HOO-freakin'-RAY! The meaning of our rights...

by 21 replies
24
Hi All,

Let's play a little game. What follows is purely theoretical.

So, some things are our "rights". We have the "right" to them.

But doesn't that imply we have the "right" NOT to avail ourselves of them?

For example, let's say you are told "you have the RIGHT to remain silent". Fair enough, that means you don't have to talk, BUT it also means you can choose TO talk if you want.

Let's say there is another "right". However, if you choose to not take advantage of this "right" you can be fined up to $1899!!!

But wait, just don't pay the fine, right?

Wrong.

Because if you don't pay the $1899 fine for NOT exercising this particular "right", you can go TO JAIL for 365 days, or pay a $24,999 FINE.

Here's the question: Does that sound like a right to you?

(Keeping in mind this is theoretical)

All the best,
Michael
#off topic forum
  • I'll bite...what kind of trouble have you gotten yourself into this time.

    KJ
    • [1] reply
    • LOL

      No, this is all theoretical.

      For the sake of this "situation", let's say it is something that could imapct a lot of people if they choose not to follow this "right".

      I just want it to be perfectly clear that this is not a political discussion. Just theory.

      Would you consider what I describe in the above post to be an actual right?

      All the best,
      Michael
      • [2] replies

  • This sounds like a conversation down at the IRS.

    I need more info. Can I buy a vowel?

    KJ
  • No that's not a right. Rights involve choice and "forced" is not a factor in a right.

    Some people will argue that it is your "right" to breath - but that is not really a right
    either. You don't have a choice. You can hold your breath until you pass out, but
    you will begin breathing again as soon as you lose consciousness. So breathing is
    not a right, it is a necessity.

    If you are under force to exercise a "right" it is not a right it is a demand.
  • You would think it wouldn't be a right. But let's say someone who has an input into it keeps calling it a "right".

    It doesn't sound like a right to me either. Hypothetically speaking.

    Do you really think if anything like that ever happened people would revolt? Or, if they did revolt, do you just think they would be called names to distract from the real situation? Again, just an imaginary scenario.

    All the best,
    Michael
    • [1] reply
    • Then that someone comes from some village that's missing its idiot.

      I have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but if I can't afford the things that make me happy, should I be fined for not buying them? If I can't afford the things that make me happy, how can I afford the fine for not buying them? And, if I can't afford the fine, and get hit with a bigger fine that's 16x greater than the original fine, how can I be expected to pay that fine? And, then I will be thrown in jail for not paying the fines for not purchasing the things that I couldn't afford? That wouldn't make me happy.

      Probably, but then what happens is that if others keep repeating a lie often enough, it will seem to be the truth. And then you're stuck having rights forced upon you that aren't really rights at all.
      • [1] reply
  • Sounds like being RAILROADED.

    (closer to a law than a right)

    ... a very bad law.

    I PROTEST!

    let me off at the next station.
  • However, it may seem like beineg railroaded by
    everyone with some common sense. But, really, can
    anyone know for sure? Though it sounds to some
    like a right. I don't think it is. Remember, it's fiction...
    theory. Not to sound like a broken record, but it
    hasn't happened. Interesting to talk about though.

    Choosing is an important ingredient in the rights of
    americans. But to say things like there could be
    revolution, well if that's what such a scenario would
    ensure, then I must say it would be kind of scary.

    All the best,
    Michael
  • You mean like, the "right" to be insured?

    And the proposed "punishment" if you choose not to exercise that right?

    • [3] replies
    • I have no idea what you're talking about.

      ~M~
      • [1] reply
    • In the case of auto insurance, it's not a right...it's law. At least in NJ.

      Now, homeowners insurance, that's a right...I think. That may even be a
      law for all I know.

      But let's say it's a right and the failure to exercise it means you COULD
      end up losing your home to some natural disaster and getting no
      compensation for it.

      Again, who in their right mind would not avail themselves of that right
      unless they couldn't afford it? In which case, if they can't, what the
      hell are they doing buying a home.

      I think we're splitting hairs here.

      When I think of rights, I think of:

      The right to vote
      The right to bear arms

      Etc.

      There are no negative consequences or penalties for directly not taking
      advantage of those rights.

      Yes, if you don't vote, a lousy politician could end up in office.

      If you don't own a gun, you could end up getting killed by a burgler.

      But simply not exercising those rights doesn't automatically mean a
      penalty.

      That to me is a law, not a right.

      Again, we're splitting hairs here and it's giving me a headache.

      The day somebody gives me a "right" that I have to worry about not
      taking advantage of it, I'm moving to Australia.
      • [1] reply
    • In a democracy, most people would consider the ability to vote in an election as a "right". Yet in Australia, voting in a federal or state election is compulsory for all citizens, with a fine for non-compliance.

      They call it a "duty", rather than a right.



      Frank
      • [2] replies
  • [DELETED]
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed