Why are some rights subsidized, while others are not?

[mjr]

Let's get your take on it, forum.

I recently saw this question asked, and I thought it was a good one. If "Fundamental Rights" (i.e. those spelled out in the Constitution) aren't subsidized, why are other "rights" subsidized?

The basic premise was as follows:

Constitutionally I have free speech. The government won't just give me money to start a magazine, talk show, or whatever.

I have the right to bear arms. The federal government isn't going to buy me a pistol.

I have a right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". The federal government isn't going to pay for paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps for me to write my Congressman and Senator.

I have the right to free exercise of religion. The government won't build me a church.

But then, other things that are considered "rights", are subsidized.

So, what's your take, forum?

[s_stabeler]

There's- by and large- a simple explanation.

Some rights are what i term "rights of limitation"- "Shall not" rights in other words. These rights are those that restrict another party. These need no subsidy outside enforcement of said right.

Other rights, however, are what i term "rights of entitlement"- where the right is to something. For these, it depends on the right. (the government doesn't HAVE to buy you a house, for example, but it's generally accepted they have to rent you one- not a specific house, mind- at a price you can afford if the alternative is you ending up on the street,)

[Greenday]

Constitutionally I have free speech. The government won't just give me money to start a magazine, talk show, or whatever.

I have the right to bear arms. The federal government isn't going to buy me a pistol.

I have a right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". The federal government isn't going to pay for paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps for me to write my Congressman and Senator.

I have the right to free exercise of religion. The government won't build me a church.

Because none of those things cost money. Speaking freely costs $0.00 so why should you get paid for it? If you choose to use a form of communication that costs money, that's your decision but no one is stopping you from or charging you money for standing on a street corner, protesting your heart out.

Same thing with the right to bear arms. No one is forcing you to exercise that right. You have to choose to. And there are free weapons out there so if you want to buy a gun, that's your decision to use a more expensive form of bearing arms.

You have a right to petition. No one is charging you to petition. Thus why should you get paid to do something that is free?

Do you NEED a church to practice freedom of religion? No. So why should you get paid for it? You have a freedom to practice religion without interference from the government. There's no religious requirement to spend money.

[mjr]

You have a right to petition. No one is charging you to petition. Thus why should you get paid to do something that is free?

Is a protest a form of "petitioning the government"? If it is in some cases, why to a lot of areas require permits (which must be purchased, and therefore cost money) in order to protest?

[smileyeagle1021]

There's- by and large- a simple explanation.

Some rights are what i term "rights of limitation"- "Shall not" rights in other words. These rights are those that restrict another party. These need no subsidy outside enforcement of said right.

This is probably the best point I've heard yet. If you actually read the Bill of Rights, none of them are actually conferring rights on citizens, they are all restricting the rights of the government.

[mjr]

This is probably the best point I've heard yet. If you actually read the Bill of Rights, none of them are actually conferring rights on citizens, they are all restricting the rights of the government.

Except for the fact that sometimes those rights are restricted. Look at the 2nd Amendment. It ends with "shall not be infringed".

Yet, there's a constant debate about what the 2nd Amendment actually means.

[Greenday]

Is a protest a form of "petitioning the government"? If it is in some cases, why to a lot of areas require permits (which must be purchased, and therefore cost money) in order to protest?

Because you are costing the government and other people money in those instances thus you have to cover those costs. Doing a march? That means closing down streets. Who's going to do that? The police. Who's going to pay them for extra time? The people forcing them to close off the street for their march. Etc. etc.

[Canarr]

@OP: what rights do you see as being subsidized?

Because you are costing the government and other people money in those instances thus you have to cover those costs. Doing a march? That means closing down streets. Who's going to do that? The police. Who's going to pay them for extra time? The people forcing them to close off the street for their march. Etc. etc.

Is that really so? You don't get a permit for a protest march in the US unless you can cover the cost for police etc? Because if so, that seems like a splendid way to keep poor people from exercising their right to protest - just give 'em a bill they can't pay.

[Greenday]

Is that really so? You don't get a permit for a protest march in the US unless you can cover the cost for police etc? Because if so, that seems like a splendid way to keep poor people from exercising their right to protest - just give 'em a bill they can't pay.

Is marching in the street, stopping all traffic, drastically increasing the amount of trash produced, etc. etc. the only way to protest?

[Canarr]

No, of course not the only one; but a fairly important one. And one option for protest that poor people could conveniently be excluded from by placing a bill on that.

[TheHuckster]

No, of course not the only one; but a fairly important one. And one option for protest that poor people could conveniently be excluded from by placing a bill on that.

So, what's your plan? Should citizens have the right to unequivocally and arbitrarily disrupt others' lives, close roads, and use emergency-response resources at no cost and with no consequences because they're mad at society? There comes a point where one's exercising of their rights starts to infringe on others' rights.

[Daskinor]

So, what's your plan? Should citizens have the right to unequivocally and arbitrarily disrupt others' lives, close roads, and use emergency-response resources at no cost and with no consequences because they're mad at society? There comes a point where one's exercising of their rights starts to infringe on others' rights.

As a matter of opinion, a protest by definition is disruptive. And as more people exercise their rights, by scale the more disruptive the protest becomes.

Also the government is barred from making laws to restrict peaceful protests. Giving us our right to protest. By no extension of any other part of the constitution do you have a right to have unblocked roads or having your day unimpaired by other people protesting.

Simply put you don't have a right to be shielded from other peoples peaceful exercise of their rights. And even if you disagree what they are protesting today, its a right that has brought so much social change in this country. And in some way has increased everyone's life for the better. It could be the civil rights movement, public education, or the 40 hour work week.

[TheHuckster]

As a matter of opinion, a protest by definition is disruptive. And as more people exercise their rights, by scale the more disruptive the protest becomes.

Also the government is barred from making laws to restrict peaceful protests. Giving us our right to protest. By no extension of any other part of the constitution do you have a right to have unblocked roads or having your day unimpaired by other people protesting.

Yes, but there are laws against blocking traffic. If I were to take a tractor trailer and have it block traffic, I'd be breaking the law. Furthermore, if this action had lead to the death of someone (i.e. it blocked an ambulance from taking a dying patient to the hospital), then it's no longer a peaceful protest. Roads are a vital piece of infrastructure, and blocking them from being used can be as damaging and should be as illegal as shutting off power to a neighborhood or DDoSing a website.

[Daskinor]

Yes, but there are laws against blocking traffic. If I were to take a tractor trailer and have it block traffic, I'd be breaking the law. Furthermore, if this action had lead to the death of someone (i.e. it blocked an ambulance from taking a dying patient to the hospital), then it's no longer a peaceful protest. Roads are a vital piece of infrastructure, and blocking them from being used can be as damaging and should be as illegal as shutting off power to a neighborhood or DDoSing a website.

New York has a law that says women need to cover their breasts. But the court's have repeatedly ruled that a law does not apply if women go topless in protest. Setting aside the freedom of speech and 14th amendment arguments for the moment.

The government simply can not enforce a law that is being used to break up a peaceful protest. And this also applies to blocking roads.

The blocking ambulance thing is one of those weird arguments that sound good in principle but fall apart under scrutiny. What happens if a road is blocked because of private construction. Or because something is being loaded or unloaded via crane and cannot simply be stopped. What if its a festival closure and you simply cannot get stuff out of the way.

The question that needs to be answered first is why couldn't the ambulance go around, take another route or be dispatched from another direction.

And yes if for some reason an ambulance was somehow unable to get to a hospital in time, and the protesters were not purposely blocking the ambulance. It still be a peaceful protest.

As for the singular case of you as a person blocking traffic with a trailer for reasons of protest. It gets to be a gray area. I can't find any case notes about a singular protester doing something like that. There is going to be a gray area based on allot of legal precedent. My cursory glance makes me think that your right to protest wont extend to you tractor-trailer.

Roads are vital infrastructure. But they are without a doubt public property, and that muddies the water allot. The utilities belong to the utility companies, and the right to protest does not extend to them because they are private.

[TheHuckster]

New York has a law that says women need to cover their breasts. But the court's have repeatedly ruled that a law does not apply if women go topless in protest. Setting aside the freedom of speech and 14th amendment arguments for the moment.

Baring breasts don't risk lives. Blocking roads of emergency vehicles do.

The blocking ambulance thing is one of those weird arguments that sound good in principle but fall apart under scrutiny. What happens if a road is blocked because of private construction.

That's exactly why construction companies need express permission and give the municipality lots of notice so they can set up detours and inform emergency services of what's going to happen.

The question that needs to be answered first is why couldn't the ambulance go around, take another route or be dispatched from another direction.

If it's an unscheduled, surprise protest, then they don't necessarily know to go around beforehand. Again, construction companies provide LOTS of notice so everyone can plan for this stuff.

And yes if for some reason an ambulance was somehow unable to get to a hospital in time, and the protesters were not purposely blocking the ambulance. It still be a peaceful protest.

But I still maintain that if someone died as a result, the protesters should be liable. Blocking roads is a very careless activity.

As for the singular case of you as a person blocking traffic with a trailer for reasons of protest. It gets to be a gray area. I can't find any case notes about a singular protester doing something like that. There is going to be a gray area based on allot of legal precedent. My cursory glance makes me think that your right to protest wont extend to you tractor-trailer.

And here's where you've just completely gone off the rails on constitutional rights, then. Your statement here seems to be that the criteria of what constitutes a legal protest depends solely on how many people are involved. It's okay if a mob blocks a road, because their exercising their rights. My rights as an individual to do the same don't exist. You're contradicting yourself.

Roads are vital infrastructure. But they are without a doubt public property, and that muddies the water allot. The utilities belong to the utility companies, and the right to protest does not extend to them because they are private.

Utility companies are subsidized by the government to an extent that they might as well be public. They're about as public as Amtrak or the Postal Service at this point.