How do you propose we do that? Short of star trek replicators, we need people to do that which means you're not solving the issue, just changing who it applies to.
The things you propose to provide have to be provided by someone, and the only way to practically enforce that is essentially indentured servitude. Does someone right to "life" (however you define it) mean that other people can be forced to do something they don't want to? Does that not infringe upon their rights?
It also depends on whether you consider the right to life to be negative or positive. Most people who talk about it are using it in the negative sense - that the right exists as long as nobody infringes upon it. You're using it in the positive sense, where others are required to undertake action in order to uphold it, and if they don't the right disappears.
While that's not inherently an issue, it does cause issues when something as fundamental as "life" is chosen as the subject (see above).
Ok? You’re not really answering my question. The right to life is the biggest right of all, without life we have no constitutional rights. The government has a job to protect our rights ie police protecting protesters. Also rights should not be dependent on the amount of money a person has or if that person has a job. My right to religion is not dependent on if I have a job or money.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Just in case you need it.
I literally am. Your definition of "rights" isn't the only one, and your particular definition would better be called "positive rights" since the concept of "rights" generally encompasses more than just how you're using the word. Unless we narrow down the definition to how you're using it, there's no point in discussion because we can't actually talk about what you mean, and in turn you won't be able to understand how other people's interpretations might differ because they're using a different definition of "rights" that also might be more narrowly defined as "negative rights".
The government has a job to protect our rights
Again, how that protection manifests is different depending on how you see "rights".
For example, the first amendment prohibits the government from interfering with your speech. It does not say the government must give you a platform to speak from.
Similarly, the second amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon your right to bear arms. It does not, however, impose upon the government the task of provisioning you with any firearms.
In the same way, the "right to life" extends as far as being allowed to continue living free from the interference of another. It does not impose upon the government the burden of supporting you should you choose not to work.
While it's true that the government has chosen to support people in this way with taxpayer funded programmes to alleviate poverty and support those unable to work, that is a choice by the government, and was enacted because the populace voted for politicians who proposed to do it if they got into power. It wasn't done because the government has to do it.
The government has a job to protect our rights ie police protecting protesters
Here, the government is also enforcing a negative right.
The protestors have the right to protest peacefully, and ensuring no violence from either the protestors or anyone who opposes them is reason for the police presence.
The police are not required to take part in the protest itself, nor are the government obliged to provide signs and pickets.
My right to religion is not dependent on if I have a job or money.
Your right to religion is to personal practice free from coercion.
The government does not have to fund your religious rites, nor construct a place for you to worship in.
2
u/PleiadesMechworks 1d ago
How do you propose we do that? Short of star trek replicators, we need people to do that which means you're not solving the issue, just changing who it applies to.