What is the difference between a right and a privelege?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Your "rights" are delineated in the Constitution. You also have civil liberties which is hard to define and subject to law and due process. Then there are privileges which we need permission to do.
Really, one would have to be a law professor to fully answer this question and even then there might be disagreement. The one thing that is plain is that only things guaranteed by the Constitution are properly termed "rights."
Really, one would have to be a law professor to fully answer this question and even then there might be disagreement. The one thing that is plain is that only things guaranteed by the Constitution are properly termed "rights."
highaltitude
Active Member
Therefore there are in reality no rights anymore. Rights than can be revoked are pr. definition not rights. Unfortunately.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4F1Lq1uFcAE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4F1Lq1uFcAE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
"No right is worth anything without the willingness and ability of the central government to protect it from foreign threat, and without the willingness and ability of the people to protect it from the central government."
- Illegal Smile, 1/25/10
- Illegal Smile, 1/25/10
undertheice
Well-Known Member
did we have no rights before that document was penned? i'm pretty sure you don't really mean this. the constitution does not delineate our rights, but limits and describes the ways that government may infringe upon our freedoms. as human beings, our rights are as unlimited as our imaginations. to exist within a society we permit our possibilities to be limited and the constitution merely codifies the ways government and society may restrict our freedom. a quick glance through the bill of rights shows that it is less concerned with defining a citizen's rights than listing the ways that government is not allowed infringe upon his liberties. even the text of the ninth amendment clearly states that the constitution is not meant to be a comprehensive list of our rights.
CrackerJax
New Member
It's not often, but I disagree with UTI. Before the constitution, rights were just words, but not defensible words.
The US Constitution is the most advanced document AGREED upon by a society of human rights.
It is the right to "true" free speech and protest which gives rise to all the other rights. Before the constitution, that was not legally possible.
Before the US constitution, it was just talk.
Liberals think mob rule makes rights.
The US Constitution is the most advanced document AGREED upon by a society of human rights.
It is the right to "true" free speech and protest which gives rise to all the other rights. Before the constitution, that was not legally possible.
Before the US constitution, it was just talk.
Liberals think mob rule makes rights.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
words, representative of ideas, are all our rights are. that the constitution acknowledges and promises to defend those ideas does not mean they never existed before or that they were created by any government. societies have limited the natural rights of their members since the dawn of civilization, in many cases crushing their freedoms in the process. the constitution merely forbids the totalitarian tendencies of government and vows to protect the freedoms of the individual. the idea that our rights flow from the state creates the dangerous illusion that mankind is born into slavery and freed only by good graces of those in power, when the opposite is obviously the case. it is society that chains our natural freedom and forces conformity. it is the clear intent of the constitution that government's duty is to give those natural rights free rein and stand in the way only when their exercise infringes on the natural rights of others.
CrackerJax
New Member
Existing and utilizing are two different things. Only rights that are obtainable really count. The US Constitution officially PROTECTS those rights. Everything before was fancy wording, but empty none the less in practice.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Do people have the right to travel or must permission be granted?
http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm
http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
We have a right to own ourselves as long as we harm nobody. I hope most people agree with that basic concept.
If we smoke pot, we are exercising that right. Restricting the right of another to own themselves is subjugating them.
Subjagation of another is slavery.
If we advocate that marijuana be taxed, we have reduced our "right" to owning our bodies to a privilege. If we must acquire permission to own ourselves we are again, enslaved.
If we smoke pot, we are exercising that right. Restricting the right of another to own themselves is subjugating them.
Subjagation of another is slavery.
If we advocate that marijuana be taxed, we have reduced our "right" to owning our bodies to a privilege. If we must acquire permission to own ourselves we are again, enslaved.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
blah blah blah blah blah
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good morning. I see the big bird has pulled his head out of the sand. Consider employing a good proctologist for the other extraction you seem to be in need of.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Yeah, clever stuff. Blah blah blah blah blah was the most insightful post in this thread. How many times today are you going to tell us the government should just go away and leave us all alone? You're beginning to sound like one of those crazy preachers on a street corner.Good morning. I see the big bird has pulled his head out of the sand. Consider employing a good proctologist for the other extraction you seem to be in need of.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I do tend to rail on about personal liberty and how bad the government is don't I? Is preaching self reliance, respect for others liberty and freedom now to be termed "crazy" ?
I preach here because I think if people are here they at least "get it" that they should own their bodies. I'm hoping to encourage people to expand on that and see that many other choices have been stolen from them too.
I preach here because I think people should own their labor.
I preach here because I think people should own their lives.
My goals are freedom for EVERYBODY.
Can you define a better goal than that?
undertheice
Well-Known Member
you'd think that a bunch of folks who advocate the freedom of choice to determine what substances we can put in our bodies would at least begin to understand that such a freedom of choice should extend to all facets of our lives, but it sure doesn't seem that way.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Is this a philosophical question or a legal one? Philosophically, we could discuss what "rights" we should have to no end.
The reality of the situation is that rights come from society and from the laws governing it. The very nature of rights requires them to be defined and protected through law. For instance, we have the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is guaranteed by law, not by nature. A tiger could care less about these rights when he is hungry, nor does a hurricane or tsunami - in nature, rights don't exist. Rights, as properly defined, are delineated by rule of law.
Now, our founding fathers clearly thought that some rights were guaranteed according to God's law or morality and therefor ought to be by man's. Now the question of what rights we ought to have in a moral society, that is another question.
The reality of the situation is that rights come from society and from the laws governing it. The very nature of rights requires them to be defined and protected through law. For instance, we have the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is guaranteed by law, not by nature. A tiger could care less about these rights when he is hungry, nor does a hurricane or tsunami - in nature, rights don't exist. Rights, as properly defined, are delineated by rule of law.
Now, our founding fathers clearly thought that some rights were guaranteed according to God's law or morality and therefor ought to be by man's. Now the question of what rights we ought to have in a moral society, that is another question.