Rights v Privileges

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby john9blue on Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:26 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I would say driving a car without permission by the government could be a bad thing, since the government requires you to pass a basic training test and a written test on knowledge as well. And if you are caught driving 200mph, they will take away your privilege.



on a private track, using a car built for you by a private company?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (3)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:31 pm

john9blue wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I would say driving a car without permission by the government could be a bad thing, since the government requires you to pass a basic training test and a written test on knowledge as well. And if you are caught driving 200mph, they will take away your privilege.



on a private track, using a car built for you by a private company?


probably not then. My examples were meant to be on public roads. In private I think that could pass as a right, but I'm sure the government would still try claim it a privilege.
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2443
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 94
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:25 pm

Related article I just read
Magically, seemingly every day, new "rights" are proclaimed by Liberal-Progressive-Democrats. Generally Obama and Company will simultaneously announce that new "investments" will be needed to insure that these new rights can be exercised.

Many Tea Party supporters and conservatives in general, tend to view "rights" as those defined in the Constitution and its amendments. There is no doubt that this view is incorrect. The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Obviously there are rights that the founders recognized as having existence. Equally as obvious, the founders considered these rights to be too numerous to be identified individually. Those that are codified in the first eight amendments are listed simply because they were considered too important to risk not being identified.

That being said, the question that must be considered is: Exactly what is a right?

The answer to this is not self-evident, nor is it intuitively obvious. The Random House Dictionary lists sixty-two separate definitions for the word "right" or "rights." If there are over three score ways to explain what a seemingly simple word, then obviously, in short, easily understood words, it ain't that simple!

Jefferson listed as "rights" only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. He preceded this list with the timeless phrase:

...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

What followed those famous words is much less frequently quoted:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Note that Jefferson didn't say that governments were instituted to grant rights, only to make the citizens secure in their rights. Government is only a facilitator to insure that we, the citizens, are not deprived of rights that are ours at birth, and do not exist because they were granted by any government or individual.

This view of government as a facilitator is clearly shown in the first eight amendments. These eight are all written in a way that clearly identifies what the government cannot do. Not what the government can do, not what the government should do, not what the government would like to do, but what it is expressly forbidden to do.

Simply reading the First Amendment indicates this negative structure:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law..." is about as clear a statement as I can imagine. Congress cannot limit free speech in any way, whether written, printed, or today, broadcast. It cannot prohibit or abridge our right to peaceful assembly. It cannot establish an "official" religion as has been done in so many Muslim dominated nations.

That these are known today by Liberal-Progressive Constitutional scholars as "negative" rights is positively Orwellian. The phrase suggests that the "negative" rights in the Constitution in some way limits the ordinary citizen's pursuit of happiness, since it tells the government what it cannot do. The President himself sees this as a flaw in the structure of the Constitution since it doesn't empower the government to take "positive" steps to do things "for" the citizenry.

Once again, considering the man lectured at the University of Chicago on the subject, Obama's willful ignorance of the Constitution, or his inability to understand the reasoning that led to its adoption, are staggering. The Constitution was never intended to do things "for" the citizenry. It, as written, has one overall purpose and only one -- it is designed to control and limit the government. It was written to impede almost all of Obama's desires in order to protect our rights.

Apparently the President is in disagreement with the Founding Fathers because these limitations or "negative liberties" apply to the government itself, not the ordinary citizen.

It would also seem that Mr. Obama feels that his vision for a transformed America is constrained by a musty, antiquated scrap of parchment that describes his job functions. After all, the entire Executive function of our government is described in Article II of our Constitution, in only two Sections.

Article II, Section 1 describes the qualifications for anyone wanting to be president, the method of selecting the president (and vice-president). Ignoring those paragraphs of Article II, Section 1 that have been superseded by later amendments (namely the 12th, 20th and 25th Amendments) this section plus the three related Amendments is about 1,400 total words.

Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, describes what the executive is allowed to actually do. As the name would imply the primary role of the executive branch is to ensure that laws passed by Congress are executed. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He has the power to pardon and grant reprieves. He can make treaties, if the Senate approves. He can nominate the Justices of the Supreme Court, as well as senior administrators (such as Secretaries of the various executive departments) if the Senate concurs. This only took the founders a whopping 322 words to describe the President's job.

It took the founders, and subsequent amendments, almost five times longer to describe how to hire the president than in describing what they'd let him do after he was hired!

It's as simple as that. The Constitution is written precisely to cripple any President who wants to do things for us. Of course, he or she would also then be unable to do things to us.

Obama's attitude toward the Founders reminds me of a five-year old whining that Mommy is cruel because she wouldn't give him (or her) whatever they wanted the very second that they wanted it. Well, the appropriate response to the man who is not only leader of the free world, but the "smartest guy in the room" is just this:

"Life is tough, Mr. President. Then you die. You can't always have every thing that you want. Live with it! The rest of us do."


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ ... z20kEigRqc
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2443
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 94
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Lootifer on Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:16 pm

To me a right is something every human being, regardless of status, should have access too, or be recognised as being able to do so without restriction. You dont have to earn rights; being born is the only qualifier.

Rights, however, arent (in my opinion) static or pre-defined by something or someone. Rights can be given or taken away depending on control structures. They also change with technology and resource availablility. They can (and should) also be removed in cases of abuse or exploitation.

Priviledes are things that aren't rights basically; anything that isnt a right, is a privileges. They are earned via actions of the individual (or their supporters and gifted).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Lootifer
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:22 pm

Lootifer wrote:To me a right is something every human being, regardless of status, should have access too, or be recognised as being able to do so without restriction. You dont have to earn rights; being born is the only qualifier.

Rights, however, arent (in my opinion) static or pre-defined by something or someone. Rights can be given or taken away depending on control structures. They also change with technology and resource availablility. They can (and should) also be removed in cases of abuse or exploitation.

Priviledes are things that aren't rights basically; anything that isnt a right, is a privileges. They are earned via actions of the individual (or their supporters and gifted).


what do you mean by "Access". in other words, can you name a couple of the things that should be "accessible"?

One of the problems I have with what you said after the first line is that, if a greedy corporation found a way to profit in a certain area, but those profits became restricted based on it's infringing on peoples rights, then the corporation could easily find one person to purposefully abuse those rights, while the corporation lobbies the government in order to take away those rights.
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2443
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 94
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby AlgyTaylor on Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:53 pm

/ wrote:For me, the two aren't really directly correlated.

A right is a rule prescribed in one’s favor; I take this word “right” to be identical to the word “right” meaning “correct”. For example if I go on a tour of an orchard and the sign says “You may take one apple”, it is my “right” to do so as it is within the rules set.


A privilege, to me, means a gift, an excess that is given to make things better on a whim. For example if on that same tour I ask if I can take an extra apple for later, and the owners agree, that is a privilege, it doesn’t mean I or anyone else can take two from now on, it simply is a kindness.

Best definition of the two that I've seen. Clear and concise :)
Corporal AlgyTaylor
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby AlgyTaylor on Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:00 pm

AlgyTaylor wrote:Best definition of the two that I've seen. Clear and concise :)

Just to add to this - healthcare is a right in the United Kingdom. However, in some countries it's not considered a right. /'s description covers both situations.
Corporal AlgyTaylor
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Symmetry on Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:44 pm

AlgyTaylor wrote:
AlgyTaylor wrote:Best definition of the two that I've seen. Clear and concise :)

Just to add to this - healthcare is a right in the United Kingdom. However, in some countries it's not considered a right. /'s description covers both situations.


Healthcare is considered a right wherever the universal declaration of human rights has been adopted.

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:24 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:A right is something that you do not need permission for. It is self evident
A privilege is something that you have to seek permission from someone or something with more power than yourself. It has to be granted


Evident to which self?

Do not such rights, become more evident throughout time?

Also, you suggest a right is simply dictated by the power of those who control them. I argue, once again, you have no idea what it is to be an American, by even being able to phrase that definition, as such.


I argue, and repeat, a right is something you do not need permission for.


You keep saying this, yet it keeps being demonstrably inaccurate.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby puppydog85 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:34 pm

A right has historically been understood as something inherently belonging to people. There are different opinions as to where these rights come from (nature, God, ect).
As an example the Declaration of Independence held that certain rights came from God (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness {ie. property rights}). Rights have been often times the cause of wars and strife.

A privilege is something that is granted to someone by another governing body. Usually, that body has first had those powers granted to them by the populace.
The government (local,state,federal) is often thought of as the largest dispenser of privileges (that is why the power to tax should be very carefully given to the government). People usually scream about privileges being denied them but rarely is popular action taken (your speeding ticket)
Lieutenant puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am
Medals: 78
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (9)
General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (7)

Re: Rights v Privileges

Postby puppydog85 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:39 pm

Disagreements over what is a right usually will stem from different opinions as to who is the grantor of rights. An evolutionary view of rights vs. fundy Christians vs. Muslims vs. Hindu vs. Communist. You should get the idea.
Lieutenant puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am
Medals: 78
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (9)
General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (7)

Previous

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron
Login