No, I do not, as the question revolves around the entitlement to means, not the specfic flavor of freedom.Political Freedom? Economic Freedom? Practical everyday freedom such as not being confined to a wheelchair? You need to be more specific here.
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?
No, I do not, as the question revolves around the entitlement to means, not the specfic flavor of freedom.
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?
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
Then voting should not be paid for collectively.
This is the classic debate about rights that often divides thinkers and feelers, liberal welfare socialists and constitutionalists.
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
Do you think we have a right to govern ourselves?
Which is necessary to secure the rights of another person.
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
Not so much -- see post #5.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.
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
I can agree with you there, but I do believe we should supply a social minimum.
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? What creates this entitlement?Depends if the means to exercise the freedoms can be reasonably procured. If they cannot, they must be provided,
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?