Rights come from the state. In order to defend them you need a state that’s willing and strong enough to do that.
If it were left up to the people in the south Blacks would likely still be unable to vote. Government regulations are why children don’t work in mines or factories any more. They’re why you get a weekend. They’re why you get overtime. They’re why peoaple aren’t paid in scrip that they have to spend at the company store. They’re why your boss can’t demand that you suck his dick at the Christmas party.
If you think lax government is the answer, then you’re endorsing a return to the gilded age.
Obviously it can be overdone, but to think that the protections and safeguards we have, which are in general worse than most first world countries, are pushing the line, is a bit much.
We did for the rich. Are you suggesting middle class taxes should also rise to Clinton-era levels?
And the one data point tells us a lot, given that most of human history involves maximal government authority, which went along with constant war, oppressive taxes, social stratification, and often genocide.
While no one has yet adopted the US system in its entirety, the basic idea is now pretty much considered universally correct: government should be responsive to the people, and government should have limits on its power. There are only a few democracies left on this planet where government has no limits, Britain being one of them.
That’s uncontroversial. Where governments get into trouble is when they deviate from that core mission. Rather than guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they decide to expend resources and time trying to make you happier. Whether you like it or not.
Whenever liberals tout the virtues of government, they cite the things that even the founders had few objections to. The reality is that the post-New Deal government exists mainly as a way to transfer money to people to buy their votes.
Government authority is why the US doesn’t have slaves. Why whites and blacks can marry. Government authority is why you have a first amendment.
A government responsive to the people and having limits on its power is what the Dems want. A government unable to perform functions due to budget cuts is what the GOP wants.
Can I have a cite for the British govt. having no limits please.
And again, the GOP isn’t arguing for “not having no limits” they’re arguing for making government unable to function via budget cuts.
That is not the reality. That is an ideological lens placed over reality, distorting it beyond recognition.
A social safety net is about keeping people from dying in gutters. Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, the FDA, the EPA, the CDC, all those things make life better for Americans. They need money to function. They can be improved, certainly, and we should work to do so. They aren’t intended to buy votes. They are intended to reduce needless suffering.
For instance: Every country on Earth except for the United States of America, Papua New Guinea, Suriname, and Liberia have maternity leave. Why is that?
I’ll tell you why, because the GOP has demonized “entitlements” to the point that they cause reflexive revulsion in 30% of the populace.
Why do I, a Democrat, want maternity leave laws in the US? Not because it will buy votes. Because I think America shouldn’t be racing to the bottom with fucking Liberia to see who can provide a shittier citizen’s experience.
Now if you wanna talk about buying votes, the GOP’s tax cut mania is a perfect example. It does nothing to solve any problems, it just puts a hand full of duckets into a voters mitt.
It would be better for the country if we ask the country whether it prefers middle class tax increases or reduced spending. We should pay for what we ask for.
yes, that’s why men establish governments.
Then I’ll ask the question I ask often and never get a good answer for. What are things the Democrats would like to see government do but cannot due to constitutional limits? It doesn’t count if Democrats seek to overturn those limits.
If you don’t see any checks on your ambitions, then you don’t actually believe in limited government except as useful tool to make things difficult for your political opposition.
We are in a deficit that we can’t credibly get out of via reduced spending. So additional revenue is the other option. You can pretend that you can cut spending to eliminate the deficit, like Paul Ryan did in his budgets, but it would cause huge damage to the economy and reduce services people need. Like the CDC.
Cool, we agree that strong governments are cool?
Some would like to ban private handgun ownership. Some would like to do away with the electoral college. Most Democrat positions, being the party that at least has one foot in reality, aren’t based on unconstitutional aims.
Your very question presumes that that’s the case, however.
Or, the ambitions are in line with the constitution. You miss a lot of options when you make needlessly broad statements.
I would say that creating a new law isn’t the same thing as, “the government has no limits.” I mean it would be more work, but we could alter the constitution so that it was legal to eat redheads.
Rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do. Your right to free speech isn’t something that’s inherent to humanity, it’s something our founders found laudable to include in our law.
What rights do you have that aren’t legally enforced, and without that legal enforcement, how exactly do you assert those rights?
Natural rights don’t exist. Go into the jungle and ask a puma about your right to life.
How about answering that question. What rights do you enjoy that aren’t enforced by the state? Because it seems to me, that if you aren’t protected by law, someone can waltz over and do whatever they want to you.
Should all humans have the right to, for instance clean water? Of course. But if your government allows people to shit in, and dump industrial waste into your reservoir, that right is meaningless.
Again - you are restating your original assertion. Can you support this assertion? It’s okay if the answer is no. I suspect you believe this as a matter of first principles.
Somone can waltz over and do whatever they want to you even if you are protected by law. Does that negate the protection of the law?
Show me a natural right that meaningfully exists outside of government protection. If there is one, I’ll retract it. You’re the one asserting that there are meaningful natural rights, so what are they, and how do you enforce them?
There are punishments that keep people from doing that. There are no punishments for “natural rights” that aren’t enforced.
That’s a difference of opinion we have as a country. But we should be able to agree that the choice should be honestly presented to the public, and the public should be able to decide which path they want to take by picking the party that will take them down that path.
I’d argue that this is false, because the party has found it very necessary since FDR to appoint the “right” justices, and not necessarily to protect women’s rights. That’s what gets the publicity, but when they get down to the nuts and bolts of things, it’s really about the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Democrats want those interpreted to allow virtually anything. They are also arguing for a much more restrictive interpretation of a variety of 1st amendment rights, from religion to political speech, and I’m sure hate speech laws are coming like in other countries if they can move the ball down the field far enough.
In Britain, Parliament can indeed pass such a law. They can pass any law they want. There are no limits on Parliament’s powers.
No, I’m not making that assertion. It’s a counterexample to rebut your claim. I offer it to show that there are those that believe there are natural rights. The cite is the wiki article on the subject.
You have asserted that all rights derive from the State, that rights don’t exist unless the society you’re in says they do, and that and that natural rights don’t exist. Can you support your assertions?
There are people that believe in angels and Reptoids. I don’t doubt that there are people who believe in natural rights. So your “rebuttal” was anything but. What you need to do to rebut me, is show me a natural right that actually exists and is enforceable.
Yes. I support it by there not being a single natural right you or anyone else can name that is enforceable without government action.
It’s not a right if you just point off into the Astral Plane and declare it.
Not every right secured by government is a natural right, but they do exist. For example, the first two amendments to our Constitution are natural rights. Freedom of thought exists whether a government wants it to or not. The right to self defense also exists whether government wants it to or not. What government does is expand these rights to give them more power and to insure greater individual liberty.
I don’t have a serious argument with those who think natural rights don’t exist, because it’s a philosophical question. I only take issue with it if it’s an argument used to either take away rights, or to make newly thought up rights equivalent, such as “the right to health care”. Since the right to health care cannot possibly be a natural right, given that it simply can’t exist at all without a government to force people to provide it, those who support the idea have an incentive to denigrate rights that actually do exist in nature in some form.
It should be noted that even property rights exist in nature. Animals establish territory and that territory is often respected if the animal has the ability to enforce its claim.
Of course not. That’s the primary role of government, to protect the weak from the strong, so that EVERYONE has the rights of the strong. But the rights do pre-exist government. Men have always had property, they’ve always spoken their mind, they’ve always worshipped, they’ve always defended themselves and their property. It’s just that the strong did it a lot better than the weak. So you need a government.
Where government oversteps its bounds is to create new rights or decide that those old rights can be limited for the sake of unrelated goals that proponents find worthy.