@heksesang Well, it was the system as proposed by Tarmaque I was objecting to. I do not at all mind the idea of a law with a focus on responsibilities, even if the focus on responsibilities is actually much greater than the focus on rights, nor do I mind enacting punishments for people who breach their responsibilities. I do however object to the idea of taking rights away from people on account of them failing to live up to their responsibilities. It sets a very dangerous precedent, which alone should be enough reason to oppose it, but it is all the worse considering the government would be in charge of determining breaches of responsibility, and having such a policy in place would already be indicative of a corrupt government. It really is fascism, and I'm not one to complain about fascism often, nor am I even politically on the left.
Even vicious criminals should still have certain rights and protections, and people who merely failed to live up to legally defined responsibilities in some more mundane (though potentially still serious) way most definitely should not be stripped of constitutional rights.
In short, it was never your suggested system I disagreed with but Tarmaque's.
20
@heksesang Well, it was the system as proposed by Tarmaque I was objecting to. I do not at all mind the idea of a law with a focus on responsibilities, even if the focus on responsibilities is actually much greater than the focus on rights, nor do I mind enacting punishments for people who breach their responsibilities. I do however object to the idea of taking rights away from people on account of them failing to live up to their responsibilities. It sets a very dangerous precedent, which alone should be enough reason to oppose it, but it is all the worse considering the government would be in charge of determining breaches of responsibility, and having such a policy in place would already be indicative of a corrupt government. It really is fascism, and I'm not one to complain about fascism often, nor am I even politically on the left.
Even vicious criminals should still have certain rights and protections, and people who merely failed to live up to legally defined responsibilities in some more mundane (though potentially still serious) way most definitely should not be stripped of constitutional rights.
In short, it was never your suggested system I disagreed with but Tarmaque's.