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

[Benvolio]

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

That is really stupid. I am assuming no such thing. The people should have safe water, and in most places they vote to provide water as a municipal utility. They through their city government drill the wells, purify the water and created the water mains to deliver it. But no one else is obligated to give it to them and they as a group cannot claim a right to insist that someone else do it. Certainly it is not an obligation of the Federal government.

 

[peeonme]

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.

Those who signed this Declaration saw these rights as unalienable , God given and not conferred by government.

.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form

Our government was formed to "secure these rights".

 

[Benvolio]

Those who signed this Declaration saw these rights as unalienable , God given and not conferred by government.

.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form

Our government was formed to "secure these rights".

All that is true. Nevertheless, the DOI is not law and there is no legal right to for instance, the pursuit of happiness. How would such a right work? How would you enforce it? Who is obligated to give me happiness? Who can you sue for not giving you happiness?

 

[ElmosToe]

yeah, we're all fucked

 

[peeonme]

All that is true. Nevertheless, the DOI is not law and there is no legal right to for instance, the pursuit of happiness. How would such a right work? How would you enforce it? Who is obligated to give me happiness? Who can you sue for not giving you happiness?

If you pursuit happiness that is your right to do, there is no guarantee that you will obtain happiness, just the right to pursuit it..
If you really must ask, I would recommend a remedial study in government, civics and sociology.

 

[frankfrank]

The people of Flint, Michigan were exercising their privilege (or right, depending on who's writing the definition) to VOTE, in 2012 and 2014. Then, Michigan's law was used to neuter the results of all voting in that city by installing an Emergency Financial Manager (EFM), an arrangement which is unique to Michigan. The State [Governor?] appoints an emergency manager to take over the city and bankrupt it, then maneuver to eventually bring it out of bankruptcy. People who were voted into the Mayor's office, city council, school board, local magistrates/judges (if they're elected in Michigan, which I don't know) can all become mere figureheads, with authority in-name-only, if the Emergency Financial Manager so chooses it. The EFM is given the keys to the city, and he is allowed to run the place as his own personal fiefdom as he sees fit, with absolute lack of accountability.

I mentioned 2012 and 2014, because I'm not sure when the EFM, who nullified the results of democratic elections, was installed. I'm thinking he was installed before 2014. I assume that if the EFM "finishes" his or her job before the next election, those who the people voted for in the most recent election become those in power.

Until this happens, is there any real difference between the EFM, and a warlord in Somalia?

It pisses me off because Michigan is my #1 retirement hope, but do I want to move to a place wheres my city could be taken over, and I may end up with poisonous water, closed hospitals, no infrastructure maintenance, and closure of public transit?

 

[Kabluey]

That is really stupid. I am assuming no such thing. The people should have safe water, and in most places they vote to provide water as a municipal utility. They through their city government drill the wells, purify the water and created the water mains to deliver it. But no one else is obligated to give it to them and they as a group cannot claim a right to insist that someone else do it. Certainly it is not an obligation of the Federal government.

They had clean drinking water, until the state appointed a manager to overrule the city's democratically elected officials.
He made the decision to switch water supplies to one contaminated by lead.

It took an investigation by a federal agency before the state-appointed manager reversed his decision.

 

[Benvolio]

If you pursuit happiness that is your right to do, there is no guarantee that you will obtain happiness, just the right to pursuit it..
If you really must ask, I would recommend a remedial study in government, civics and sociology.

Your answer is too simplistic and falls short of answering the question. What specifically does the "right to pursue happiness" give you? Really nothing. You can do most anything which is not forbiden by law. But the DOI does not in any way limit the ability of governments to restrict what makes you happy. To bar the governments from encroaching on you pursuit of happiness, you would have find a limitation in the State or Federal Constitution. Invoking the right to pursue happiness would get you nothing.

 

[gsdx]

Your answer is too simplistic and falls short of answering the question. What specifically does the "right to pursue happiness" give you? Really nothing.

What, then, of the 'right to bear arms'? We rarely, if ever, hear about the caveat 'a well armed militia'. How many gun-totting Americans belong to the militia?

The 'pursuit of happiness' is such a subjective thing. To some people, eating chocolate makes them happy. To some, murdering other people makes them happy. Eating chocolate is an acceptable pursuit. murdering people isn't.

 

[peeonme]

Your answer is too simplistic and falls short of answering the question. What specifically does the "right to pursue happiness" give you? Really nothing. You can do most anything which is not forbiden by law. But the DOI does not in any way limit the ability of governments to restrict what makes you happy. To bar the governments from encroaching on you pursuit of happiness, you would have find a limitation in the State or Federal Constitution. Invoking the right to pursue happiness would get you nothing.

To pursuit happiness is relative to the individual, my idea of happiness may be far different from yours, some find that their dream of happiness is to be materialistic and rich.
Some believe that serving humanity will make them happy.
To some it's that little cottage with the picket fence.

The framers of our constitution and bill of rights observed the need and right of each man to seek happiness by establishing a government that is restricted by the constitution, a government that governs by the consent of the governed, rather than a government that is served by the people.

The bill of rights does not give rights to the citizen, it restricts government from encroaching on these rights.
Also, the bill of rights is not an exhaustive enumeration of the rights of man and should not be seen as such.

 

[ElmosToe]

There is so much wacked out shit in this thread...don't even know where to start, don't have the time or patience.

I think if people are going to have a discussion about the difference between a right and a privilege as it pertains to U.S. citizens and the laws that govern their country, those having the discussion should educate themselves on the necessary documents that pertain to those laws.

otherwise....

 

[refujiunderground]

A right is something that is given to you without asking simply because it flows with the norms or processes of life. A privilege is a luxury that you may be born into, a part of bu chance or given to you simply because of what you are that you wouldnt get otherwise if you werent that. Basically people with privilege tend to forget or not realize that they are privileged or that their reality is based off of it.


For example , it's my right to be alive. It's a privilege to be born into a household where the parents are married

 

[ElmosToe]

^dude, seriously, you could not be more wrong even if you tried.

I repeat.

There is so much wacked out shit in this thread...don't even know where to start, don't have the time or patience.

I think if people are going to have a discussion about the difference between a right and a privilege as it pertains to U.S. citizens and the laws that govern their country, those having the discussion should educate themselves on the necessary documents that pertain to those laws.

otherwise....

 

[gsdx]

A privilege is a luxury that you may be born into, a part of bu chance or given to you simply because of what you are that you wouldnt get otherwise if you werent that.

Driving (with a licence) is a privilege, not a right. A driver's licence is not a luxury. I live in a crappy apartment. It's far from posh, but I'm privileged to be warm and dry.

There are many, many privileges which are not luxuries.

 

[peeonme]

[Driving (with a licence) is a privilege, not a right[/B]. A driver's licence is not a luxury. I live in a crappy apartment. It's far from posh, but I'm privileged to be warm and dry.

There are many, many privileges which are not luxuries.

I have heard and read this a lot, if it were not a right (provided one is able) then one could be denied a license arbitrarily by the state or province in which they apply. No excuse would need be given, perhaps they might say left handed people should not drive, we would have no recourse.
It is a right in Michigan just as owning a gun id provided one qualifies.