Our Constitution stops short of guaranteeing fundamental rights that we have long recognized through laws. It's time ensure these rights through Constitutional amendments.
Fundamental rights, as inshrined in our Constitution, should be limited to what are considered “negative“ rights. Negative rights are those things that you are free to do but do not place a burden or cost on another person. The first amendment inshrines certain negative rights. You are free to speak, but no one is required to listen. You are free to write whatever you want, but no one is forced to read what you write. You can practice whatever religion you want, but you can’t force others to do the same. Negative rights are consistent with the libertarian philosophy that people should be free to act in almost every way, that is peaceful, as long as they do not initiate force against others.
Positive rights, such as many of those that you suggest in this essay, use the force of government to create burden and costs on others. As a civil society, we may agree to provide some of the benefits that you have described, but they should not be considered rights or added to our Constitution.
Absolute nonsense. We should have at minimum the positive right to clean air, water and food. If that is a "burden" on industry, too fucking bad. Because people ARE forced by their very nature to breathe, drink and eat. Libertarian philosophy can go live in the woods on its own. No-one is forcing them to drive on socialist roads, use the socialist internet, or accept any social services at all. Frankly, one of the best things that could happen is Libertarians practicing what they preach for a few years and dying off entirely.
The current interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it very difficult to restrict personal firearm ownership and use. This is unique among advanced economies. It's no coincidence that U.S. also uniquely has gun death rates that better resemble those of a war zone than a nation at peace. Those deaths (and policing, etc.) are a cost and burden upon the rest of the population.
I respect the Libertarian impulse to ask "is this really the government's business?" Some of the amendments we suggest, like marriage rights, are negative rights in that way. Others, like a clean environment, fit well with the Libertarian idea of trespass--pollution is the harm of someone's mess affecting the rest of us and violation of our rights.
... which is what the Second Amendment does. When people can't go anywhere in public without risking being shot and businesses, schools, government facilities, etc. must spend money to react to that, the Second Amendment is polluting our common environment. It has become a positive right. That you wish it were otherwise doesn't change facts.
Fundamental rights, as inshrined in our Constitution, should be limited to what are considered “negative“ rights. Negative rights are those things that you are free to do but do not place a burden or cost on another person. The first amendment inshrines certain negative rights. You are free to speak, but no one is required to listen. You are free to write whatever you want, but no one is forced to read what you write. You can practice whatever religion you want, but you can’t force others to do the same. Negative rights are consistent with the libertarian philosophy that people should be free to act in almost every way, that is peaceful, as long as they do not initiate force against others.
Positive rights, such as many of those that you suggest in this essay, use the force of government to create burden and costs on others. As a civil society, we may agree to provide some of the benefits that you have described, but they should not be considered rights or added to our Constitution.
Sounds like a great argument for repealing the Second Amendment.
Absolute nonsense. We should have at minimum the positive right to clean air, water and food. If that is a "burden" on industry, too fucking bad. Because people ARE forced by their very nature to breathe, drink and eat. Libertarian philosophy can go live in the woods on its own. No-one is forcing them to drive on socialist roads, use the socialist internet, or accept any social services at all. Frankly, one of the best things that could happen is Libertarians practicing what they preach for a few years and dying off entirely.
The Second Amendment is a right to self-defense, not a right to be aggressive.
The current interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it very difficult to restrict personal firearm ownership and use. This is unique among advanced economies. It's no coincidence that U.S. also uniquely has gun death rates that better resemble those of a war zone than a nation at peace. Those deaths (and policing, etc.) are a cost and burden upon the rest of the population.
I respect the Libertarian impulse to ask "is this really the government's business?" Some of the amendments we suggest, like marriage rights, are negative rights in that way. Others, like a clean environment, fit well with the Libertarian idea of trespass--pollution is the harm of someone's mess affecting the rest of us and violation of our rights.
Shanen, I agree that marriage rights are negative rights, and that people should not be able to unreasonably pollute our common environment.
... which is what the Second Amendment does. When people can't go anywhere in public without risking being shot and businesses, schools, government facilities, etc. must spend money to react to that, the Second Amendment is polluting our common environment. It has become a positive right. That you wish it were otherwise doesn't change facts.