"Right to an attorney"

[grantbdev]

I was having a casual political conversation yesterday about health care, and on how I don't consider health care a universal right because I don't necessarily believe in a natural right to the labor of others (in this case doctors). Then I was asked, "What about the right to an attorney? Isn't that a right to someone else's labor?" I was effectively stumped by this, especially because it's in the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. I know this forum has plenty of libertarians/voluntaryists, so I would like to know what you would have said in response to this question.

[1714501630]

1714501630

[1714501630]

1714501630

[1714501630]

1714501630

[1714501630]

1714501630

[1714501630]

1714501630

[FreeMoney]

The state is willing to pay other people's money to give you one of their men to defend you against them, how sweet (for everyone but you).

[Charlie Prime]

"What about the right to an attorney? Isn't that a right to someone else's labor?"

Short answer, No.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" .

This means, in the strictest sense, only that when the Government prosecutes someone for a crime, the Government will allow that person to employ the assistance of a Lawyer, not that it will be provided by the State. 

In some countries that is not the case.  Courts jerk people off the street, pass sentence, and chunk the person in prison, sometimes without really even telling them what their crime was, much less providing them counsel.

In other countries, all attorneys are direct Government employees, and everyone gets one every time, for "free".


"Rights" is a hugely complex issue.  Some say they don't really exist.  I say they do as a concept.  I say some  "rights", such as Self-Ownership, are axiomatic and a priori.

[Atlas]

If you have the ability to do something or have possession of something, it is your right and not before. Rights are very simple in that sense. When you start making a wishlist of things you don't have and say they are your rights, that's when you start being silly and religious.

Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.

[greyhawk]

If you have the ability to do something or have possession of something, it is your right and not before. Rights are very simple in that sense. When you start making a wishlist of things you don't have and say they are your rights, that's when you start being silly and religious.

Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.

You are of course aware that this is Stirner dripping sarcasm all over the place as he does in most of that book?

[Atlas]

If you have the ability to do something or have possession of something, it is your right and not before. Rights are very simple in that sense. When you start making a wishlist of things you don't have and say they are your rights, that's when you start being silly and religious.

Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.

You are of course aware that this is Stirner dripping sarcasm all over the place as he does in most of that book?

Ha, so what would Stirner's view be on this matter then? Everybody is entitled to things because <moral dogma here>?

[greyhawk]

If you have the ability to do something or have possession of something, it is your right and not before. Rights are very simple in that sense. When you start making a wishlist of things you don't have and say they are your rights, that's when you start being silly and religious.

Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.

You are of course aware that this is Stirner dripping sarcasm all over the place as he does in most of that book?

Ha, so what would Stirner's view be on this matter then? Everybody is entitled to things because <moral dogma here>?

Stirner is describing a hypothetical Über-"Eigner" completely free of all moral, ethical, cultural and social constraints. Stirner is in effect parodying and criticizing egoism taken to it's absolute extreme. This archetype of course does not exist in real life (except for what you yourself seem to aspire to be) and if it did, well... it would be all kinds of horrible.

[Atlas]

If you have the ability to do something or have possession of something, it is your right and not before. Rights are very simple in that sense. When you start making a wishlist of things you don't have and say they are your rights, that's when you start being silly and religious.

Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.

You are of course aware that this is Stirner dripping sarcasm all over the place as he does in most of that book?

Ha, so what would Stirner's view be on this matter then? Everybody is entitled to things because <moral dogma here>?

Stirner is describing a hypothetical Über-"Eigner" completely free of all moral, ethical, cultural and social constraints. Stirner is in effect parodying and criticizing egoism taken to it's absolute extreme. This archetype of course does not exist in real life (except for what you yourself seem to aspire to be) and if it did, well... it would be all kinds of horrible.

Tell me, have you read The Ego and Its Own completely? I am about to die of laughter right now.

[Atlas]

May I also add that Stirner came before Nietzsche and is literally the original founder of egoism?

[freeAgent]

I was having a casual political conversation yesterday about health care, and on how I don't consider health care a universal right because I don't necessarily believe in a natural right to the labor of others (in this case doctors). Then I was asked, "What about the right to an attorney? Isn't that a right to someone else's labor?" I was effectively stumped by this, especially because it's in the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. I know this forum has plenty of libertarians/voluntaryists, so I would like to know what you would have said in response to this question.

The amendments to the Constitution enumerate the rights granted by the government.  Those rights and natural rights are two different things, though there is a decent amount of overlap.  The government has granted a "right" to an attorney because they also claim the authority to compel you to face trial in their courts.  There is no natural rights-based right to an attorney; it's just a right granted by the Constitution.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

[Atlas]

I was having a casual political conversation yesterday about health care, and on how I don't consider health care a universal right because I don't necessarily believe in a natural right to the labor of others (in this case doctors). Then I was asked, "What about the right to an attorney? Isn't that a right to someone else's labor?" I was effectively stumped by this, especially because it's in the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. I know this forum has plenty of libertarians/voluntaryists, so I would like to know what you would have said in response to this question.

The amendments to the Constitution enumerate the rights granted by the government.  Those rights and natural rights are two different things, though there is a decent amount of overlap.  The government has granted a "right" to an attorney because they also claim the authority to compel you to face trial in their courts.  There is no natural rights-based right to an attorney; it's just a right granted by the Constitution.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

The original intention was one of a negative right: The government cannot limit your ability to get an attorney. If anything, it's a limitation on the government.

[benjamindees]

It doesn't say "attorney".  It says "counsel," which could be anyone and which is not necessarily compensated.

[Richy_T]

Indeed, it is predicated on the right to a fair trial which has come to include the understanding that the accused should be able to have someone advocate for them. That the government provide that person is not required but it's probably one of the few things I don't mind them spending money on.

[hashman]

Note that the govt. pays for prosecution costs as well. 

If they didn't use public funds for threatening you then this wouldn't be under discussion..  so the primary argument here should be about who pays for prosecution and defense and public defender issues are secondary.     

[Richy_T]

Note that the govt. pays for prosecution costs as well. 

If they didn't use public funds for threatening you then this wouldn't be under discussion..  so the primary argument here should be about who pays for prosecution and defense and public defender issues are secondary.     

That's an interesting discussion but on a slightly different level.