Welp. Guess we can't have taxpayer funded roads then cuz all the forced labor needed for free roads. Guess we also can't have a right to K-12 education.
You don't have the right to roads. Similarly education is mostly implemented at the state level, there's nothing legally preventing a state from saying that public school is now K-8 only. Laws requiring people to go to school are kind of a mixed bag, and compulsory education laws usually only apply to children (and in some cases only to pre-teens). AFAIK there's no legal forms of adult forced labor, except prisoners who are exempt from some rights.
You don’t seem to understand what is meant by forced labor here. I am happy to explain it to you.
A right is something that can never be legally violated by the government.
It is possible for a health care system run by anyone to end up with a level of resources below what it would need to meet its commitments.
If government runs health care and health care is a right, then the government is not legally allowed to fail to meet its health care commitments. Doing so would violate the right to health care, and violating rights is illegal.
Therefore at that point the government must either compel resources be increased to match the commitment, regardless of any other factors, or cancel the right.
If our plan includes the potential for raising resources to an arbitrary level in certain circumstances regardless of all other factors at that point, then at that point we would by definition need to implement forced labor.
If our plan includes canceling a right under certain circumstances, then it is not really a right, is it?
This sort of theorising doesn't seem to be very relevant in practice, and I frankly only see this from Americans. Other countries seem to be doing much better without hammering on this needless distinction. They make their health systems work by making sure it's sufficiently funded and well-organised, and don't need to account for a major party simply wanting to destroy it just to hurt people (except possibly the UK soon).
There's a difference to having the right to something and being forced to do something. For example all states give the right to a K-12 education, up to a point (usually there's age limits, and some states also have pre-k).
However just because children have the right to go to school doesn't mean they're forced to actually go and sit down (eg Wisconsin v Yoder). The courts do recognize that parents have the rights to force their kids to do certain things. Eg you can ground your child and it isn't "forced confinement", you can make them go to school and it isn't slavery, etc. Those exemptions pretty much go away once someone turns 18
I am. But you dont make sense. All Americans have a right to K-12 education, it's funded by the government. How is that different from all Americans having a right to healthcare, being funded by the government? If someone doesn't wanna be in healthcare anymore they can still switch to whatever they want to. They're not forced labor any more than teachers are.
There is fairly well developed theory in this area, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here.
Americans do not have a “right” to education in the same way they have a “right” to e.g. free speech. The government can reduce or even eliminate state funded education without violating the constitution. If not enough e.g. teachers will work for the state (for the pay offered, based on tax revenue available, etc), the state can respond to changing circumstances by reducing or eliminating the education services provided. If education were to be added as a “right” then this reduction or elimination in service would not possible, unless you make that “right” so flimsy as to be basically meaningless (i.e. if the government is able to meaningfully remove it, it is not really a right).
I don’t believe in forced prison labor at all, so yes I’d be happy to sign that petition. I’m not sure what it has to do with this discussion.
> Americans do not have a “right” to education in the same way they have a “right” to e.g. free speech.
OTOH, they do have a right to trial by jury, a right to counsel, and a right to vote in the sense that they have a right to free speech, and each of these rights require someone else’s labor.
Technically true, though not really a risk due to minuscule resources required to implement these. What percent of GDP do public defenders account for?
You pretty much started the thread talking about something technically true. If you're discussing rights that should be so universal they don't get changed in extreme situation like not being able to provide a service without forced labour, then why does the GDP matter? GDP doesn't exist in the constitution.
No, Americans don’t have a “right” to K-12 education unless you pervert the definition of “right”.
The government can easily change what public school is offered and the courts aren’t going to intervene and say “no, you have to provide K-12 education as guaranteed by the Constitution”.
I think the issue here is that most countries don't have to deal with a major political party trying to destroy their healthcare or education system, while the US does. Everybody may have a right to K-12 education, but what if states underpay teachers and make teachers criminally liable when parents get upset about their child getting taught from a normal school curriculum? I wish this was a ridiculous hypothetical, but it's basically what's going on right now.
A toxic political culture can lead a government to sabotage things it's legally required to provide. That said, that same toxic culture can also lead it to violate negative rights. The real problem isn't the distinction between different classes of rights, but the fact that one political party is eager to destroy or at least compromise those rights.
