• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Freedom = Entitlement to means?

Do you agree with the statement in the OP?


  • Total voters
    11

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Do you agree with this statement:

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Why or why not?
 
Last edited:

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Political Freedom? Economic Freedom? Practical everyday freedom such as not being confined to a wheelchair? You need to be more specific here.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Political Freedom? Economic Freedom? Practical everyday freedom such as not being confined to a wheelchair? You need to be more specific here.
No, I do not, as the question revolves around the entitlement to means, not the specfic flavor of freedom.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It really depends on the circumstances. When it comes to having legal representation at a criminal trial, you are entitled to the means. Getting your own TV channel to exercise your freedom of speech, not so much.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do you agree with this statement:

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Why or why not?
If you mean means like the government giving away guns, bibles, printing presses, driving people to churches, driving people to protests, money to build churches, money to purchase printing presses, newspapers and so on or any other form of tax payer financial assistance then the answer is no. The only thing that makes a constitutional right a constitutional right is the fact you do not need permission from the government to exercise that right nor can the government restrict that right. The only exception would be the right for counsel since it does say in the 6th amendment "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense"
 
Last edited:

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, I do not, as the question revolves around the entitlement to means, not the specfic flavor of freedom.
The type of freedom has a heavy impact on the necessary means though.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is a very strange question and you really do have to define what you mean by freedom. The question hinges on what "flavor" of freedom we are talking about. For instance, it is reasonable to consider political freedom meaningless without the means to exercise it, and it is not a contradiction to hold this belief and at the same time believe that one can be economically free without the means to participate in economic transactions. Clean up your question and it will probably lead to a better discussion.
 
Last edited:

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If we're talking about right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, then you are not entitled to the means to acquire those. You may die, you may have your property taken because of debt.

The trial case is interesting. Usually when we talk about rights, we talk about ideal situations. So I think I could make an exception for this case, but I would phrase it differently. Adequate representation is useful so that the state can apply correct justice (for our safety) rather than an entitlement for than accused.
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you agree with this statement:

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Why or why not?
Depends if the means to exercise the freedoms can be reasonably procured. If they cannot, they must be provided, at least to the point they become procurable, and if the freedoms cannot be provided to at least that degree, then they do not exist.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you agree with this statement:

That you have a freedom in no way means you are entitled to the means necessary to exercise said freedom.

Why or why not?
This is the classic debate about rights that often divides thinkers and feelers, liberal welfare socialists and constitutionalists

A right is a protection. You can do something and not suffer government retribution as a result

A right is not a just claim on the wealth of others

a right does not require anyone else to act

indeed, a right means government agents shall not act

if a right to own a gun means someone has to provide you a gun that no longer is a right but an entitlement

thus, you have a right to health care-all that you can afford

I have no duty to pay for it
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is the classic debate about rights that often divides thinkers and feelers, liberal welfare socialists and constitutionalists

A right is a protection. You can do something and not suffer government retribution as a result

A right is not a just claim on the wealth of others

a right does not require anyone else to act

indeed, a right means government agents shall not act

if a right to own a gun means someone has to provide you a gun that no longer is a right but an entitlement

thus, you have a right to health care-all that you can afford

I have no duty to pay for it
Then voting should not be paid for collectively.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Then voting should not be paid for collectively.
that is a stupid analogy.

people get paid for jury duty too

in both cases that right is also seen as a duty for the common good
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
that is a stupid analogy.

people get paid for jury duty too

in both cases that right is also seen as a duty for the common good
Which is necessary to secure the rights of another person.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you think we have a right to govern ourselves?
sure but the issue is individual rights

you have a right to free speech-not a public supplied microphone

the right to travel but not airline tickets someone else must fund
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Which is necessary to secure the rights of another person.
evasive

lets cut the crap and discuss this as the thread creator intended

many liberals believe people have the right to "affordable housing"

a well paying job

free health care

all of those things require others to act


they thus are not truly individual rights
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
sure but the issue is individual rights

you have a right to free speech-not a public supplied microphone

the right to travel but not airline tickets someone else must fund
I can agree with you there, but I do believe we should supply a social minimum.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a very strange question and you really do have to define what you mean by freedom. The question hinges on what "flavor" of freedom we are talking about. For instance, it is reasonable to consider political freedom meaningless without the means to exercise it, and it is not a contradiction to hold this belief and at the same time believe that one can be economically free without the means to participate in economic transactions. Clean up your question and it will probably lead to a better discussion.
Not so much -- see post #5.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nope, it demonstrates that there are cases where even natural rights need overt action from government and the community.

lets cut the crap and discuss this as the thread creator intended

many liberals believe people have the right to "affordable housing"

a well paying job

free health care

all of those things require others to act

they thus are not truly individual rights
Personally, I think natural rights are a pretty good concept, but they need to be balanced with practical needs for a functional society.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I can agree with you there, but I do believe we should supply a social minimum.
I don't. It only increases dependency and the left has proven it wants to expand the needy so as to get more votes
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Nope, it demonstrates that there are cases where even natural rights need overt action from government and the community.



Personally, I think natural rights are a pretty good concept, but they need to be balanced with practical needs for a functional society.
why don't you call them what they are
entitlements
handouts
pandering
welfare

why do you all want to make entitlements look less odious by calling them rights?
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Depends if the means to exercise the freedoms can be reasonably procured. If they cannot, they must be provided,
Why? What creates this entitlement?
Whose responsibility it is to provide that means? How?
Is isaid entitelemtn wholesale and plenary, regarding all rights, or just some?
On what basis do you make that determination?
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't. It only increases dependency and the left has proven it wants to expand the needy so as to get more votes
Please cite this "proof" from the left.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,373
Reaction score
73,449
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
why don't you call them what they are
entitlements
handouts
pandering
welfare

why do you all want to make entitlements look less odious by calling them rights?
They are handouts and they are rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. :shrug:
 
Top Bottom