Privileges vs. Rights.

[machete]

If you do not consent to the rules of that arrangement, you have the ability to violate it. You just cannot do so with impunity. You also have the right to vote with your feet and leave. You should not and do not have to do so, but that is one of your freedoms and rights.

Aint that what it always comes down to??? Someone with more guns than you telling you what you gotta do,,,whoever has the most guns wins...

After a while they just give up trying to prove theyre right,,,and say if you dont like it--tough--we got more guns... Do what we say...or well give you two choices--get shot--or you can leave

No way to argue with a gun at your head...so all the arguments stop...and people give up trying to think of government in intellectual terms...and just go through life knowing that theres a gun at their head that theyd better not say anything to annoy...

By this, it's fair to say that SFUSMC and I own twice as much of any portion of the road as you do, Given this, if we both agree that the laws in place are to be followed, you have a duty to obey them.

Like I was saying--two wolves and sheep voting on whats for dinner... Majority wins and might is right is not a moral grounding -- never has been...

yeah I have a duty to obey your laws--unless I want to get shot--it aint a moral duty since thats been shot all to heck in prior posts and was not able to be anywhere close to proven--its just a duty to obey those who have more guns than you...if you want to live...

BTW--you cant even leave this country and drop your citizenship unless this country agrees to let you do it...so you aint even free to do that...

 

[Bill of Rights]

I see where you're coming from, and I don't plan on relinquishing my license anytime soon. I don't agree with it, but I think the country has bigger issues to face than the validity of drivers licenses. I still fail to see how driving a car is different than carrying a gun though. If I walk on the public sidewalk carrying my firearm, would it not be the right of society to decide whether or not I can carry my firearm on said sidewalk? That's what it seems that you are advocating.

The only thing I'm advocating is that this presently is the law, not that I agree with or favor it. The law requires that you must have a license to carry that firearm, too, if it is a handgun and if you do not fall into one of a small group of occupations. I don't agree with that law either, but I recognize it for what it is, a law controlling the behavior of people (controlling whether they carry lawfully or not, not controlling whether they commit acts of violence.)

Considering that we all know where "gun control" came from and that calling it that was nothing more than a more-polite way of saying "n****r control" (or specific other groups), no, I have to say I do not support that at all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Garb]

The only thing I'm advocating is that this presently is the law, not that I agree with or favor it. The law requires that you must have a license to carry that firearm, too, if it is a handgun and if you do not fall into one of a small group of occupations. I don't agree with that law either, but I recognize it for what it is, a law controlling the behavior of people (controlling whether they carry lawfully or not, not controlling whether they commit acts of violence.)

Considering that we all know where "gun control" came from and that calling it that was nothing more than a more-polite way of saying "n****r control" (or specific other groups), no, I have to say I do not support that at all.

Blessings,
Bill

Ok I misused the word advocate there, I apologize. I am in agreement with you that it is the law, and that I disagree with that law. Great minds think alike I suppose.

 

[Libertarian01]

On the Origin and Nature of Rights & Privileges

To All,

I have read much here and would like to share my simple view on the nature of our rights and then the subset of privileges.

Rights are derived by the very nature of our existence. They apply to every sentient creature. Everything by the nature of its existence has been granted fundamental needs and the ability to fulfill those needs by natural law. Every living thing needs to feed, thus every living thing has the right to feed. Every living thing has the need to express itself, thus every living thing has the right to express itself. Every living thing has the need to defend itself, thus every living thing has the right to defend itself.

Take for example the Right to Expression. Every dog has the “right” to growl and let you know it doesn’t like you messing with its bowl. Every rattlesnake has the “right” to rattle and communicate its displeasure with your proximity to it. Every human being has the right to speak and communicate its desire or antipathy to something. As we have become more intelligent our method of communication has become more complex, thus extending and building on a right that has already existed, only as time passes in a more complex form.

Please note that I believe that only living things have “Rights.” Corporations do not have rights, as they are not living things. Governments do not have “rights” as they are not living things. Corporations and governments are only tools created by a cooperative of individual, independent living things. A government is the same as a hammer, albeit an extremely complex and massive hammer, but a hammer just the same. It is a tool and a method of fulfilling an objective or goal, nothing more nor less.

The same is true of corporations. They are a method of fulfilling a need that is a very complex tool for so doing, but again nothing more than a tool. They exist only in our legal system. Our legal system is our creation that is in and of itself a tool to achieve an end. A tool cannot grant rights to another tool.

Remember that governments are nothing more than pieces of paper and shared ideologies created by living individuals that are used to achieve an end. One government is by its nature no more nor less valuable than another. The Roman Empire, the Han Dynasty, the Principality of Aschaffenburg, the Confederate States of America, the United States of America: each of these is exactly the same in that they are/were a tool created by the individuals of their day to bring about or maintain certain goals. Now, they are in some ways vastly different in their foundations and guiding principles, but they are all scraps of paper and a collection of ideals shared by their citizens. We should not doubt that the Roman Legionnaire had as much loyalty to his country as we do to ours, or for that matter the Egyptian bureaucrat that served his Pharaoh as did generations before him for over 2000 years.

We must also remember that rights cannot be taken from us save by the one who gave us our rights, that being nature. The only time any human being looses a right is when a human being dies. Then by their very nature they cannot exercise a right, thus they do not have a right. A corpse has no more rights than a stone on the ground.

This does not mean that our rights cannot be suppressed or oppressed. As we have already covered the fact that everyone has the right to express themselves consider the following scenario. You and I are out walking about when we see the ugliest child in the world being pushed about by its dear, loving mother in a cart. This child is sssoooo ugly that it wasn’t just hit with an ugly stick, rather it fell out of the top of the ugly tree and hit every limb on the way down. It is so ugly that the missing link is no longer missing: we’ve found it. This childs face could stop an atomic clock.

How do we express ourselves upon being confronted with this horror? We have the right to exclaim in shock at to what is before us. Do we? We can choose not to, thus suppressing our right. When we choose not to exercise a right we have suppressed it. We have not “given it up” as it is not ours, per se, to give up. We cannot surrender our rights, as again only nature can take them away. We would probably want to suppress our natural reaction out of courtesy and kindness, but his does not mean that we have to.

Now suppose instead of our being stopped of our own choice we are given a look by Ugly Childs father. Presume that Ugly Childs father is 6’10” and has muscles that rival Conans. You know the look, the one that says, “If you so much as gasp at my baby I will rip your head off and suck out your brains.”

In this case we again do not give up our rights, nor do we surrender them. Rather, our rights are being oppressed by Mr. Sasquatch.

Some believe that our rights can be “taken away”, “surrendered”, or “you lose your rights” if we do something “bad.” I would submit for your consideration that this is not true.

Consider that an innocent man has been wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit. He is tried, wrongfully found guilty, and sent to prison. Does he “lose” his rights? No. I think we would all agree that he has the right to proclaim his innocence. He may do this by letters to the editor, writing to groups that may help him. He may call his Priest to help him find evidence of his innocence. What he may NOT do is stand on the street corner. His right to leave the facility has been oppressed! It has not been taken away as the government nor any human being can take away something that they have not given him. However through the use of force he can be oppressed by the tool of the government acting on behalf of the community.

Note that in all of this I am not passing judgment on the use of oppressing someone. Nor do I pass judgment on those of us who, from time to time, suppress our rights. Consider the little lies of omission practiced between spouses or between good friends.

Let us go back to the incarcerated man. You may be thinking, “Well, you said he was innocent. IF he is guilty THEN he has surely lost his rights, whether by surrender or by giving us the excuse to take them away.” Again, not so. Even the guilty man (or woman) may beg for mercy, can they not? They can ask forgiveness. They can seek a pardon or clemency. This does NOT mean that they WILL receive it, I simply propose that they may communicate their desire for a return to their normal life. On the other hand he may be totally remorseless and proclaim that we are all a bunch of scumbags and he would kill us all if he is ever released. A good example of this is Charlie Manson, who has said in many interviews that if released he would kill again. He is an evil man, but so long as he lives he can spout whatever nonsense he desires.

“But Doug,” some may say, “surely the convicted do not have the right to bear arms! That would be an affront to the very intention of their incarceration. We have oppressed them so they cannot hurt someone and giving them a weapon would undermine the very reason of incarceration.”

I ask you to consider that even the incarcerated person has the right to self defense. Consider someone in prison for a minor offense. This person has been sentenced to six (6) monthes. While imprisoned does that person not have the right to defend themselves from their cellmate Bubba who thinks they are “cute?” I would argue that they do. If you have seen the movie “The Shawshank Redemption” you may find it easy to empathize with the character of Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins. He fought back against of gang called the “sisters.” I don’t think anyone would deny him the right to defend himself from being gang raped.

Yet while we allow our empathy for Andy Dufresne to justify his actions we allow our initial distaste for the guilty to cloud our thinking about rights in general. I certainly agree that evil people should be oppressed in a manner that is consistent with the needs of society. I simply concede that they have rights and I am willing to oppress them.

I believe that many people would find it difficult to think that they, as a member of society, are oppressing someone else. This, I think, comes from our natural distaste as Americans of anything “oppressive” because we think: oppression = bad. This is just not so. It can be but is not necessarily the case.

I am slowly getting somewhere here, trust me, read a little more and ponder this.

One of our fundamental rights is our absolute control of our own being, our own body. I think most would agree that any living thing is in control of, if nothing else, its own body. It is from this fundamental right that I believe most conflict of rights occurs.

If we control our own body, then we control what comes FROM our own body. At the most basic level this is our excrement. Beyond that it is anything created by our body. This then means that what we make, we also control. With control comes ownership, and with ownership comes Property Rights! Our right to own property is the natural derivation of our ownership of our own body, thus the product of our bodies labor.

Consider two (2) people on a deserted island, controlled by no one else. They are shipwrecked and have nothing. Each is uninjured. One person is lazy choosing to bemoan his fate and will wait on the beach for rescue. The other active one uses his body to explore the island, gather information, and in so doing pick fruit he has found. The one who picked the fruit owns the fruit picked, as he labored for the fruit. He may choose to suppress his right to ownership and share with his fellow castaway, but he may also choose not to share. As the active one earned the fruit he may do with it as he wishes.

Initially the active person would probably choose to share his earned food, fire, and other products of his labor in hopes of building a cooperative organization with the lazy one. If time wears on and the lazy one continues to avoid laboring the active guy may choose to begin exorcising his right to property ownership and give less and less, as it is only a drain on his labor and he is receiving nothing in return.

As we have determined that every human being has the right to own their body and the fruits of their labor of their body we translate this into property rights. What I have built I also own. This means that if I work hard, clear land, and build a home most would agree that it is my home and my property, presuming of course that no one else had a prior claim to said property. It is this ownership of property that creates friction between rights.

I think we can mostly agree that any living thing has the right to seek a better life in another place, thus also granting it the right to travel from point A to point B on a map. But what if its desire to travel from A to B brings it across my property? Do I have the right to own my property? Answer: Yes. Does he have the right to go from A to B? Answer: Yes. How then do we solve this conflict of rights?

This is where governments come into play and the purpose they fulfill!!! A government should provide a dependable, consistent, and unbiased hierarchy of well understood priorities so that every citizen understands ahead of time what to expect when rights come into conflict.

When the government is created we understand that we, the governed, will give said government the power to oppress certain rights that belong to us. We do not surrender our rights and the government does not take them away. We understand that the conflict of rights will inevitably occur and power is given to the government to oppress, to the minimum degree possible, the rights of some so that the majority of rights can be protected.

Consider that an individuals right to own property exists, and that an individual may own property through which a river flows. While the individual may use water from the river, the government may rule that damning the river and charging those downstream for the water may be abusive and thus oppress the individuals right to do so.

Or, consider that we all have the right to bear arms in our own defense. In so doing we must practice with said arms to be able to effectively utilize them should the situation require it. However, the government may oppress our right to fire a large caliber firearm within high population areas as the exercise of this right would dramatically increase the risk of anothers right to live. The government is oppressing your right when weighed against the extreme risk of bodily injury or death. In this particular case we all agree to be oppressed to a minor degree, as we can simply travel to a shooting range or a less populated area and exercise our need for practice elsewhere. It is our individual levels of comfort with this oppression that is the creation of strife, not the oppression itself.

So where does this leave the little realm of privileges? A privilege is one of two things: #1) The ability to do a thing granted by another that is NOT a right, or #2) The exercise of a right by someone who society, and the government, has determined has a greater right than you but chooses to suppress their right and allow you exercise your right.

The first is easy. Consider that while you may enjoy bowling the particular exercise of this pleasurable pastime is not a guaranteed right. You could build a bowling alley on your own property and enjoy it but this is cost prohibitive for most people. So someone else builds a bowling alley and grants you the privilege of bowling on their alley. They may revoke this privilege at any time they desire and for whatever reason they desire, as they are allowed by law. The law is involved because as a member of the governed they have agreed to be oppressed by the rules of the land that are designed (hopefully) to enforce rules so that all the children in the collective sandbox play by the same rules.

Another example would simply be eating at a restaurant. While you may cook at home and make whatever you want the privilege is granted to you by the restaurant owner to come, sit down, eat then leave. You have no work to do, no mess to clean up. You simply focus on enjoying a good meal without any of the ancillary work of the meal.

This is why the free market is so bloody wonderful! It allows us as the consumers of privileges to direct the providers of such to create a better product and do so with better service! They have no right to clients so patronage must be earned! The greater the competition, the more pressure there is on each to improve. The more pressure the greater we all are.

Now as to the second derivation of privileges. In this case it derives from one who may oppress your rights but who chooses not to. I think we can agree that in our country and society property rights are ranked pretty high when compared to other rights. Thus they are given a great deal of importance. Your property is your own. You can keep others from using it. However, you may choose not to, thus giving someone else the privilege of exercising their right on your land! One example of this is extremely simple: You may allow me to walk across your land. That is it. My right to move from Point A to Point B is normally ruled inferior to your property rights and yet you may choose to allow me the privilege of crossing your property by suppressing your right to keep me off.

In another way you may simply allow me into your home. We could talk, I could ask for a drink of water, or any number of things. This then is a privilege I am granted. You could oppress my right to come into your space, but by your choosing not to I have been granted a privilege, which can be revoked at any time by you.

A perfect example of this is INGO’s Forum. While I have the right to express myself this board may allow me the privilege of doing so here. That privilege may be revoked at any time, especially if I write too long, as I am oft want to do.

So, in brief review, rights are granted by nature. Rights cannot be taken away by anyone but nature, although they can be suppressed or oppressed. Governments and corporations have no rights as they are not alive. Privileges are the allowance to do a thing that is not a right, or the allowance of a right by someone who has a greater right than us.

This has been almost as enjoyable to right as the paper I am about to do for class on the difference between deductive and inductive Logic. Alas I fear that this one is much longer than that one will be or than this one should have been. Thank you for reading.

I only ask that you please be kind in your criticism.

Regards,

Doug

PS – I do hope you all had a great Thanksgiving!

 

[rambone]

^^^^ Great post!!

Well written & well presented, Doug. +1