I'm going to induce cognitive dissonance in at least 20% of Sup Forums with the following statements:

I'm going to induce cognitive dissonance in at least 20% of Sup Forums with the following statements:

>The state should only protect negative rights.
>The right to counsel should be protected.

The right to an attourney is a negative right too

It prevents the state from fucking over the people by denying them access to a professional who's job it is to navigate the legal jungle.

I am gorilla dick nigga, I make dyke pussy wet.

nice try faggot but i dont believe in anything at all, call me zeno and sing me sweet nothings

wololo
wololo

I just did a 5d mental kickflip into a backtrace IP stateside grab. What now OP?

r u trying to convert me to taco?

The right to counsel does the same thing that the right to healthcare does. Both are positive rights because you are requiring other individuals to act for others in order to protect the rights of a separate individual. Negative rights require inaction, such as the right to freedom from religion.

False,

you are confusing cause and result here.

The right to healthcare is an affirmation that the state ought to provide healthcare to individuals, hence a positive right.

The right to counsel is the opposite, it affirms that the state is NOT allowed to bullshit citizen without them having the ability to defend themselves. The CONSEQUENCE of that right is that the state provides an attorney, if needed.

Rights, as defined by the US constitution are about preventing state (=gov) fuckery.

Freedom of speech = The government can't censor your speech
Right of counsel = The government can't screw you over in court (the right is a part of it)

They are perfectly consistent, whereas the right to health care is not.

Those are your beliefs. I only go with the first one. I mean sure tho, the right to council is a nice gesture of goodwill but they don't /have/ to do it

Would the right to counsel still be needed if the State only protects negative rights?
Maybe needed, but not compatible with that legal system, so it cannot be protected.

kek

But I don't agree with your first statement. There are many positive rights that also need to be upheld.

>The right to counsel is the opposite, it affirms that the state is NOT allowed to bullshit citizen without them having the ability to defend themselves. The CONSEQUENCE of that right is that the state provides an attorney, if needed.
I could have framed what you said about healthcare in this way. Let me do it to show you how misinformed you are on this subject:
>The right to healthcare is the opposite, it affirms that the state is NOT allowed to let citizens die without them having the ability to protect their health. The CONSEQUENCE of that right is that the state provides healthcare, if needed.

Any right with a consequence requiring individuals to act is a positive right.

There is no way to frame a negative right like freedom from religion in such a way that there is a logical consequence requiring individuals to act.

>The right to healthcare is an affirmation that the state ought to provide healthcare to individuals, hence a positive right.
This is correct. The correct statement for the right to counsel is as follows:
The right to counsel is an affirmation that the state ought to provide counsel to individuals, hence a positive right.

I'm not sure about any of that. I just know that pointing this out causes people to experience cognitive dissonance. Or in the case of the German here, just attempt to rationalize some reason why the right to counsel is a negative right.

I don't agree with the second statement. In a truly free society, individuals are able to protect their own rights and those that infringe via trampling of the NAP are punished according to the victims' wishes.

protip most of us have realized that libertarianism is a pipe dream and don't believe in the 1st statement anymore

To clarify, the statements in the OP are not my own beliefs. I'm just posting two commonly held beliefs that contradict either other. I think that a sizeable portion of Sup Forums holds them, as that one German poster here does.

protip I said 20%

this falls flat, the right to counsel, means that if you cannot afford it, then it must be paid for by the government and given to you, which means it's a positive right

And you're repeating your mistake. The outcome of a law doesn't matter. It is what the law designed to prevent that makes the right negative or positive.

I can similarily to what you did, frame any right as a positive right. The consequence of a law or right is irrelevant. This is your mistake in thinking.

A way better way of looking at it is to reformulate each right as the second part to

"The government may not...", when you do this, you understand very quickly how the right to healthcare is a positive affirming right, whereas the right to an attorney is not.

Remember, the key in the right to counseling is that the courts are also an institution. You are forced to show up to those. The right to counselling prevents those in power (gov, state, lawmakers) from leaving you helpless in court to defend yourself, this happened many times throughout history.

Rights are fundamentally about limiting government, to make this as simple as possible:

Freedom of speech: Limits government
Freedom of religion: Limits government
Right to counselling: Limits government
Right to health care: Empowers government

The first 3 are negative rights, the right to health care is not.

If someone says tht people have the right to seek council then that would be consistent no?
As in if you can't get own the state won't subsidise one for you, but you still can't be denied your right to seek one before giving statements/ect.

Just because it limits government it does not become a negative right.
Negative rights are the rights to not do something or not having something done to you.

How is the right to counselling forcing something on you?

You can pick your own attorney or represent yourself by declining the one provided for you.

>provided for you.

>decline

Rationalization: the post.

>Rights are fundamentally about limiting government, to make this as simple as possible:
Guess what? The distinction between positive and negative rights isn't based on whether or not it limits government. The distinction is based on whether or not the rights require the actions of another individual or not. Also, even if we used your own framework (and it really is your own framework you just created) you are just saying that something "limits" or "empowers" government by an arbitrary metric.

For example, you say that the right to counsel limits government. In a certain sense it does, but in another sense it doesn't, see: You also said that the right to healthcare empowers government. Once again, in a certain sense it does but in another sense you are limiting the government from having the ability to let its citizens die without them having access to healthcare.

>The right to counsel does the same thing that the right to healthcare does.
Ah but ill health happens to people naturally; criminal proceedings are only brought against individuals by the government. Thus to prevent this being a means of abuse they must also provide legal counsel.

I see you just watched vsauce didn't you Op.

>You also said that the right to healthcare empowers government. Once again, in a certain sense it does but in another sense you are limiting the government from having the ability to let its citizens die without them having access to healthcare.
That's a double negation

>Guess what? The distinction between positive and negative rights isn't based on whether or not it limits government. The distinction is based on whether or not the rights require the actions of another individual or not
As you can see in my post above, the comparison falls even more on its face if you come from this angle. It works even less.

>criminal proceedings are only brought against individuals by the government
Specifically, ensuring the right to legal counsel is necessary to prevent the government depriving you of your property without due process of law, by forcing you to hire a lawyer to defend yourself against criminal complaints not yet decided.

You are making the same argument that the German made here: Read my response to him to see why the preventative nature of this right is what in fact makes it positive. (hint: it's requiring action)

How is it a double negative?

>As you can see in my post above, the comparison falls even more on its face if you come from this angle. It works even less.
I am not coming at it from my own angle. I am coming at it from the basis of the distinction. What you're doing is akin to claiming that the distinction between the Central Nervous System and the Peripheral Nervous System is based on color. Then I correct you and say, "no actually it's just that people grouped the brain and spinal cord into one group and put everything else into the other". And now you're telling me, "well you're looking at it from the wrong angle because the distinction of color works better. Whether or not the distinction of color, or your distinction of limiting government or empowering government "works better" it is not the distinction that is at the basis of the terms we are discussing. Positive and negative rights are used to place things into the category of requires action or inaction. You can't change definitions at a whim.

Alright I have to go now and can't wait for your reply, but one more way you can look at the whole situation is by thinking about what the alternative would be if the right wasn't in place.

If there was no right of counselling, then the gov could fuck up your shit, forcing you to hire a lawyer or forcing you to possibly lose the legal battle, both are associated with significant financial detriments (legal fees or punishment). So even if you frame the whole thing as a positive right by juggling some definitions around, the alternative is an even more positive consequence of the lack of the right, by requiring more action by the individual than if the right was in place.

So even if you somehow define it as a positive right, it's still a negative right by relative assessment of the circumstances.

learn your definitions mate

>You are making the same argument that the German made here:
>Read my response to him to see why the preventative nature of this right is what in fact makes it positive. (hint: it's requiring action)
See my follow-up here:
I think there's an argument to be made that it's a necessary step taken to preserve your negative rights.

The german is right, I won't say how, his arguments are not very good, he has not said the correct one, but he is right in his conclusion.
I need to sleep.

Your right to counsel is nested is the right of your victim to justice.
You infringed upon your victim's right to not have something done to him, so you should be punished and donasfgonearoindf i really need to sleep.
It only applies to criminal law.

I understand what you're saying but it does not fit with the statement I said in my op: "The state should only protect negative rights".

I suppose you can amend that statement and say that, "The state should only protect negative rights, and may only protect a positive right if it helps to protect a negative right".

In that case I'd see no reason for cognitive dissonance to occur. However, I think that the people making those claims are never that precise in their language.

I mean your claim is that the government shouldn't have to take any specific action in the service of a citizen's negative rights, per the definition of negative rights, but this is simply unfounded.

First; the government = law enforcement. Healthcare = business.

Secondly, if they government is going to enforce its laws on you, its going to have to ensure you have some level of protection against it. Otherwise the govt can drag people willy nilly through the system without recourse. That is not a free system. It's a necessary measure to protect individual freedoms. Otherwise the govt can use its laws however it wishes without any legal means of citizen intervention.

Healthcare is a business. It has one goal: making money. In a free market, it will make money by voluntary transcations. The problem is, many people right now disagree that it's "voluntary" on the part of the consumer. And the problem is, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It's impossible to legislate clearly, so we have one of two options. Protecting the freedoms of the consumers (since it's involuntary, those profiting are immorally stealing from the dying), or protecting the freedom of the healthcare financers (technically goes against free market principles, but hard to dismiss the inherent immorality of their practices). The govt will side AGAINST the freedoms of the businesses/markets, actively oppressing one group of rights for the benefit of another. Positive right.

Counsel is a basic protection given to the citizen to buffer govt power. It is necessary that if the govt is going to use it's laws to exact its force on you, it must provide you the means of navigating those waters. Otherwise you have no way of representing yourself in the govt. It's an individual situation, where the right to counsel protects INDIVIDUAL rights. No one is oppressed by doing this, except the govt itself. And that's the whole point of negative rights.

Counsel is just about giving citizens at least one piece necessary for success when they force them to play their Game of Laws. It's definitely a negative right.

Look at it this way.

Right to counsel is afforded because the state would be applying force against you, therefore it is your right to have adequate protection. They have an obligation to provide this protection to ensure a fair trial.

Healthcare is a also a negative right, however not state funded healthcare. Why? Because the state has nothing to do with your genetics, bad health habits, or the accident you were in. If they were, we have something called a lawsuit to remedy that.

>>The right to counsel should be protected.
There's an easy way to interpret this in a negative fashion. It involves not prosecuting someone who cannot get adequate counsel. Accusers can stump the money, or States can provide it not as a positive right but as an expedient to avoid having to drop cases.

right to counsel is part of the legal/judicial system that protects individuals from others (ie negative right)
legal counsel is more along the lines of government law enforcement than healthcare

>>The right to counsel should be protected.
Also this is basically a misunderstanding of what the right actually is.
Technically it just says that the government can't drag you before a court unless you the option of legal counsel provided. Specifically it is limiting the actions the government can take, thus it is a negative right.

No it is not. If the state was exposing you to radiation poisoning intentionally to give you cancer then you could argue that healthcare isn't a positive right.

I think it's clear to all of us that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether or not the right to counsel is negative or positive or even whether or not the right to healthcare is negative or positive.

In this thread there is at least one person who thinks that:
1.healthcare is positive and counsel is positive
2. healthcare is positive and counsel is negative
3. healthcare is negative and counsel is positive.
4. healthcare is negative and counsel is negative.

I was planning on deleting the rest of my responses to your posts and just leave it at this because it seems like it would be fruitless to discuss things we can't even agree on in any sense. However, I had it all typed out so I might as well post it anyway. I'm leaving now though.


If you believe that then you should also believe the distinction between positive and negative rights is unfounded as well, right?

You are making the same argument that he said: >I think there's an argument to be made that it's a necessary step taken to preserve your negative rights.
However, they called it a positive right that preserves a negative right. I agree with that. You are calling it a negative right, I've spelled out why I don't agree with that above.

I think you aren't acknowledging the definitions of positive and negative rights. I think you are doing what the German did and are using your own definitions to group in the "rights you don't like" in positive and "rights you like" in negative.

hi japan thanks for the anime~

It's a negative right. The government doesn't have to provide a lawyer, it could just drop the charges.

>If you believe that then you should also believe the distinction between positive and negative rights is unfounded as well, right?
Actually yeah more or less, any positive statement can be rephrased as a negative and vice versa. It's a pretty unclear distinction.

>The state should only protect negative rights.

That statement in and of itself shows you don't understand what you're saying since without positive rights being enforced there wouldn't be taxation to pay for the state to exist in the first place.

>anime pictures

Oh that explains it.

>The right to a doctor is a negative right too

>It prevents the market from fucking over the people by denying them access to a professional who's job it is to navigate the medical jungle.

No.

A negative right, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions.

This means you are free to obtain counsel, or healthcare and the state cannot stop you.

As for providing counsel, that is because you have a right to a fair trial. By denying counsel to those who cannot afford it they are interfering with that right. They could always drop the charges but then their would be no need for counsel. They are providing a service for one sole purpose, their use of force against you.

The right to counsel is a negative right. It prevents the courts from having a negative (as in, biased or unjust) conduct.
Also more importantly it is a "right" to counsel, not a "duty" to counsel. If you don't want a lawyer to defend yourself no one can force you to have one.

and look what happens if you rely on the State for your counsel.

You get a bleary-eyed rookie who wants to cut a deal and be on his way home to watch porn hub.