[Teenwolf]

I was discussing this yesterday with a friend. In my mind - if I have a right to do or not do something - I dont think that the government should have the ability to force me to exercise my right.


Any thoughts on this?

How about getting vaccinated to protect herd immunity? Should this be legally enforceable?

[baldgriff]

Do you think the government should be able to force you to do anything?

Why do you answer questions with another question??

If the government is forcing me to do something - I dont have the right to choose my action. There is no right.

Rights are not compelled.

[B-Fly]

Are you talking about the ACA mandate? If so, I share your skepticism of calling health insurance or health care (or even K-12 education) a "right". I think it's better to think of such things as policy decisions within the context of the social compact of our democratic republican government. So I'm okay with compulsory health coverage, just as I'm okay with compulsory education, but I don't view those as "rights" possessed by the people and exercised at their discretion. I'm okay with policies that involve shared responsibilities as well, since we're ultimately all in this together.

[B-Fly]

How about getting vaccinated to protect herd immunity? Should this be legally enforceable?

Absolutely. This is a good example where vaccination is a responsibility of each of us as members of our communities, imposed through the government, and not a "right".

[baldgriff]

Are you talking about the ACA mandate? If so, I share your skepticism of calling health insurance or health care (or even K-12 education) a "right". I think it's better to think of such things as policy decisions within the context of the social compact of our democratic republican government. So I'm okay with compulsory health coverage, just as I'm okay with compulsory education, but I don't view those as "rights" possessed by the people and exercised at their discretion. I'm okay with policies that involve shared responsibilities as well, since we're ultimately all in this together.

Damn B-Fly you are good!

Yes - yesterday I was talking to a friend and we were discussing rights. It is my contention that healthcare is NOT a right also as the government compels everyone to purchase it. If one was to choose to go without it - they are fined by the government. While for me personally, I value having a good healthcare plan, others should not be compelled to have to pay for something that they may not see as a priority.

As I said - Rights are not compelled. If someone is forcing you to do something - it is not your "right".

[Gregg]

Damn B-Fly you are good!

Yes - yesterday I was talking to a friend and we were discussing rights. It is my contention that healthcare is NOT a right also as the government compels everyone to purchase it. If one was to choose to go without it - they are fined by the government. While for me personally, I value having a good healthcare plan, others should not be compelled to have to pay for something that they may not see as a priority.

As I said - Rights are not compelled. If someone is forcing you to do something - it is not your "right".

Then should emergency rooms and hospitals have to serve those without insurance or the ability to pay?

[Ken]

As I said - Rights are not compelled. If someone is forcing you to do something - it is not your "right".

By circumstance in some of the examples you are using the scenarios aren't necessarily a "right", however I'm not sure why you are extrapolating that out to assume that rights are not compelled. That is not actually the case.

What you are referring to is whether or not you have the right NOT to do something. And that is a different question of whether you have the right to do it.

But just because you are compelled to act in a certain way does not take away your right to act in that way. It simply takes away your right not to act in that way.

[B-Fly]

Then should emergency rooms and hospitals have to serve those without insurance or the ability to pay?

Yes, as part of the social compact. We can, through our representative government, establish mutual responsibilities to one another to serve the greater societal good.

[gcstomp]

i have rights officer, rights!

this reminds me of those who claim they do not need to pay taxes, as it is a right, and they opt out. free people? or what is their tag? anyhoo, to live in a well functioning society you have certain expectations, obligations, and rights that are commingled into a package that taken together produce what we can call a valued citizen. we can skirt about the edges in all kinds of ways that will still lead to someone not being arrested, but if everyone behaved that way society breaks down.

[baldgriff]

If I dont have a right to choose one way or the other - the decision is no longer mine to make. So I no longer possess the right. My right to speak freely, or bear arms are rights granted to me and I choose how I implement those rights.

Once the government compels me to act in a specific manner - I no longer have the "right" as the government upon threat of fine or jail will force me to act in a prescribed manner. They are making the decision for me.

[Sour Masher]

If I dont have a right to choose one way or the other - the decision is no longer mine to make. So I no longer possess the right. My right to speak freely, or bear arms are rights granted to me and I choose how I implement those rights.

Once the government compels me to act in a specific manner - I no longer have the "right" as the government upon threat of fine or jail will force me to act in a prescribed manner. They are making the decision for me.

It seems like a semantics debate vs a debate on what we should be required and not required to do or pay. I'm more interested in your feelings on what should be required by gov or not. Are you in favor of making Social Security and medicare optional? What do we do with those who don't wanna pay, but when they get old and sick, can't afford food and medicine? Do we let them die?

[Ken]

If I dont have a right to choose one way or the other - the decision is no longer mine to make. So I no longer possess the right. My right to speak freely, or bear arms are rights granted to me and I choose how I implement those rights.

Once the government compels me to act in a specific manner - I no longer have the "right" as the government upon threat of fine or jail will force me to act in a prescribed manner. They are making the decision for me.

Again you are confusing the right to do something with the right not to do it.

Substitute "permission" for right. For the purposes of this discussion they are equivalent.

Take this scenario:

There's a "staff only" door at a place of business. You are just a customer. You don't have permission to go through it.
Now consider that you are on staff. You have permission to go through that door.
Now consider that your boss tells you to go get something from the back. You still have permission to go through that door. You aren't being denied entry. Just because you are compelled to do something does not prevent you from having the right to do that thing.

[B-Fly]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Beautiful words by Thomas Jefferson, but to my mind they're bullshit. We know from science, history and observation that (1) all men are *not* created equal, and (2) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all readily "alienable" by other humans, and (3) pretty much every society, whether formally or informally governed, has variably both implemented rules and standards to "secure these right" and to "become destructive of" them.

That's why I prefer realistic talk about societies organizing under representative governments to weigh matters of security, utilitarianism, empathy/compassion, sustainability, standard of living, equity, etc. Under that framework, we can define "rights", "privileges", individual or collective "responsibilities" or "obligations", and the right mechanisms to implement these and address disputes/problems. None of that is "natural" or "endowed by our Creator", or a priori "equal" or "fair" or "unalienable". We own it. We need to define it. We need to explain and defend it. We need to support its implementation. It's on us as citizens in a democratic society.