There is no "right" to live on that island, it is simply something someone "can" do if they have enough cash.
Therefore any and all "rights" which exist on that island, do so purely on the basis of the "privilege" of being able to afford to live there.

A "right" is something that is only as good as other people's willingness to grant it to you. A "right" is a wonderful concept but it doesn't exist in reality. It exists only on paper and in theory.

willhud9 wrote:. . .If you want an even more general law it is called the 9th amendment: any rights not listed in the bill of rights is granted to the people. This is how the right of privacy is determined despite their not being a written right of privacy.

This is rudimentary American civics.

I disagree. The 9th Amendment doesn't grant rights, and neither does the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution was meant to recognize and secure rights, which were considered by the founders to be inherent in the people. The 9th Amendment merely states that rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights are still retained by the people. According to their thinking, rights are something that reside with the people, not the government. Thus, the government does not have the power to grant rights. It can, however, recognize and secure rights as well as regulate and restrict them. (source)

The Ninth Amendment secures rights not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights . . .

[source]

250K for a home on the beach = wealthy? What's your definition of "wealth"? You can't get a standard house in the suburbs for much less than that.

Yeah, it is about as close to paradise as I can imagine.

Sorry I understood your comment of a few hundred thousand dollars to lose as meaning a much higher cost. 250k for a home I presume must be tax free would be a steal.

Griz_ wrote:A "right" is something that is only as good as other people's willingness to grant it to you. A "right" is a wonderful concept but it doesn't exist in reality. It exists only on paper and in theory.

I disagree, human rights are inherent. We form governments to balance those rights within a population.

Sendraks wrote:
However, the citizen's of the UK are also privileged compared to say US citizens, in that they have the right to universal healthcare at the point of need. But, within the confines of the UK access to NHS care is a right, not a privilege.

The government providing a service is not a right.

That's like saying you have a right to have your trashed picked-up without a specific fee attached.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Griz_ wrote:A "right" is something that is only as good as other people's willingness to grant it to you. A "right" is a wonderful concept but it doesn't exist in reality. It exists only on paper and in theory.

I disagree, human rights are inherent. We form governments to balance those rights within a population.

What's an inherent right and how do you know it's inherent?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, the citizen's of the UK are also privileged compared to say US citizens, in that they have the right to universal healthcare at the point of need. But, within the confines of the UK access to NHS care is a right, not a privilege.

The government providing a service is not a right.

That's like saying you have a right to have your trashed picked-up without a specific fee attached.

Yet you've argued here for rights which only exist because a government provides them. In particular the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. Yet that right only exists because our government recognizes it does. As it only exist in regards to your car because you live within a state which recognizes property rights and extends your rights to your property in regards to searches. Otherwise it's just a car which you happen to be sitting in, or not, and there's nothing stopping somebody else from searching through it or simply taking it from you.

purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, the citizen's of the UK are also privileged compared to say US citizens, in that they have the right to universal healthcare at the point of need. But, within the confines of the UK access to NHS care is a right, not a privilege.

The government providing a service is not a right.

That's like saying you have a right to have your trashed picked-up without a specific fee attached.

Yet you've argued here for rights which only exist because a government provides them. In particular the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. Yet that right only exists because our government recognizes it does.

If there were no government, they wouldn't be able to do any of those unreasonable searches and seizures our constitution talks about, so the right would still exist.

Otherwise it's just a car which you happen to be sitting in, or not, and there's nothing stopping somebody else from searching through it or simply taking it from you.

That's true with or without a government.

Briton wrote:[...] As for random stops/check points. I'm not happy with the police having the power to stop people without cause.

Normally, neither am I, but sobriety checkpoints come under "special needs," where the government has a compelling interest beyond normal law enforcement (in the case of DUIs, stopping horrific car wrecks).

If you're sober, a brief stop is minimally intrusive (in the 1990 case, only three drivers out of 126 were asked to get out: most were stopped for a mere half minute), and by getting into a car, you could be viewed as having consented in advance (as you know you'll be subjected to a search in an airport).

If the Fourth Amendment were used to prevent a 25 second stop, it'd be bordering on the dogmatic.

Byron wrote:If the Fourth Amendment were used to prevent a 25 second stop, it'd be bordering on the dogmatic.

Particularly given the egregious breaches engaged in routinely. See the vid on "Civil Forfeiture" I posted earlier.

Warren Dew wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, the citizen's of the UK are also privileged compared to say US citizens, in that they have the right to universal healthcare at the point of need. But, within the confines of the UK access to NHS care is a right, not a privilege.

The government providing a service is not a right.

That's like saying you have a right to have your trashed picked-up without a specific fee attached.

Yet you've argued here for rights which only exist because a government provides them. In particular the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. Yet that right only exists because our government recognizes it does.

If there were no government, they wouldn't be able to do any of those unreasonable searches and seizures our constitution talks about, so the right would still exist.

Otherwise it's just a car which you happen to be sitting in, or not, and there's nothing stopping somebody else from searching through it or simply taking it from you.

That's true with or without a government.

If there was a government and that right wasn't somehow defined then it wouldn't exist. Hell, the 4th Amendment could be repealed and it would just be gone. There's nothing inherent about it.

Warren Dew wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, the citizen's of the UK are also privileged compared to say US citizens, in that they have the right to universal healthcare at the point of need. But, within the confines of the UK access to NHS care is a right, not a privilege.

The government providing a service is not a right.

That's like saying you have a right to have your trashed picked-up without a specific fee attached.

Yet you've argued here for rights which only exist because a government provides them. In particular the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. Yet that right only exists because our government recognizes it does.

If there were no government, they wouldn't be able to do any of those unreasonable searches and seizures our constitution talks about, so the right would still exist.

What magical force would prevent that? The Constitution does not exist separate from the US government.

If the U.S. constitution didn't exist there wouldn't be a U.S. government, by definition. In the absence of government the defense against unreasonable search and seizure (or against anything else, for that matter) is superior firepower. Somalia is a good example.

purplerat wrote:
If there was a government and that right wasn't somehow defined then it wouldn't exist. Hell, the 4th Amendment could be repealed and it would just be gone. There's nothing inherent about it.

That's the point, human rights are inherent.

I don't think you understand what the word inherent means.

Byron wrote:On the question of whether random stops are constitutional, there's no Fourth Amendment right to probable cause in all circumstances: there's a right to be free of unreasonable searches; and a right to be free of general warrants (since warrants indemnify the authorities against civil suit).

The Supreme Court upheld random checkpoints in 1990, on the grounds that they served a compelling purpose, and are minimally intrusive, and are therefore reasonable under a balancing test. I agree.

There's a difference between a random stop and a checkpoint. Checkpoints were rule constitutional in part because they are not random stops: they stop everyone driving through the checkpoint. The whole reason Michigan was using checkpoints was that random stops had earlier been ruled unconstitutional.

That's the point, human rights are inherent

That's a completely silly religious statement, human rights are just man made creations (in some cases very useful ones) in the same way a car or space shuttle is

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Griz_ wrote:A "right" is something that is only as good as other people's willingness to grant it to you. A "right" is a wonderful concept but it doesn't exist in reality. It exists only on paper and in theory.

I disagree, human rights are inherent. We form governments to balance those rights within a population.

Can you explain how they're inherent?