Yeah, the original question was asking whether a person agrees or disagrees that education is a right, and some others suggested possible reasons why a person might think that it shouldn't be a right. I took issue with your rationale, however, because you appear to be making a categorical denial, stating that education cannot be a right based on a restriction of whether or not something requires "intervention".
Yes, that seems like a correct summary of the discussion thus far.
The reason for applying this burden of intervention isn't explained any better here, and I still have no clue what "intervention" means. Ok sure, I have a right to life which is the real right because reasons, but all those things like a right to due process, right to equal protection under the law, right to trial by my peers, those aren't really rights because they require people to do something and only exist in laws. What if I think the right to due process of law is a "natural" right? Am I wrong, because there's no moral authority asserting its naturalness, or am I wrong because a right apparently can't say people are "due" something from their government?
It sounds like your definition of a right added this restriction solely to exclude certain specific policies that you do not think other people should be allowed to consider a right, when the reality is that a right only exists so far as it is exercised and can be anything people agree it should be.
To phrase it another way, consider it in terms of additive or subtractive. It is a right to not have someone apply a subtractive pressure on you (though this right must be balanced against the right on others) but there is no right which mandates that others must provide an additive benefit to you. In other words, you have the right to say what people can't do to you, but it is not a right to say what people must do for you.
Of course, every situation gets more complicated when you turn it from political philosophy, so let's consider due process, since you brought it up. That's a case of statute expounding upon a more intrinsic right: the right to life and liberty. To have those removed by incarceration or jailing or whatever other penalty would be an infringement upon your rights. However, one role of the government is to ensure that rights are minimally infringed, and if you're going around doing criminal shit like killing people, the government has the role and authority to limit your rights as necessary to prevent what you're doing. Even though that's an infringement on your freedoms, it's justified. Due process, then, is the codified mechanism for ensuring that government is following the latter path (preserving the rights of those that you would harm) and not the former (infringing upon your rights for no adequate reason).
Regarding the last point, it seems your definition is essentially "there is no definition" and that your idea of a "right" is merely "whatever people agree that they should have". While the meaning of words can change, and certainly many political terms have changed in meaning since the enlightenment, this seems like a case of allowing a word to change in meaning to the extent that it is, in fact, meaningless. Consider, for the sake of argument, a cultural practice that you find abhorrent. Sexual ones are pretty popular, so perhaps pedophilia, incest, or rape might be suitable.
If I believe (and my community supports me) that I have the right to these things, does your definition not then agree that these things are my right? Suppose I have a child, or a wife, and it is believed in my culture that I thus own these people. Is it then my right to do with them as I will,
however terrible that may be? I'm afraid that I will not accede to any definition which allows for the possibility that these things are rights.
Poll
17 (33.3%)
Author
Topic: Shit, let's be Off-Compass Meme Poll Meme (Read 484072 times)