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

[umjewman]

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.

Aren't those rights limited in some capacity though? The First and Second Amendment are not limitless and have been restricted in some capacity or another through years of statutes and court decisions. Wouldn't that mean they are no longer "rights" as you are defining the term?

[baldgriff]

Aren't those rights limited in some capacity though? The First and Second Amendment are not limitless and have been restricted in some capacity or another through years of statutes and court decisions. Wouldn't that mean they are no longer "rights" as you are defining the term?

We choose the implementation of the right within the reasonable limitation. I still have the ability to choose how I implement my right.

[Ken]

I still have the ability to choose how I implement my right.

Says who? It sounds like you are creating your own definition of what is your right (and specifically conflating it with "choice" or "option" which are different topics)

[baldgriff]

I have the "right to bear arms". The government has granted me that right. I get to choose how I implement that right. I can bear or not bear. Its up to my discretion. So while the government may charge me a fee for a license or hunting permit. The only real limitation is certain weaponry reserved for the military. However, the decision is mine.

Honestly, I am not trying to make this a gun debate. Its just an expedient example.

[heyelander]

Honestly, I am not trying to make this a gun debate. Its just an expedient example.

Not sure if this is a healthcare debate or not, but I think part of the declaration of independence that BFly posted speaks to the issue for me..

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

so all people have those rights, and as part of securing the right to life for all the government has mandated that everyone contribute by buying health insurance. The right isn't to health insurance (although the existing conditions rules may give you that right) the right is to Life, and we all as a nation bear responsibility for providing that right to everyone.

[Ken]

I have the "right to bear arms". The government has granted me that right. I get to choose how I implement that right. I can bear or not bear. Its up to my discretion. So while the government may charge me a fee for a license or hunting permit. The only real limitation is certain weaponry reserved for the military. However, the decision is mine.

Honestly, I am not trying to make this a gun debate. Its just an expedient example.

The right to bear arms grants you permission to have a gun. It does not in any way limit the ability of the government to compel you to own one.

If a new law was enacted tomorrow that said every household must have a gun for protection that would be ridiculous but in no way would it infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights.

You don't see police and military personnel picketing in the street because they have lost their right to bear arms? But they have been compelled to carry?

Not sure why we keep going back and forth here. Seems like this is obvious.

[mjl]

I have the "right to bear arms". The government has granted me that right. I get to choose how I implement that right. I can bear or not bear. Its up to my discretion. So while the government may charge me a fee for a license or hunting permit. The only real limitation is certain weaponry reserved for the military. However, the decision is mine.

Honestly, I am not trying to make this a gun debate. Its just an expedient example.

But isn't that the same as the government saying that you have the right to get or not get insurance, and if you don't, they'll charge you a fee?

[baldgriff]

But isn't that the same as the government saying that you have the right to get or not get insurance, and if you don't, they'll charge you a fee?

Nope - they are forcing me to pay them for something I choose not to do. Its not some like buying a permit or a license. If I dont comply with their rule (you must have insurance) - I am forced to pay a fine when I do my taxes. In fact, I have to prove when doing taxes that I have had medical coverage.

[Ken]

Nope - they are forcing me to pay them for something I choose not to do. Its not some like buying a permit or a license. If I dont comply with their rule (you must have insurance) - I am forced to pay a fine when I do my taxes. In fact, I have to prove when doing taxes that I have had medical coverage.

Where is your right not to have insurance stated?

[baldgriff]

If I choose not to carry a gun - there is no penalty.... and no one cares

However, should I choose not to carry insurance I am now penalized for that action. The government is compelling me by force of fine to buy a product I may not want. Again, I am not personally certain that medical care is a "right" as it is not specifically stated as one in our countries founding documents.

[Ken]

If I choose not to carry a gun - there is no penalty.... and no one cares

However, should I choose not to carry insurance I am now penalized for that action. The government is compelling me by force of fine to buy a product I may not want. Again, I am not personally certain that medical care is a "right" as it is not specifically stated as one in our countries founding documents.

And even if it was a right, as discussed ad nauseam, the right to have something does not implicitly imply the right not to have it.

[baldgriff]

The government has proactively granted people the right to free speech and bear arms. The have also built in protections of those rights - which people can choose to use or not use as they see fit.

With healthcare - they have done the opposite. They created a penalty for not having something that they think everyone should have. So one's only real option without penalty from the government is to select a product that may or may not fulfill your needs. It just leads me to believe that health care isnt a right, as was one of the guises used to try and push it forward.

[DMT]

The government has proactively granted people the right to free speech and bear arms. The have also built in protections of those rights - which people can choose to use or not use as they see fit.

With healthcare - they have done the opposite. They created a penalty for not having something that they think everyone should have. So one's only real option without penalty from the government is to select a product that may or may not fulfill your needs. It just leads me to believe that health care isnt a right, as was one of the guises used to try and push it forward.

If we had universal health care (like every other industrialized country in the world), this would be a moot point.

[Ken]

The government has proactively granted people the right to free speech and bear arms. The have also built in protections of those rights - which people can choose to use or not use as they see fit.

That's not how protection works.

[Redbirds Fan]

Let's talk about automobile (liability) insurance for just a minute, since so many people like to use that as an example in discussions like this. No states of which I am aware (and that includes a few) require anyone to buy liability insurance. Instead, they require "proof of financial responsibility" in order for you to operate a vehicle, meaning that if you cause property damage in your car that you are solvent enough to take care of the damages you cause, at least to a minimal degree.

You can make this showing in most states in different ways, one of which is to post a cash bond with the State. Buying liability insurance in the state's minimum amount is only one option, not a requirement. It's just the option most people take because it is the simplest and often the cheapest.

The alternatives may not be pleasant or convenient, but that's they way it works.