Why are some rights subsidized, while others are not?

[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 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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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,)

[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?