> Everything that you just mentioned is a limitation on what a person can do to another person. They are fulfilled by people doing less, not more
Simply not true.
Property rights require someone to enforce them; police don't work for free.
Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there.
Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it.
The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify.
> The "right to use the Internet" is absurd.
I never implied otherwise. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
No, property rights and enforcement of property rights are separate things.
Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there. Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it. The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify.
The inability to confront your accuser, produce jurors and promptly render a verdict results in the inability to prosecute, not the inability to have your trial heard by jury.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it.
This someone is the judicial system, which is (likely) the same system conducting the searches. It is again a "safe by default" system.
I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.
It is true that you never implied that the right to the Internet was absurd. That was a comment on the discussion at large. However your arguments that rights require the actions of others is unconvincing. My argument is that rights are a limit on the actions of others, and paid for by the agressor. When they are paid for by idle bystanders (likely through taxation), they are a form of socialist benefits and not "rights".
I'm glad that you found a friend to upvote you, but that is a ridiculous retort. If you are going to spend the time typing a reply, you should do us the courtesy of making it worth the time everyone else spends reading it.
I wonder if there is notion of wall-time in the HN codebase, with which we could only allow a reply that took at least a minute to compose.
Property rights are based on the premise that I cannot take what you have. Police are there to enforce this limit.
Jury trials prevent unfair convictions being levied by the government. Jurors enforce this limit.
Speedy trials prevent unjust imprisonment without trial being forced upon an individual.
The right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure is there to limit the government's invasion of a citizens property and life.
The right to face your accuser limits people's ability to make false accusations against others.
All of these are obvious limitations upon others. Yes, they require people to enforce them, but the net result is less action, not more.
Providing internet access or clean water is adding something not previously inherent to the system as opposed to preventing what is not part of that system (theft, false imprisonment, etc.)
I'm surprised that this difference need be pointed out.
edit: As a side note, anybody that avoids jury duty or regrets the necessity of safeguarding a fellow citizen's rights should be ashamed and spend some serious time in reflection on why we conduct jury trials.
> All of these are obvious limitations upon others.
Meaningless if not enforced.
> Yes, they require people to enforce them
Exactly the point.
> but the net result is less action, not more.
Irrelevant distinction.
> Providing internet access or clean water is adding something not previously inherent to the system
Who cares, I said nothing about any of that.
> I'm surprised that this difference need be pointed out.
If you paid attention to what I said, you'd be surprised you're bothering to point it out since I didn't say anything about it.
> As a side note, anybody that avoids jury duty or regrets the necessity of safeguarding a fellow citizen's rights should be ashamed and spend some serious time in reflection on why we conduct jury trials.
Simply not true.
Property rights require someone to enforce them; police don't work for free.
Jury's require jurors who very often don't want to be there.
Speedy trials require judges and jurors to work efficiently, and again, not free.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure requires someone to enforce it.
The right to confront your accuser requires the accuser to testify.
> The "right to use the Internet" is absurd.
I never implied otherwise. I was objecting to your conclusion that rights shouldn't require other people when the facts are, many of your existing rights do.