I put it this way: We are endowed with certain rights. They are negative rights. The State is constituted to secure our rights. Securing the rights of the people is the just and proper function of The State.JasonL wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 18:57I don't think this is true. It is the talking point of every lefty I've ever met who wanted to do anything whatsoever and call it a right, but it doesn't hold. "Oh you want property rights but not a right to police" Literally yes I don't have a right to police as it stands. Something something roads and somalia.Mo wrote: ↑12 Jun 2019, 18:41If you’re going to talk about balance, then shouldn’t PDs have equal or lower case loads to prosecutors? My point is less about public defenders qua public defenders, but about negative rights requiring positive rights, but somehow not counting as positive rights. The defense of a right should stand on its own, rather than negative = simple and good, positive = incoherent and bad.
I'd be willing to go so far as rights of process that exist only as contingencies of the state monopoly of force being a special category of rights or something, but they are contingent even in principle. A right to a BLT simply can't pass a test like that. Positive rights are not rights, they are policies and then you can defend them as such. They are subordinated to the defense of negative rights because that's the whole point.
I'm not sure if that aligns perfectly with what you said. Or perhaps you're trying to get at something else. You keep saying we're off topic, but I can't pin down what the topic is.