Why is access to an attorney a "god-given right", while access to health care isn't?

[nodeal]

you guys are great!

So basically because you are being convicted of government laws, and are brought into a government court by government force, it is their responsibility to provide you with a public defender, otherwise those on trial who cannot afford their own lawyer would have no means of defending themselves, thus giving the government power to strip you of your right to defend yourself from the government.

It's basically to keep the government's power in check, correct?

 

[oyarde]

that doesn't matter.

Because you've been unfairly locked up does not entitle you to someone else's hard work.

Normally I would agree with you . In an ideal world it would be better if all of us were educated enough to defend ourselves. I am trying to picture an avg public defender working hard , not getting there . They are paid out of tax money ..

 

[The Free Hornet]

it's not a god given right. I have no clue why the founders decided to put that in there.

The government provides a judge, a jury, a prosecutor, and - if you are unable to provide one - a defense attorney. This just rounds out the necessary players for a fair trial. If the government doesn't want to provide a defense attorney, then they let you go. Problem solved. If the crime is petty and not worth the expense, that is what they should do. If it is a capital case, arrangements will be made by the vested parties if nobody else.

The statist/progressive alternative might be that the government picks your defense attorney and we vote for Defense Attorney Generals on election day. You have no choice but do have a "positive" right. Sounds like a nightmare and it sounds like a single-payer healthcare system. Hey, who here doesn't have a lot of confused friends.

 

[newbitech]

you guys are great!

So basically because you are being convicted of government laws, and are brought into a government court by government force, it is their responsibility to provide you with a public defender, otherwise those on trial who cannot afford their own lawyer would have no means of defending themselves, thus giving the government power to strip you of your right to defend yourself from the government.

It's basically to keep the government's power in check, correct?

You could say that about the entire constitution. If your friend will accept that, then you have an easy convert in the making.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's basically to keep the government's power in check, correct?

Correct. It is to keep the government from infringing upon your natural right to defend yourself.

 

[erowe1]

Taxpayer funded attorneys is wrong, just like taxpayer funded healthcare is.

 

[erowe1]

it is their responsibility to provide you with a public defender

That's not in the Constitution. And if it were, it would be wrong.

 

[newbitech]

That's not in the Constitution. And if it were, it would be wrong.

i agree, except the high court has interpret that way.

I still say public defenders work for the state, and not for the defendent. it's one of those decisions that is there to protect the state more than the person seeking counsel.

 

[CaptUSA]

Taxpayer funded attorneys is wrong, just like taxpayer funded healthcare is.

I disagree. See the distinctions above. The 6th amendment also gives you the ability to compel others to provide testimony. That would also appear to be "wrong", unless you understand that it is there to ensure that the government does not infringe upon your right to defend yourself. I agree with the interpretation of the SC in this matter. The government does not have the obligation to provide you with the best counsel, but they should make sure you are not deprived of such just because you cannot afford it. After all, they are making a case against you - you need to be able understand the law in order to defend yourself.

There is no such thing in health care - unless we had a government that prevented you from getting health care.

 

[erowe1]

The 6th amendment also gives you the ability to compel others to provide testimony. That would also appear to be "wrong", unless you understand that it is there to ensure that the government does not infringe upon your right to defend yourself.

It doesn't just appear wrong. It is wrong. Forcing people to be in juries is also wrong.

The solution to tyranny isn't more tyranny designed to make up for the tyranny that's already there. It's to get rid of the original tyranny itself.

 

[CaptUSA]

Anything else in the bill of rights you don't like?

 

[ctiger2]

Good question, but you probably don't really want the answer.

The right to an attorney is the only "positive right" in the Constitution. Why? It extends from your right to defend yourself from the government. If you have a right to defend yourself, you need the availability of counsel in order to exercise that right because the government would be able to deprive you of that right if you did not have an attorney. So to keep the government from removing your right to defend yourself, the constitution demands the government give you counsel.

Now, this doesn't work for health care. Why? Because government cannot invade your right to seek your own health care. If it did, it would be invading your rights. However, that does not mean the government had the duty to provide you health care.

so:

You do have a right to health care if you want it and want to pay for it. The government cannot take that away from you. It doesn't need to provide you with health care.

You do have a right to defend yourself. The government can easily take that away from you if it charges you with a crime. Therefore, to keep government from invading this right, it had to allow you be defended if you cannot afford it.

This^

I'd also add, Health Care can't be a right because it involves the services of another human being. If you feel it's a right then you endorse slavery.

All humans need Air, Water and Food to live and no one has a right to any of those.

 

[erowe1]

Anything else in the bill of rights you don't like?

Probably. Why? does putting something in the Bill of Rights make it true?

 

[erowe1]

Health Care can't be a right because it involves the services of another human being. If you feel it's a right then you endorse slavery.

Legal counsel involves the services of another human being.

 

[Diurdi]

It's a right in the same way that you have a right to a judge. It's an intrinsic part of the judicial system.

Neither are "god given rights".

 

[Pericles]

Good question, but you probably don't really want the answer.

The right to an attorney is the only "positive right" in the Constitution. Why? It extends from your right to defend yourself from the government. If you have a right to defend yourself, you need the availability of counsel in order to exercise that right because the government would be able to deprive you of that right if you did not have an attorney. So to keep the government from removing your right to defend yourself, the constitution demands the government give you counsel.

Now, this doesn't work for health care. Why? Because government cannot invade your right to seek your own health care. If it did, it would be invading your rights. However, that does not mean the government had the duty to provide you health care.

so:

You do have a right to health care if you want it and want to pay for it. The government cannot take that away from you. It doesn't need to provide you with health care.

You do have a right to defend yourself. The government can easily take that away from you if it charges you with a crime. Therefore, to keep government from invading this right, it had to allow you be defended if you cannot afford it.

Cogent argument thus, +rep

 

[FreeTraveler]

It doesn't just appear wrong. It is wrong. Forcing people to be in juries is also wrong.

The solution to tyranny isn't more tyranny designed to make up for the tyranny that's already there. It's to get rid of the original tyranny itself.

If you're a Constitutionalist rather than a libertarian or anarchist, you've already granted that the government has the authority to use force to compel specific behavior. This is just quibbling over details.

CaptUSA has provided the Constitutional argument for right to counsel.

 

[erowe1]

If you're a Constitutionalist rather than a libertarian or anarchist, you've already granted that the government has the authority to use force to compel specific behavior. This is just quibbling over details.

I'm not sure about all your labels.

But who gives the government that authority?

 

[CaptUSA]

Probably. Why? does putting something in the Bill of Rights make it true?

Well, no, but the Bill or Rights were designed to ensure your natural rights were not infringed upon by the State. I think they did a pretty good job. I understand the issue here, (negative vs. positive rights), but these positive rights are meant to ensure your negative rights are not violated. If it weren't for these positive rights, you would no longer have the right to properly defend yourself.

Imagine if you could not compel testimony and you had no attorney because you couldn't afford one. Your right to defend yourself would disappear.

 

[FreeTraveler]

I'm not sure about all your labels.

But who gives the government that authority?

Since I'm a libertarian/agorist/anarchist depending on who you listen to, I'm the wrong guy to ask. Somebody who believes in the concept of the Social Contract could probably clear it up for you though.

ETA: I may understand the Constitutional argument, but that doesn't imply I agree with it.