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

[nodeal]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?

[trey4sports]

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

[brandon]

This is a good question and something that I've never thought of before. Before going any further I think it's important to make the distinction that access to an attorney isn't always a right. The only time you can get free legal counsel is when you are defending yourself against criminal charges by a government. You can't get a lawyer any time other than that, as far as I know.

[oyarde]

Because to have access to an attorney , they have you locked up , up to now we have not locked people up due to health care . This is America. If you run up 100k at the hospital and cannot pay the bill , you can file bankruptcy on it . You will not be locked up. In Saudi Arabia , you will not get access to an attorney , after you are tortured for the appropriate amount of time , the Judge will sentence you privately.

[oyarde]

it's not a god given right. I have no clue why the founders decided to put that in there. Probably because they were wise enough to know people in power would lock up people who have done nothing wrong.

[oyarde]

Tell your friend , if he wants to go to the Dr. , pay for it . That is what I do . Not really a bad system , I do not like to pay or go , so I only do so if it is serious. If someone else is paying it for you , will that be the case ? I think not ...

[CaptUSA]

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.

[oyarde]

Disclaimer , I am a huge fiscal conservative and have no desire to pay the Fed Govt for anything outside of Article One , Section Eight. The tenth means I should be able to work through these other issues at a state level which I prefer.

[V3n]

If the Government is going to write The Law then they have a responsibility to provide anyone who lives under that Law, the ability to defend themselves against it.

edit: I change my answer to "What CaptUSA said!"

[ibaghdadi]

Because law/courts are squarely within the government's mandate. The government runs the courts and hence should provide legal counsel when they prosecute someone.

Providing health care, on the other hand, is not within the government's mandate to begin with. So the question becomes moot.

[newbitech]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?

criminal justice and health care are two seperate issues.

health care/access to an understanding of what is physically killing them... is encapsulated by "LIFE"
criminal justice/access to an understanding of laws... is encapsulated by "LIBERTY"

The second amendment ensures that the state cannot arbitrarily destroy life by threatening to block someone from health care.
The sixth amendment ensures that the state cannot arbitrarily destroy liberty by threatening to block someone from criminal justice.

If you want to know the truth, the state is not doing an accussed any favors by giving them a "public defender" to represent them. The public defenders job is NOT to help the defendent win their case. The PD's job is to assist the judge and the state attorney in moving the case through the system as quickly (and cheaply) as possible.

Strawman from your friend.

[ShaneEnochs]

I've often wondered the same thing. Ron Paul often says that you don't have a right to someone's services, but this seems like the exception.

[nodeal]

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.

Great clarity. thanks a lot brother.

...but why would I "not want the answer"?

[roho76]

Because someone can drag you into court for anything even if you're innocent and if you don't show say, because your poor and can't afford a lawyer, then your guilty by default. If you can be sued for no reason under the governments legal system that's paid for by you tax dollars then they have to provide you legal representation but your not forced to take it if you would like to defend yourself.

Getting free health care because you fell out of a tree, ate your way to a heart attack, or was doing something you shouldn't be that got you there in the first place is not the private (for profit) hospitals fault and they shouldn't be punish into providing free care. If it's someone else's fault that landed you in the hospital (car accident, you were shot, work related injury) then you can sue them in court to make them pay for your medical care.

[CaptUSA]

Great clarity. thanks a lot brother.

...but why would I "not want the answer"?Sorry, saw the red rep and thought you were trolling.

[newbitech]

just wanted to say, the judge giving you a public defender "for free" to uphold your right to counsel is like a cop handing you a pair of handcuffs and asking you to arrest yourself.

[trey4sports]

Probably because they were wise enough to now people in power would lock up people who have done nothing wrong.


that doesn't matter.

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

[mczerone]

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

Because they knew they were coercing people into using their monopoly courts.

[trey4sports]

Because someone can drag you into court for anything even if you're innocent and if you don't show say, because your poor and can't afford a lawyer, then your guilty by default. If you can be sued for no reason under the governments legal system that's paid for by you tax dollars then they have to provide you legal representation but your not forced to take it if you would like to defend yourself.

Getting free health care because you fell out of a tree, ate your way to a heart attack, or was doing something you shouldn't be that got you there in the first place is not the private (for profit) hospitals fault and they shouldn't be punish into providing free care. If it's someone else's fault that landed you in the hospital (car accident, you were shot, work related injury) then you can sue them in court to make them pay for your medical care.


that's a terrible argument.

No matter WHY, you are never ever entitled to the work of someone else.


What if you were born with a chronic disease that required intensive, costly care? should you then be granted free healthcare?


Because you have a health issue does not mean that you are entitled to someone elses work.

[CaptUSA]

that doesn't matter.

Because you've been unfairly locked up does not entitle you to someone else's hard work.More like, how hard are they actually going to work for you since they have no choice...

You are right to see this as a positive right and not a negative or natural right. However, in order to protect your natural right to defend yourself, you need access to counsel. That's why it's in the constitution. It does kind of muddy an otherwise clean document, but if you understand the reason for it, it makes sense. Oh, and you are entitled to their work since they work for the government. Just like you are entitled to the government's other protections.

[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.

[newbitech]

I am seeing a real lack of experience coming out in this thread. Right to Counsel was derived from the practice of people accussed of a felony being completely denied the right to counsel, whether they could afford it or not.

The intention was never to provide "free counsel" to handicapped or poor people.

[erowe1]

CaptUSA has provided the Constitutional argument for right to counsel.

I don't think that he has. Isn't taxpayer funded legal counsel something that isn't in the Constitution itself, but that developed much later from courts legislating from the bench?

[CaptUSA]

I don't think that he has. Isn't taxpayer funded legal counsel something that isn't in the Constitution itself, but that developed much later from courts legislating from the bench?We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

[erowe1]

We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

We're not veering. The question in the OP is about taxpayer funded counsel.

[CaptUSA]

We're not veering. The question in the OP is about taxpayer funded counsel.You're on track, but there are a couple of other posts (including the one you quoted) that were about the right to counsel.

[Sunstruck-Eden]

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.

There's your answer. Well said (I give you an A+++++ lol).

[Davy Crockett]

From the Missouri Bar Association:

The Right of Assistance of Counsel

Among the landmark cases establishing the applicability of constitutional laws, none have been more important than the many cases dealing with the right to assistance of counsel. This important clause, provided in the Sixth Amendment, assures that no one will find himself alone in a court of law against overwhelming odds.

The guarantees of this provision stem from the basic tenets of our legal and judicial system. The American system is an adversary system. This means that through the battling of two opposing sides in open court, the whole story will be uncovered, the truth will be known and justice will be served. The right of all persons faced with the prospect of losing their liberty to the assistance of counsel is obvious. Such has, however, not always been the case. The development of this right, especially for those unable to afford an attorney, has only recently taken place.

Historically, the right to counsel has meant the right to retained counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford a lawyer, he had the right to use one. The poor defendant was denied this right. In early America, some states showed a greater concern for the impoverished defendant than did the federal government. These states provided for the appointment of counsel in cases punishable by death, with some states going so far as to provide counsel on all felony charges.

This was not sufficient protection, however, because many states were never required to do this. Even when they provided for the appointment of attorneys in the cases, judges would often fail to inform defendants of this right or would all too readily accept a waiver of the right.

Significant changes began to occur in the 1940s, when the U. S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required an offer of free counsel to the poor in all felony cases in federal courts. If a defendant waived this right, the waiver had to be intelligent.

Further improvements came in the 1960s. A landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, led to a Supreme Court ruling that the states could no longer use a different standard than the federal government in the appointment of counsel to represent poor defendants. It decreed that free counsel must be appointed to represent all poor persons who were accused of a felony. By this ruling, the court established the unfairness of allowing an unrepresented defendant to face the combined forces of the state prosecutor's office and police investigators without any assistance.

This was not the end of the development of this important constitutional right. In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that whenever an accused is in danger of losing his liberty, he must be given an appointed attorney. This meant that even misdemeanor cases, where the possibility of imprisonment loomed, also fell under the provisions of the right to assistance of counsel.

Sadly, the fact that the Supreme Court had spoken did not solve the problems. Before 1964 there was no established method for the payment of appointed counsel for services or for the appointment of this counsel. As a result, some courts appointed very young, inexperienced or disinterested attorneys in the expectation they would plead their clients guilty. Today, however, there are many systems throughout the nation -- such as the public defender system or voluntary efforts -- that are shouldering the burden.

With the development of this right, attorneys have become more aware of their ethical obligations to provide services to poor defendants at little or no charge. The acceptance of the notion of equal rights for all, regardless of income status, is as much a basis of American law as this particular Sixth Amendment right.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If people had right to health care, food, and housing, why would they work? Oh, that's right, that's why people that receive those things aren't working.

[fisharmor]

You're on track, but there are a couple of other posts (including the one you quoted) that were about the right to counsel.

I happen to agree 100% with him.
Where does it end? Do I get a free military-style rifle from the federal government, because there's a right to bear arms?
Do I get federally funded web hosting space, or a radio station, because of my right to free speech?

The reason (I suspect) why so many are becoming supporters of the constitution is because we can read and understand it.
If state laws were similar, where you didn't need a JD to understand what the hell is going on in a courtroom, would counsel be all that necessary?
I think erowe1's assessment is dead on - stop defending the original tyranny by heaping on more tyranny.

And I think it would be nice if we stopped pretending like public defenders are even worth a damn to begin with. They exist for one reason only: to plea-bargain you into a jail cell. They're drinking buddies with everyone else in the court room, and they're not sticking their necks out for anyone.
It's all nothing more than an illusion of justice.

[aGameOfThrones]

A few old comments from a member at the dailypaul:


That "right" existed in common law for a long time, prior tothe U.S. Constitution. The 6th amendment does not, as you assert, "grant" that right. It recognizes and "secures" it from encroachment. That is very different from the "granting" of a right. The right to trial by jury and the right to obtain the assistance of council are not concepts that were invented by the Constitution and they certainly did not originate with the Consitution nor were those "rights" something that were owned by the state which were capable of even being granted.-Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 14:22.


You are mistaken. That "right" existed long before the U.S. Constitution was drafted, much less ratified. It is *not* a granted right. It is a right. It is certainly recognized, and supposed to be secured, by the Constitution, but it is not "granted". An individual had that right at common law, prior to any Constitution appearing upon the scene in order to presume to undertake any manner of "granting" of any rights. Your assertion of using state coercive force, in order to compel the participation of an individual on a jury, is not even a part of the 6th amendment. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any specific authority, obtained by the Constitution, in order to compel jury service. That doesn't mean that such compulsion isn't done on a daily basis, based upon some alleged patriotic claim of "civic duty" and a claim by the State, to force such service, is some kind of "necessary" or "inherent" right. To confuse, in any way, compelled jury service with the "right" to trial by jury, is pretty astonishing. Your time would be well spent studying the history of trial by jury, starting in ancient Athens.

At the time that the Constitution was drafted, that right already existed at common law. Whether you consider it to be "natural" or not, though perhaps an interesting discussion, is not even relevant. One cannot "grant" something which one does not have. Even the earlier decisions of the SCOTUS recognized this. In Marbury v Madison, just to note one instance, the court acknowledged that individuals are the original owners of *all* rights. In the Constitution, some rights were granted to the federal government, some were denied to the states. The inclusion of the so-called "Bill of Rights" has, unfortunately, operated over the years to nurture the misguided (not to mention extremely dangerous) notion that, somehow, the Constitution is a "grantor" of rights to individuals, who already owned those rights in the first place. Recognition and securing of a right, against encroachment, is *not* the "granting" of a right.- Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 15:13.


None. My "rights" are such as existed long antecedent to the organization of the state. Any assertion, that the Bill of Rights actually "grants" rights to an individual, has to be based upon the assumption that those "rights", thus granted, were the property of the state in the first place, in order for any such "grant" to take place. To accept any part of such a theory is to accept the notion that the state is the originator, and therefore owner, of those rights claimed to be "granted".- Submitted by austrianschool on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 13:45.

http://www.dailypaul.com/87667/what-rights-does-the-bill-of-rights-grant-you-as-an-individual-can-you-name-them


What do you think?

[Tom in NYC]

We're starting to veer here. There are two issues. The right to counsel - very much in the constitution. And tax-payer funded counsel - not in the constitution, but in a SC interpretation. Sort of like Miranda rights.

I happen to think the interpretation is correct. If the government wants to prosecute someone, it shouldn't get an easier go at it just because the person has fewer funds.

Right. The various decisions (which i agree with as well) involve the person's right to counsel only when he will be deprived of life/liberty/property. In other words, you have the right to know what the hell is going on when the government is going to take something from you. That's why it's a "right" in the Constitution, although really all it's doing is saying that the government can't bring you before a court when you aren't equipped with the expertise to defend your life/liberty/property from deprivation. From that perspective, it's not actually granting a "right" but making the right to life liberty and property better defended.

[Liberty74]

Who is denied "access" to healthcare? You have the right to purchase whatever healthcare you want, don't you? Some might have to pay more than others.

I didn't realize where it says in the 6th Amendment or any of them are "god given." I have the Constitution on my iMac and the VI Amendment doesn't use such words. Also, how is a right to own a gun "god given." The Bill of Rights wasn't written from God either. If so, that is news to me.

[The Free Hornet]

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.

Which we do (mandatory licensing, patented genes/devices/everything, no freedom for non-FDA medicines and treatments, doctors are loyal to their state licensing boards and state approved insurance plans instead of the patients). As such, it is no surprise that central planning leads to not entirely illlogical* demands for a single-payer system.

* If the premise is the government controls all, it is not illogical to demand they pay as well (or to refuse voluntary payments to an involuntary system of faux private entities).

[spudea]

the constitution protects rights, it doesn't grant rights. The founders believed we have an god given right to fair JUSTICE, therefore, the goverment is established to protect this right, the result is state appointed attorneys. Theres no god given right to live forever. This right is not given, it must be strived for, and if you are christian you have to accept JC to live forever.

Rights not protected by the US constitution are left to the states and to the people. So if you think everyone should have free healthcare, you can sponsor a charity to give free healthcare. If you gather your communites together around protecting the right to healthcare, you can have your state legislature create a free healthcare program, as Massachusetts has done. If you think we need protection of this right on a national level, then you campaign across the 50 States and pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to PROTECT the right to healthcare.

[The Free Hornet]

Legal counsel involves the services of another human being.

As does the judge, jury, prosecutor, and jailer. The constitution simply holds these services (judge, jury, prosecutor, jailer) cannot be applied without minimal defense council. The burden rests entirely on those seeking to - rightly or wrongly - deprive an individual of their liberty. This is not a situation where the citizen gets something for free, rather, it is the government being told their "ain't no free lunch".



And I think it would be nice if we stopped pretending like public defenders are even worth a damn to begin with. They exist for one reason only: to plea-bargain you into a jail cell. They're drinking buddies with everyone else in the court room, and they're not sticking their necks out for anyone.
It's all nothing more than an illusion of justice.

I don't disagree but this tears a hole in the premise of the original post. More so, it indicates how far from the constitution we have strayed. The government is not proving adequate council and is hypervigilant in prosecuting everyone the police finger. Otherwise, the DAs will not be supported by the police which is a big thing in local politics for some reason.

[Davy Crockett]

Start at the 11:30 mark for the definitions of "right" and "privilege".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V31zYjZamz4

[damiengwa]

the attorney they give you will only advocate as permitted by the system. That almost always means a terrible job, typically ending in plea bargain.

[Watch]

I'm not sure about all your labels.

But who gives the government that authority?

I think the Social Contract Theory goes something along the lines that the authority is appropriated, with the justification, being Utilitarian in this sense, to keep the peace. Laws are to maintain the peace as opposed to violent skirmishes. I could be wrong though, I am not a scholar in no means on social contract, but I do know it is utilitarian in principal.

[erowe1]

As does the judge, jury, prosecutor, and jailer.

And, like healthcare, it is wrong to provide these things at taxpayers' expense.

[Davy Crockett]

And, like healthcare, it is wrong to provide these things at taxpayers' expense.

You obviously have no understanding of the history of criminal courts in Western civilization and its abuses over the years. Take a trip to your local courtroom and watch how misdemeanor cases are handled when the poor cannot afford an attorney and ask yourself if justice is being served.

From the Missouri Bar Association:

The Right of Assistance of Counsel


Among the landmark cases establishing the applicability of constitutional laws, none have been more important than the many cases dealing with the right to assistance of counsel. This important clause, provided in the Sixth Amendment, assures that no one will find himself alone in a court of law against overwhelming odds.

The guarantees of this provision stem from the basic tenets of our legal and judicial system. The American system is an adversary system. This means that through the battling of two opposing sides in open court, the whole story will be uncovered, the truth will be known and justice will be served. The right of all persons faced with the prospect of losing their liberty to the assistance of counsel is obvious. Such has, however, not always been the case. The development of this right, especially for those unable to afford an attorney, has only recently taken place.

Historically, the right to counsel has meant the right to retained counsel; that is, if the defendant could afford a lawyer, he had the right to use one. The poor defendant was denied this right. In early America, some states showed a greater concern for the impoverished defendant than did the federal government. These states provided for the appointment of counsel in cases punishable by death, with some states going so far as to provide counsel on all felony charges.

This was not sufficient protection, however, because many states were never required to do this. Even when they provided for the appointment of attorneys in the cases, judges would often fail to inform defendants of this right or would all too readily accept a waiver of the right.

Significant changes began to occur in the 1940s, when the U. S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required an offer of free counsel to the poor in all felony cases in federal courts. If a defendant waived this right, the waiver had to be intelligent.

Further improvements came in the 1960s. A landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, led to a Supreme Court ruling that the states could no longer use a different standard than the federal government in the appointment of counsel to represent poor defendants. It decreed that free counsel must be appointed to represent all poor persons who were accused of a felony. By this ruling, the court established the unfairness of allowing an unrepresented defendant to face the combined forces of the state prosecutor's office and police investigators without any assistance.

This was not the end of the development of this important constitutional right. In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that whenever an accused is in danger of losing his liberty, he must be given an appointed attorney. This meant that even misdemeanor cases, where the possibility of imprisonment loomed, also fell under the provisions of the right to assistance of counsel.

Sadly, the fact that the Supreme Court had spoken did not solve the problems. Before 1964 there was no established method for the payment of appointed counsel for services or for the appointment of this counsel. As a result, some courts appointed very young, inexperienced or disinterested attorneys in the expectation they would plead their clients guilty. Today, however, there are many systems throughout the nation -- such as the public defender system or voluntary efforts -- that are shouldering the burden.

With the development of this right, attorneys have become more aware of their ethical obligations to provide services to poor defendants at little or no charge. The acceptance of the notion of equal rights for all, regardless of income status, is as much a basis of American law as this particular Sixth Amendment right.

[jmdrake]

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

Cause if the state is paying attorney's to destroy your life the least the state can do is provide for an attorney to try to keep the state from destroying your life. The is different from healthcare in that it's typically not the state trying to make you sick. (Unless you're going with conspiracy theories...or facts of what the state has already admitted to regarding experiments done at Oak Ridge TN).

[onlyrp]

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


Cause if the state is paying attorney's to destroy your life the least the state can do is provide for an attorney to try to keep the state from destroying your life. The is different from healthcare in that it's typically not the state trying to make you sick. (Unless you're going with conspiracy theories...or facts of what the state has already admitted to regarding experiments done at Oak Ridge TN).

In other words, you buy the conspiracy theory that the state is destroying your life by means of the legal system, but not health-wise?

[jmdrake]

In other words, you buy the conspiracy theory that the state is destroying your life by means of the legal system, but not health-wise?

The state admits they are trying to destroy the people they re prosecuting. It's not a "conspiracy theory". It's the adversarial system. As for the health-wise "conspiracy theory", note that I pointed out it isn't all "theory". (Admitted government experimentation at Oak Ridge and other places). So I'm not sure what point it is you are trying to make.

[onlyrp]

The state admits they are trying to destroy the people they re prosecuting. It's not a "conspiracy theory". It's the adversarial system. As for the health-wise "conspiracy theory", note that I pointed out it isn't all "theory". (Admitted government experimentation at Oak Ridge and other places). So I'm not sure what point it is you are trying to make.

I wasnt aware that the state ever admitted to trying to destroy people via prosecuting....when you say prosecuting, are you talking about actual criminals, or innocent people ?

[craezie]

I agree with this. That being said, offering free counsel to those who cannot normally access or afford it is the right thing to do. Just like treating someone in a serious medical emergency regardless of their ability to pay is the right thing to do. I just think that ideally this should be done through the private sector/ charitable avenues. Many state bar associations still strongly encourage or require their attorneys to do Pro Bono up to 10% of their time. This actually benefits the client more, because even an attorney working for free has more motivation to win than one working for the state.

[LibForestPaul]

In the United States, admission to the bar is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in that system. Each U.S. state and similar jurisdiction (e.g. territories under federal control) has its own court system and sets its own rules for bar admission (or privilege to practice law),


A lawyer is provided only for defense. I am not given a lawyer when I bring suit.

[The Beastly One]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?The answer here is both simple, and telling. The founding fathers installed the right to assistance of counsel because they knew that in a free society, litigation of several different kinds was likely to occur. Therefor, while lawyers are hardly the direct providence of god, the founding fathers deemed it right to install the concept in order to preserve the rights of the people in a legal forum. Preservation is the same as invocation. Since lawyers made up a percentage of the signing members, they already understood that the average man would require assistance in a litigation to "...properly assert his position of right."

[roho76]

that's a terrible argument.

No matter WHY, you are never ever entitled to the work of someone else.


What if you were born with a chronic disease that required intensive, costly care? should you then be granted free healthcare?


Because you have a health issue does not mean that you are entitled to someone elses work.



I agree. I should have used better examples.

[The Beastly One]

Sorry, I didn't finish. I'm kind of new at this. To continue, the subject of providing health care to those in need is really more of a moral issue. Is it morally right to turn away an ill or injured person from a medical facility if the individual has no means to pay for that care? The answer, for me, is no. The Hippocratic oath basically prevents this from happening on moral grounds. This oath, taken by all doctors upon their reciept of graduation and employment, basically says that they will heal and never harm. I believe that a physician who turns away anyone on the basis of financial stability has violated their oath and should have their license suspended or revoked permanently.

[heavenlyboy34]

I can see how Article VI has been widely interpreted as a right to state-sponsored council. The language is rather ambiguous about that. However, the right to not be tried without a counselor is perfectly reasonable. Without that, the regime can write its own warrant and arrest you and then try you-forcing you to defend yourself against professional lawyers. I think my interpretation is better and more rational. :cool: In the context of a state-run judiciary, it's reasonable to call the right of attorney a "natural right". Plus, perhaps in the 18th century there were lawyers who did this sort of work out of a sense of "patriotic duty". Any historians who can chime in on that?

[roho76]

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?

Basically. Something inherently odd about excepting the prosecutors coworker to defend me though. Don't think I could do that. I would prepare my own case and defend myself. How hard can it be?:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

I am seeing a real lack of experience coming out in this thread. Right to Counsel was derived from the practice of people accussed of a felony being completely denied the right to counsel, whether they could afford it or not.

The intention was never to provide "free counsel" to handicapped or poor people.
This^^ This is why the miranda card says "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you" (excuse me if that's a misquote)

[centure7]

The government forces you into a jail. Does the government force you into the hospital? If so, you still should get the right to an attorney in the hospital. Just not the right to a doctor.

If the government forces you into somewhere, they have an obligation to make sure you are not being mistreated. That is what give you the right to an attorney. Its a constitutional right, not a natural right. Some rights are natural and some are not.

There is no natural right to health care whether or not there is a legal obligation for doctors to be forced into a position of slavery where they must treat the person the policeman tells the doctor "treat this guy or I'll destroy you".

This really isn't a time to argue finer philosophy because the US will financially collapse in about 2017. Is your friend more interested in abstract ponderings when he considers the president or does he want someone who will, you know, not functionally destroy America by failing to act to reduce the debt load?

[jmdrake]

I wasnt aware that the state ever admitted to trying to destroy people via prosecuting....when you say prosecuting, are you talking about actual criminals, or innocent people ?

Do you understand what the term "adversarial system" even means? Sure sometimes prosecutors can be lenient, but often they go for the jugular. It's their job. They're supposed to be ethical about it, and most are, but still they're job is to push the defense as hard as they can and the job of the defense team is to push back. Theoretically the system tends toward justice although that doesn't always happen.

[aGameOfThrones]

And If the court finds that your income/assets are of a certain level... then you don't qualify for the Privilege of a public "defender". So.....

[jmdrake]

In the United States, admission to the bar is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in that system. Each U.S. state and similar jurisdiction (e.g. territories under federal control) has its own court system and sets its own rules for bar admission (or privilege to practice law),


A lawyer is provided only for defense. I am not given a lawyer when I bring suit.

A lawyer is only provided for criminal defense. If you are civilly sued you aren't provided a lawyer.

[down_south]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?

Yeah, I got a thought. First of all, if there is no such thing as God, then how are these things "God given rights?". Next, a right to an attorney is the right to someone who is protecting your life, liberty and property; three things I think we would all thing the government should be there to protect. Those are three things that you have earned by simply being an American citizen or through your own hard work and sacrifice. Health care? That is not something you have earned on your own through an an entitlement or hard work nor is it something you earn because you are an American citizen; you must infringe on someone else's life, liberty or property in order to acquire health care. If you get "free health care' then a doctor must work for free or someone else must work for free in order to pay the doctor's fees and that, in my opinion, violates the 13th amendment to the Constitution; that is, it is slavery to force A to work for benefits which are only enjoyed by B. The 1963 case of Gideon vs. Wainwright eventually ruled that the right to an attorney in CRIMINAL CASES be extended from felony charges to and cases where the prison sentences were longer than 6 months. How in the world could anyone interpret that to mean that felony charges longer than 6 moths include the right to health care?? Your friend is being an idiot, no offense.

[cucucachu0000]

that is a good one.... hhhhmmm im thinking that a defense attorney is a part of the court and there fore has to provide one in order for it to be a legal trial..... or maybe its just a right to access to an attorney and to take advice. and it has just become a custom for the govt to provide one. it has been shown to be of great help to protect citizen rights which is what the govt is sapposed to do so it is deemed worth the money by the govt to protect our rights.

[evadmurd]

In a criminal case, the state is your accuser. The constitution guarantees you the right of legal counsel and is obligated to provide it (to protect your rights) should you not be able to afford it.

[rp08orbust]

I haven't read the whole thread, but the answer is simple: Providing you with a fair trial is the obligation of anyone who wishes to use force against you (put you in jail) outside the context of immediate self-defense. However, if you challenge the charges and lose, it is your obligation to pay for your prosecution. If you win, those who attempted to prosecute you owe you compensation. This is totally unlike the so-called "right to free healthcare", where you demand healthcare from people who have had nothing to do with you.

[erowe1]

You obviously have no understanding of the history of criminal courts in Western civilization and its abuses over the years. Take a trip to your local courtroom and watch how misdemeanor cases are handled when the poor cannot afford an attorney and ask yourself if justice is being served.

I'm not sure how that counts as a response to what I said. Are you implying that misdemeanor cases don't have taxpayer funded judges, etc.?

And really, I admit, I'm not very interested in the history of how a bunch of people made up this or that rule in their living document. I'm interested in basic matters of natural law. So before you post your Missouri Bar cut and paste again, understand that I won't read it the third time just like I didn't read it the first two.

[angelatc]

This is a good question and something that I've never thought of before. Before going any further I think it's important to make the distinction that access to an attorney isn't always a right. The only time you can get free legal counsel is when you are defending yourself against criminal charges by a government. You can't get a lawyer any time other than that, as far as I know.

The easy answer to the original question is that because the constitution doesn't say anything about health care. But I think you're on the right track there - the right to counsel is there in an attempt to keep people from being unfairly prosecuted by the government.

[Davy Crockett]

I'm not sure how that counts as a response to what I said. Are you implying that misdemeanor cases don't have taxpayer funded judges, etc.?

And really, I admit, I'm not very interested in the history of how a bunch of people made up this or that rule in their living document. I'm interested in basic matters of natural law. So before you post your Missouri Bar cut and paste again, understand that I won't read it the third time just like I didn't read it the first two.

For most states, when a misdemeanor will not result in jail time, the poor will not have access to a court appointed attorney. It is there where you can still see the unfair advantage the state has when the defendant has no council. The Supreme Court, recognizing this over the years, has made decisions over the years on the Constitutional right to council, which is outlined in my post from the Missouri Bar Association website.

The U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation, because early American lawyers and judges perceived natural law as too tenuous, amorphous and evanescent a legal basis for grounding concrete rights and governmental limitations.

I wish more people would take an interest in English common law and the US Constitution, the freedoms that we are losing today come from the hard fought legal rights dating from the Magna Carta to the early 20th century. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that America can remain a free and prosperous nation only if its citizens are well educated. Today, I bet you that 90% of the American citizens have never read the US Constitution and of the 10% who have, only a small fraction have bothered to look into why the Founding Fathers included some sections and omitted others in that document.

We lost America when we decided it was a neat idea to give every two-legged biped with a few brain cells the right to vote, we are just beginning to see today what a disaster that has become. America is unlikely to see the 250th anniversary of the US Constitution. Did you know that in northern Scandinavia, the representative body known as the "All thing" lasted for over 1,000 years? The key factor to its stability was that the right to vote was limited to married men who had at least one ancestor buried within the land. Single men and women were not given the right to vote.

[demolama]

You have a right to defend yourself from your accusers. Because of the complex nature of the law services of learned people in law are required

[oyarde]

You have a right to defend yourself from your accusers. Because of the complex nature of the law services of learned people in law are required Yeah , most people would have been able to defend themselves 100 years ago when the US Code was in one book , now that the Code fills an entire room , it has changed things ....

[jack555]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?. IMO it isn't. Not exactly in a way. You should have a right to defend yourself in trial. I think a legal system should be simple enough that anyone can defend themselves without a lawyer. However if we are going to have a super complex system where u can not really defend yourself then it is only fair that the government provide u with a lawyer. If that makes sense. Otherwise u wouldn't have a fair way to defend yourself and it's the right to defend yourself that is the right. Not the lawyer.

[onlyrp]

I agree with this. That being said, offering free counsel to those who cannot normally access or afford it is the right thing to do. Just like treating someone in a serious medical emergency regardless of their ability to pay is the right thing to do. I just think that ideally this should be done through the private sector/ charitable avenues. Many state bar associations still strongly encourage or require their attorneys to do Pro Bono up to 10% of their time. This actually benefits the client more, because even an attorney working for free has more motivation to win than one working for the state.

By logical extension, isn't it cheaper to prevent diseases and emergencies than to pay for emergency treatment? (or, if it is, wouldn't that be a justified expense under this reasoning?)

[onlyrp]

. IMO it isn't. Not exactly in a way. You should have a right to defend yourself in trial. I think a legal system should be simple enough that anyone can defend themselves without a lawyer. However if we are going to have a super complex system where u can not really defend yourself then it is only fair that the government provide u with a lawyer. If that makes sense. Otherwise u wouldn't have a fair way to defend yourself and it's the right to defend yourself that is the right. Not the lawyer.

Everybody is allowed to defend themselves without a lawyer, you are free to ask for the procedure and your rights. But you are at risk if somebody hired a smart attorney who is better at convicing the jury than you are. Remember, you're ultimately convicing the judge and jury.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Do you want the quality of your health-care similar to public defenders? lol, not me!

[Todd]

Since the need to hire an attorney would be because an individual has the possibility of losing his life or liberty. I would imagine an attorney is part of the process by which we are able to defend ourselves and protect our life and liberty.

[erowe1]

For most states, when a misdemeanor will not result in jail time, the poor will not have access to a court appointed attorney.

You either must not have read my question, or the conversation that led to it, or both.

[Justinfrom1776]

that's a terrible argument.

No matter WHY, you are never ever entitled to the work of someone else.


What if you were born with a chronic disease that required intensive, costly care? should you then be granted free healthcare?


Because you have a health issue does not mean that you are entitled to someone elses work.

I believe the only exception is that of a lawyer. If the bill of rights is going to give you the right to a trial, right to due process, miranda rights etc.. Perhaps they struggled over it when they wrote it, but all of these other rights(in regards to justice) are useless without a proper defense.

I'd love to hear Dr. Paul's take on this. The constitution doesn't guarantee good health, so it can't promise you a doctor. It does guarantee freedom and therefore must provide a right to a defense.

[Mini-Me]

If you accept the notion of tax-funded government courts, you already accept that taxpayers are feeding the judge and prosecutor. The defendants are already "enjoying the free services" of the former two (along with the prosecutor's entire team), so it's really no further overstep to say, "...and since the trial we are coercively DRAGGING you to and threatening your liberty/life with must be a fair trial, we will also pay for an attorney if you can't afford one yourself." The Framers probably didn't intend for this to be interpreted in a way that provides state-funded public defenders, but the interpretation sounds oddly fair to me anyway and still [at least presumably] intended to restrain the government. In practice, I side with newbitech regarding the efficacy of public defenders, but that's another issue.

Ultimately, anyone who agrees with government courts should have no problem with this...and voluntaryists/an-caps should simply consider it one part of a larger unjust system, rather than a particular overstep that should be eliminated piecemeal.

[Dianne]

Other way around now.. Access to health care is now mandatory, pay your monthly premiums or pay fines, or go to jail.

Attorney access is no longer a legal right, and health care is now a mandatory right; as Obama and our mafia Congress (huge majority) now have in law that any member of the military can detain you indefinitely, without search warrant, without probable cause, with no access to legal council, just because... So in my view attorney access is no longer a legal right, unless you are a magot working in the White House or the corrupt Congress...

Watch me get black bagged tomorrow... find me somewhere, if you don't see me post again.

[papitosabe]

This is a good question and something that I've never thought of before. Before going any further I think it's important to make the distinction that access to an attorney isn't always a right. The only time you can get free legal counsel is when you are defending yourself against criminal charges by a government. You can't get a lawyer any time other than that, as far as I know.

I remember when my cousin had a DWI years back...he was unemployed and the judge refused to give him a court appointed lawyer...after 2 weeks of not finding work, the judge made him go to court every single day until he found a job...3 weeks later, after selling several of his personal belongings he got a lawyer... he thought she was a bitch, but looking back, we thought she may have done that because she knew he could win the case with a real lawyer..dunno... but it was odd, cuz we had always heard if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you...

[osan]

My friend asked me this question...

"I've been struggling with this issue. Maybe you can help me out.

When Ron Paul spoke about health care, he said it was an entitlement but not a right, and that the only right we have is the right to life and liberty. However, the Bill of Rights says we have the right to an attorney ("the Assistance of Counsel," 6th Amendment). The state pays for these attorneys.

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

This is something I couldn't figure out for myself. Any thoughts on this?

Access to health care is a right. That is not the same as a right to be provided with it. If you can afford it, you have every right to obtain it. If you cannot, then you have problems... unless you live in some socialist shit hole where it is deemed morally virtuous to steal the fruits of other mens' labor for the sake of providing "free" healthcare to those who cannot afford it. That would include the USA, and all the shame upon us for having allowed this. We should have run the hippies. progressives, and other vermin out on rails when they moved their offerings beyond their vapid words and into action that met with success I would bet had even their heads spinning with disbelief.

Access to an attorney is a very different matter because one is not allowed to opt out of the legal system (or are they... think "Ungrip"). But if we assume we are in fact required to participate per government mandate, then that government should be required to provide counsel because going into the system without representation is generally a very bad idea. I believe that this fact alone sufficiently reveals the generally illegitimate nature of government - robbing peaceable citizens of their monies in part to provide counsel to those accused of crimes. Yeah, that makes sense. Were the courts far closer to legitimate in how they operated people would be able to appear pro se and readily defend themselves without fear of being caught in the quagmire of traps that await those not initiated into the practice of law.

[onlyrp]

Do you understand what the term "adversarial system" even means? Sure sometimes prosecutors can be lenient, but often they go for the jugular. It's their job. They're supposed to be ethical about it, and most are, but still they're job is to push the defense as hard as they can and the job of the defense team is to push back. Theoretically the system tends toward justice although that doesn't always happen.

No, I do not. You went from saying "the state admits...." to now saying that prosecutors have a habit or culture of doing this, can you support your claim "the state admits to trying to ruining your life via prosecution"? Or did I misunderstand you?

Are you suggesting there should not be prosecutors? Or what?

[bcreps85]

The way I see it, we have a right to legal counsel because the absence of legal counsel could result in the government taking our life or liberty if we are denied a proper defense, whether we are innocent or not. We are specifically protected from the loss of life, liberty, or happiness at the hands of our government without due process of law.

Healthcare on the other hand has more to do with the free market. Without healthcare, we may die or get sick, but the government would not be causing our misfortunes. Nor is the government authorized to impoverish me to pay someone's medical bills. I am a charitable person, up to the point where it is charity against my will. It sounds callous on the surface, but what many don't understand is that when operating in a free market, healthcare is not expensive like it is today. The fact that everyone is basically required to have insurance anymore drives costs up. Government intervention drives costs up when we cannot go across state lines to get cheaper or more efficient healthcare. Healthcare is not a cheap commodity on it's own by any means, but it is multitudes more expensive here because of these artificial barriers we put in place. With the absence of these barriers, charities, churches, and charitable people's money would go a lot further in taking care of the few people who would not be able to take care of themselves in a free market situation.

A lot of people are quick to shoot down Ron Paul's stance on how charities and churches could help people, but that's because they dwell on how expensive things are in our big-government society, without understanding how much cheaper things would be without the big government (partly because there would be more competition, but also because of not being overtaxed). It's not hard to see their viewpoint...this isn't something many people have seen in their lifetimes...still, they need to do the research and wake up. It is their responsibility as citizens.

[acptulsa]

Um, an attorney isn't a God-given right. You have a right to representation if the government accuses you of something and locks you up. You don't get free attorneys as a Constitutional right if you want to sue your neighbor for running over your new car.

[dillo]

the U.S. constitution hints at fairness in Courts, it doesn't really hint at all about healthcare