How Do You Define "Right", And How Do You Define "Privilege"?

[Zeno Lorea]

A right is something that is gauranteed by the constitution. You don't not have to earn anything or qualify to have a right. A privilege is something that in not gauranteed. People have the privilege, but not the right to vote. They must meet certain critiria and the privilege to vote can be taken away. No person is born with the right to drive. It's a privilege that you earn by passing a test and proving you can drive. To sum it up as best I can, a right is something you are born with, and a privilege is something you earn and it can be taken away.

What a narrow-minded, Americentric way to think? So as soon as you leave US soil, you lose your rights?

 

[jbrown329]

A right is something that is gauranteed by the constitution. You don't not have to earn anything or qualify to have a right. A privilege is something that in not gauranteed. People have the privilege, but not the right to vote. They must meet certain critiria and the privilege to vote can be taken away. No person is born with the right to drive. It's a privilege that you earn by passing a test and proving you can drive. To sum it up as best I can, a right is something you are born with, and a privilege is something you earn and it can be taken away.

So the citizens of Flint Michigan should continue drinking lead laced water. After all, clean water isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[gsdx]

Gay people in Canada now have the right to marry each other. It would be Captain Picard's privilege to perform the ceremony.

 

[Benvolio]

So the citizens of Flint Michigan should continue drinking lead laced water. After all, clean water isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.

No, they should find safe water or a way to purify. They should not expect federal taxpayers to do it for them on the theory that they have a "right" to pure water ar someone else's expense.

 

[Benvolio]

You're constantly mistaking 'right' for 'free'. As much as you say you have a 'right' to a free car, the car dealers have the 'right' to charge however much they damned-well please. Picking apples from a farmer's orchard is 'free', but it is not your 'right' to do so. It is 'stealing', and that is an enforceable law.

If you have a right to something you do not have to pay for it, the government or someone has an obligation to give it to you. Free speech, the vote, practise of religion, etc. So my claim to a right to a free care is meaningless because no one has any obligation to give it to me. It is also meaningless for people to claim a right to free or even affordable healthcare because no one has an obigation to give it to them. (Except sometimes hospitals).

 

[NotHardUp1]

Again, no. Not sure where you get the "free" imputation, but it is patently untrue.

In America, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to life is not free. The State is not obligated to provide the means of living free of cost or charge. An indigent may be required to work in exchange for benefits, or in the case of unemployment compensation, to work at the task of finding work.

The right to liberty is absolutely not free. Police, soldiers, and others are paid by the State to protect and provide liberty to the general populace. In turn, the People are taxed to pay for the military, the police forces, and the courts.

The pursuit of happiness is likewise not presented as a free enterprise for the citizen. A man may choose to pursue a college degree in Accounting. His education is not provided by the State free of charge, even if he were on scholarship, as the university is subsidized by public funds that in turn come from various taxes and fees. The man graduates and continues his pursuit of a CPA, and may have to pay to take a test to certify and possibly another fee to register and be licensed by the State. He is promised the right to pursue what will make him happy, within certain bounds, and he then must pay to do so.

I have the right to own private property, as opposed to a wholly socialist model, yet I must purchase the property I want. It is my right to own it if I choose, but I do have to pay. It becomes my privilege to own it when exercised but it is a right I have to acquire it.

Free and innate right are not synonyms.

 

[gsdx]

If you have a right to something you do not have to pay for it, the government or someone has an obligation to give it to you. Free speech, the vote, practise of religion, etc. So my claim to a right to a free care is meaningless because no one has any obligation to give it to me. It is also meaningless for people to claim a right to free or even affordable healthcare because no one has an obigation to give it to them. (Except sometimes hospitals).

Try shooting at your other foot. The one you keep shooting must be getting awfully sore by now.

'Free' is a 'freedom'. It is not necessarily a 'right'. You keep trying to convince us that they are one and the same, and they are not.

 

[eddielee]

What a narrow-minded, Americentric way to think? So as soon as you leave US soil, you lose your rights?

I am far from a narrow minded American and take offense to that. A woman in the United States has the right to wear a bikini on a beach, but let her go to a strict middle eastern country not only can she not do it, she must keep her head and body covered. Your rights change according to what country your're in, because that is what you must abide by unless you want to get arrested

 

[eddielee]

So the citizens of Flint Michigan should continue drinking lead laced water. After all, clean water isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.

If your water is nasty complain to the local waterworks, file lawsuits and fight for clean water. Don't stop fighting until you can get clean, lead free water.

 

[evanrick]

to disagree with this a little. if you read carefully, the constitution explicitly says that rights not guaranteed by the constitution are just as vaild as those that are. the effect this has on law is that it lets many states get away with unconstitutional application of law.

in practical terms, privileges are things the state can charge money for, while they are called privileges is because they are taxable and not prohibited from being restricted in the constituion. its not a constitutional loophole, but is used a such because its not in the 'bill of rights'

conservatives hate the idea of individual rights, to some extend the conservatives of 200 years ago were right, that the government will abuse the constitution to get what it wants if rights are enumerated. however, where would we be if those right were not left up to interpretation compared to the bill of rights?

if poll taxes are "unconstitutional" why are there many exceptions to the tax machine? how is abortion a right if its not in the constitution? the definition of privilege changes depending on who you ask.

privileges are used as punitive mechanisms for the generation of tax money for the state, they serve no other purpose in America.

 

[Kyanimal]

It is the "Declaration of Independence" that purports our inalienable "Rights" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is not enshrined in the Legality of "The Bill of Rights" inscribed in "The Constitution". So ... exactly what is it we are "Privileged" to expect, as citizens of the U.S.?

Let's focus on the Pursuit of Happiness ... an expressed Hope, at best.

We are privileged to live in a country/society that is conducted by a defined set of laws. As long as we stay within that framework we are "free" to conduct our lives as we see fit. Step outside those lines, and, BOOM, you're in jail! Not exactly FREE anymore!

However, within those bounds, we can go about our business, follow our own paths, reach for our divergent goals, and endeavor to enhance our lives.

Is "Happiness" a guaranteed outcome? Um ... NO!

We can Pursue as much as we want, within bounds, but is Success a "Given"? NO!

The PURSUIT is a "Right". Achieving HAPPINESS is a "Privilege".

All the more reasons to ... No Matter What ...

Keep Smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[gsdx]

All the more reasons to ... No Matter What ...

Keep Smilin'!!
Chaz

Is that a right or a privilege?

 

[Kyanimal]

Is that a right or a privilege?

I'm thinking it's more an Effort of exercising the "Right", of the "Privilege", of "Pursuit".

 

[gsdx]

I'm thinking it's more an Effort of exercising the "Right", of the "Privilege", of "Pursuit".

My head hurts. I think I'll smile awhile and then go to bed.

 

[Kyanimal]

My head hurts. I think I'll smile awhile and then go to bed.

As long as there's a grin leading to sweet dreams.

 

[Kabluey]

No, they should find safe water or a way to purify. They should not expect federal taxpayers to do it for them on the theory that they have a "right" to pure water ar someone else's expense.

You're assuming everyone should have the right to pollute said water.

 

[otters]

You're assuming everyone should have the right to pollute said water.

Everyone?

I'm quite certain Benvolio wouldn't grant that "right to pollute water" everyone.

He would certainly exclude: the Jews and the Socialists, the Roman Catholics and the Communists, the Union Members and the "Democrats", the Muslims and the Mexicans, and so forth.

 

[NotHardUp1]

One may own the water rights or mineral rights to a property. Possessing them does not provide water or minerals free to the owner, only the entitlement to extract them and use them (including sell them.) In order to extract water or minerals, the owner will indeed incur costs, so not free by any measure.

The whole argument about public expectation of a pollution-free environment is unrelated to costs. The government may have previously had no pollution policy, and clean-up costs are therefore born by the People. There is a reasonable expectation for the State to act in the interest of safety of the People, but it is not an absolute right. A cleanup may not be physically feasible, but it may not fall upon the government necessarily to provide alternative land as it did in Love Canal's case. It's dependent upon how the toxic situation evolved.

 

[star-warrior]

It's a privilege to be here on JUB, not a right.

 

[Benvolio]

Again, no. Not sure where you get the "free" imputation, but it is patently untrue.

In America, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to life is not free. The State is not obligated to provide the means of living free of cost or charge. An indigent may be required to work in exchange for benefits, or in the case of unemployment compensation, to work at the task of finding work.

The right to liberty is absolutely not free. Police, soldiers, and others are paid by the State to protect and provide liberty to the general populace. In turn, the People are taxed to pay for the military, the police forces, and the courts.

The pursuit of happiness is likewise not presented as a free enterprise for the citizen. A man may choose to pursue a college degree in Accounting. His education is not provided by the State free of charge, even if he were on scholarship, as the university is subsidized by public funds that in turn come from various taxes and fees. The man graduates and continues his pursuit of a CPA, and may have to pay to take a test to certify and possibly another fee to register and be licensed by the State. He is promised the right to pursue what will make him happy, within certain bounds, and he then must pay to do so.

I have the right to own private property, as opposed to a wholly socialist model, yet I must purchase the property I want. It is my right to own it if I choose, but I do have to pay. It becomes my privilege to own it when exercised but it is a right I have to acquire it.

Free and innate right are not synonyms.

The phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if from the Declaration of Independence", but it is not a law and does not confer any rights. It says we have those rights given by the creator.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, confer certain legally enforceable rights and are rights in the true sense of the word, and you do not have to pay for them: free speech, religion, jury trial, voting etc. You are correct that the right to own property is not the same as the right to property, but the Constitution protects you from being deprived of it without due process and from taking without just compensation.