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.
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.