• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does having the right to something...?

See OP


  • Total voters
    15

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Does having the right to (x) mean that you have the right to have others provide you the means to exercise your right to (x)?

Please be sure to explain your answer.
 
You mean like....... when African Americans began having the right to vote? Although they had the right to vote, they didn't have the means to vote because of poll taxes, "voter qualification" exams, literacy tests (grandfather clause), etc, etc.

I believe those obstacles are inherently wrong, and an obstruction to that right which is granted by the government. But this is very different from "providing" the means to exercise that right.
 
Last edited:
Does having the right to (x) mean that you have the right to have others provide you the means to exercise your right to (x)?

Please be sure to explain your answer.

Of course not, no one owes anyone anything in this world unless they have been legally wronged.

You mean like....... when African Americans began having the right to vote? Although they had the right to vote, they didn't have the means to vote because of poll taxes, "voter qualification" exams, literacy tests (grandfather clause), etc, etc.

I have never understood why having a test to make sure someone can read was ever a problem.

If you can't be bothered to learn to read you should not be voting, you are most likely a moron.

(not you specifically, but you in the general sense)
 
I have never understood why having a test to make sure someone can read was ever a problem.

If you can't be bothered to learn to read you should not be voting, you are most likely a moron.

(not you specifically, but you in the general sense)

Unless of course, you're an immigrant who can speak 8 different languages but does not speak English, of which the literacy test is based on...

Illiteracy in English =/= Stupid
 
Unless of course, you're an immigrant who can speak 8 different languages but does not speak English, of which the literacy test is based on...

Illiteracy in English =/= Stupid

Of course, but then it shouldn't be a big deal to learn English.
I'd rather leave some out for the short term than include a lot who shouldn't.

I have a lot of respect for immigrants in the U.S., to the extent that they are more American than the natives are.
 
You mean like....... when African Americans began having the right to vote? Although they had the right to vote, they didn't have the means to vote because of poll taxes, "voter qualification" exams, literacy tests (grandfather clause), etc, etc.
I was thinking more along the lines of the right to property, etc.

BUT, in the case you present -- if someone needs to pay a poll tax to vote, deos he then have the right to have other people pay it for him?
 
I have a lot of respect for immigrants in the U.S., to the extent that they are more American than the natives are.

I often see this as well, though not all the time.

About the literacy tests, I was speaking more to the slaves who were recently released of their servitude, of which did not provide writing/reading lessons. The mass majority of freed slaves, having the right to vote, at the same time unable to exercise their right to vote because an obstruction set up by the State Government. This was directed at Former Slaves because of the addition of the Grandfather clause, which exempted the white folks from having to take the literacy test (which itself is almost impossible to pass for the average person at the time because of the illiteracy rates, regardless of skin color).

It's like the government is giving you a right, but then adding all sorts of requirements to them that were not there before. The government is essentially giving a right to nothing.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of the right to property, etc.

BUT, in the case you present -- if someone needs to pay a poll tax to vote, deos he then have the right to have other people pay it for him?

No, he does not have that right. His right should not force someone else to lose their right (in this case, the right to property; money).
 
Unless of course, you're an immigrant who can speak 8 different languages but does not speak English, of which the literacy test is based on...

Illiteracy in English =/= Stupid

If someone cannot speak English their mastery of other languages is irrelevant.

We are an English-speaking nation and if you want to participate in our governing process you should be socially integrated.

Can't read? Shouldn't be able to vote.

Don't speak English? Shouldn't be able to vote.

Net tax consumer? Shouldn't be able to vote.
 
I often see this as well, though not all the time.

I have some neighbors that I'm assuming are from India and they are willing to live in tighter conditions with more family inside a small space to save money.
On top of all that they keep their place very clean.

I see many of Americas poor not willing to do these things to succeed.
Immigrants know what true sacrifice is compared to the average individuals who live here.

About the literacy tests, I was speaking more to the slaves who were recently released of their servitude, of which did not provide writing/reading lessons. The mass majority of freed slaves, having the right to vote, at the same time unable to exercise their right to vote because an obstruction set up by the State Government. This was directed at Former Slaves because of the addition of the Grandfather clause, which exempted the white folks from having to take the literacy test (which itself is almost impossible to pass for the average person at the time because of the illiteracy rates, regardless of skin color).

It's like the government is giving you a right, but then adding all sorts of requirements to them that were not there before. The government is essentially giving a right to nothing.

That makes sense, I was referring to the general sense of it though.

Having some sort of self directed education and work ethic should be part of a requirement to vote. Its hard to test but I think worth the quality of people you would have voting.
 
We are an English-speaking nation and if you want to participate in our governing process you should be socially integrated.

Do you know what social enclaves are? Speaking the language or not, does not determine whether you are socially integrated.

Can't read? Shouldn't be able to vote.

Don't speak English? Shouldn't be able to vote.

This does not mean that they do not understand how the government works. Furthermore, if they are allowed time to translate it themselves, or for them, this would be irrelevant.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of the right to property, etc.

BUT, in the case you present -- if someone needs to pay a poll tax to vote, deos he then have the right to have other people pay it for him?

I think it depends on the use. Poll taxes are terrible at least in the way I take it as a fee necessary to pay before you're allowed to vote. In that sense, they have to be illegal, but if somehow we were going to implement something like that, then in order to make it useless I would say a person has the right to demand payment from the government. But this is because the right of the individual is being infringed upon in this case, there's no reason to charge someone especially as method to prevent certain classes from voting. As the People own the government, it being their property, being charged to manage their property in this manner (something so fundamental to keeping a Democratic Republic such as voting) should come with equal compensation for having done so.

Actually, scratch all that. Cause even all that allows for too much government abuse. In theory, I think they should be able to force the government to pay a poll tax. In practice, a poll tax must be kept explicitly illegal.

In terms of other things, depends on the right. But property things such as guns and the like; no. You are free to exercise your rights, but must fund the means by which to do so given there are not excessive government limitations and taxes making it impractical to exercise a right.
 
if someone else has to pay for it, if you have to pay for it, if it costs money, it ain't a right.

Y'alls got a right to life. Y'alls ain't got a right to food, water, air, shelter. You have to work to get those.

Y'alls got a right to freedom of speech, y'alls got to buy youse own radio station if you want to be broadcast.
 
Does having the right to (x) mean that you have the right to have others provide you the means to exercise your right to (x)?

Please be sure to explain your answer.

If you have the right to something it means that it is something you already have to begin with- life, liberty, etc. It cannot be given, only taken away.
 
Do you know what social enclaves are? Speaking the language or not, does not determine whether you are socially integrated.

Yessir, we do.

The short word you're looking for that provides the emotional impact all those syllables mask is "ghetto".


This does not mean that they do not understand how the government works. Furthermore, if they are allowed time to translate it themselves, or for them, this would be irrelevant.

If they're too self-important to learn the language my government is run in, they're just too damn special to be voting for people in my government.
 
Of course not, no one owes anyone anything in this world unless they have been legally wronged.

Agreed

I have never understood why having a test to make sure someone can read was ever a problem.

Then you mite want to study up on your history in the US.

The example used was with blacks. At the time most blacks could not read because it was illegal for them to do so as slaves. The laws put in place were specifically targeted at the former slaves to keep them from voting.

If you can't be bothered to learn to read you should not be voting, you are most likely a moron.

(not you specifically, but you in the general sense)

In modern times this is true, but not back in the time of slavery and Jim Crow.
 
Last edited:
Yessir, we do.

The short word you're looking for that provides the emotional impact all those syllables mask is "ghetto".

Uh...no.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoburb]Ethnoburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

If they're too self-important to learn the language my government is run in, they're just too damn special to be voting for people in my government.

So much for universal suffrage.
 
Speaking the language or not, does not determine whether you are socially integrated.

How can a person be considered socially integrated when they're incapable of communicating with the vast majority of society?

This does not mean that they do not understand how the government works. Furthermore, if they are allowed time to translate it themselves, or for them, this would be irrelevant.

Or they could just learn to speak the language which defines American culture.
 
Uh...no.

Ethnoburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So much for universal suffrage.

Who ever said universal suffrage was a good idea? Look what got elected last November, if you want to see what's wrong with that idea.

At a minimum, people should be literate in the language of the government before they should be allowed to participate in the selection of that government.

Better, people should be paying taxes before they get a vote on who decides how that tax money is spent.

Ideally, the people should be literate, taxpayers, and military veterans, since vets have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their one and only body for the benefit of the republic.
 
Last edited:
How can a person be considered socially integrated when they're incapable of communicating with the vast majority of society?

Because one does not preclude the other. Many immigrants who live in cultural enclaves live well adjusted lives without having to learn English. This in no way means that they are anti-American, anti-English, etc. Why should this bar them from having a voice in the country they live in?

Much like how states want their sovereignty from their federal government, cultural enclaves feel the same way about their state/city.

Or they could just learn to speak the language which defines American culture.

BS. The English language does no such thing.
 
Who ever said universal suffrage was a good idea? Look what got elected last November, if you want to see what's wrong with that idea.

Or look at the November of 5 years ago? What a dumb example. Furthermore, presidents are not elected by popular vote anyhow.

At a minimum, people should be literate in the language of the government before they should be allowed to participate in the selection of that government.

And the reason why it cannot be translated by the person, or for the person, in question?

Better, people should be paying taxes before they get a vote on who decides how that tax money is spent.

Oh, okay. So being an immigrant means they don't pay taxes. Gotcha. :roll:

Ideally, the people should be literate, taxpayers, and military veterans, since vets have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their one and only body for the benefit of the republic.

yeah....okay....
 
Last edited:
Does having the right to (x) mean that you have the right to have others provide you the means to exercise your right to (x)?

Please be sure to explain your answer.

:roll: Please tell us what you are getting at Goobieman. The suspense is killing us.
 
Does having the right to (x) mean that you have the right to have others provide you the means to exercise your right to (x)?

Please be sure to explain your answer.

If you mean in the context that if Tim is too poor to afford a gun and some ammo, should the tax payer buy Tim a gun and some ammo? Then the answer is no. Having a right to something does not mean tax payers should pay for you to exercise your rights out of their pockets. If you want to exercise your second amendment rights then save up some money to buy a gun and some ammo. Although I am sure abortionist will try to argue that tax payers should pay for abortion for poor women "because it is a right(Even though there is no constitutional amendment declaring abortion a right)". Although if abortions are paid for by the tax payers under the guise of it being a right then there should be some programs to help the poor exercise their 2nd amendment rights,after all the 2nd amendment is actually a constitutional right.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what the right is. The very existence of rights in a lot of cases requires enforcement because human nature would ignore those rights in a more natural setting. In nature, no one would care about your property, your bodily rights, your freedom (if they want to capture you), your access to resources, etc.

I don't mean to say that parts of the world that lack big government have no common trust, but if the U.S. government were gone tomorrow your country would fall into violent chaos. Nations that come to rely on big governments would have a hard or impossible time re-learning to live without them.
 
Back
Top Bottom