Recent Posts
"It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
From my mouth, speaking to my nine-year-old about staying up late, just before looking in the mirror to see if I had actually become my dad or if I just sounded like him.
From my mouth, speaking to my nine-year-old about staying up late, just before looking in the mirror to see if I had actually become my dad or if I just sounded like him."It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
Yeah, I find myself saying this one a lot to my five year old. Right along with "Life's not fair." and "Stop whining."
Same thing for Marriage, government recognition of a partnership between multiple people is a privilege. Which is why you have a license.
Maybe we should have a test for marriage. Have a panel of women determine the questions for men, and vice versa. I bet it'd be pretty damn funny.
Question #1 for men: The Toilet seat should be left....
(a)down
(b)down
(c)down
(d)all of the above
Same thing for Marriage, government recognition of a partnership between multiple people is a privilege. Which is why you have a license.Maybe we should have a test for marriage. Have a panel of women determine the questions for men, and vice versa. I bet it'd be pretty damn funny.
Question #1 for men: The Toilet seat should be left....
(a)down
(b)down
(c)down
(d)all of the above
Since I'm 0-2 (look, the Cleveland Browns of Marriage) there might be merit...
"It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
Let's turn your question on it's head shall we? Where have you heard the phrase It isn't a privilege, it's a right? An even better question perhaps would be, how do we know it is a right and not a privilege? Remember that for the majority of human history it was taken for granted that your rights were in fact defined by the ruling class. It was not until 1689 that anyone had actually proposed the idea of natural rights in a large scale form. Therefore it could be argued that the idea of rights, as you are using them, is an artificial construct that has only existed for the past 420 years. So, before we start deciding what rights are being unduly withheld from us, should we not define what constitutes a right?
Question #2 for men: Do these jeans make me look fat?
(a) No!
(b) Hell No!
(c) You're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.
(d) All of the above.
or
e) It's not the jeans that make you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat**= giving this answer may cause a fight, divorce, or immediate castration
Same thing for Marriage, government recognition of a partnership between multiple people is a privilege. Which is why you have a license.....getting a driver's license.I've seen this one before. I consider it a privilege. Otherwise, why have a test to get one.
Iffy... One could make a good case that if marriage is a right, then anyone has been unable to find a spouse is having their rights violated.
Alternatively, it could be like the right to pursue happiness. Everyone has the right to try to be happy, but happiness itself is not a right. People have the right to pursue marriage with the consenting adult of their choice, but being married is not guaranteed, and is therefore a privilege (or whatever the opposite of privilege is, in some cases).
Regardless, if it's a privilege, it is a privilege that should be bestowed equally.
This exact topic was being discussed the other day on ESPNs Mike and Mike in the morning. It started in response to Michael Vick being released to house arrest on his dog-fighting charges. The conversation went on to include million dollar athletes in general.
So, I've heard in conversations about sports, and this wasn't the first time.
Rights are privileges that the government wants to make you think you have.
Privileges are what your rights become whenever the government thinks it's inconvenient to them.
It's difficult to enumerate any rights that are absolute. Even here in the US, looking at the Bill of Rights, each enumerated right has in times of apparent crisis become relegated to the status of privilege. (Freedom of Religion - not if you were Muslim after 9/11. Freedom to keep and bear arms - that one got thrown away long ago. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure - not if you are a minority driving a nice car in a white neighborhood.)
So - "It's not a right, it's a privilege." is probably a good statement of a generalized truth for any activity.
Freedom of Religion -
Funny how an oximoron could be a right.
So - "It's not a right, it's a privilege." is probably a good statement of a generalized truth for any activity.
Actually, law solved this one long ago with the difference between "objective rights" and "subjective rights". Subjective rights are not diminished by not actually enjoying the thing the right implies. You're just allowed to have it if you get it. You have right to a decent dwelling, but you might be too poor to afford one, or too poor to access health services in certain countries. Subjective right took power together with the encroachment of mercantilism and later capitalism, as otherwise the granting of rights to citizenship could threaten free market.
Socialist states did provide for some objective rights: the state give you a dwelling, universal free health and universal free education, etc. The logistics of it sucked, but the philosophy of "right to a thing guarantees you get it" was there.In capitalists countries we have a few objective rights:
1) children's primary education (though poverty may provoke school absentism, that's clearly illegal and a cause for state custody)
2) freedom. No matter how much de facto slavery is a part of poor places (and some forms of contractual relationships can be pseudo-slavery), one cannot sell him or herself as a slave. Prison penalties are a temporary deprivation of freedom of movement and participation, but the inprisoned is still a sovereign individual, as in "not belonging to anybody else"
3) life. You cannot sell your life, trade it for benefits to others or legally ask to be terminated (except in a few enlightened places). Governments may strip you off it, though, so even here there is asymmetry.
Let's turn your question on it's head shall we? Where have you heard the phrase It isn't a privilege, it's a right? An even better question perhaps would be, how do we know it is a right and not a privilege? Remember that for the majority of human history it was taken for granted that your rights were in fact defined by the ruling class. It was not until 1689 that anyone had actually proposed the idea of natural rights in a large scale form. Therefore it could be argued that the idea of rights, as you are using them, is an artificial construct that has only existed for the past 420 years. So, before we start deciding what rights are being unduly withheld from us, should we not define what constitutes a right?"It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
Well, virtually every bit of society, from our eating rituals to our religions to our invented ideas of "natural laws" can be (and are) condemned as artificial social constructs, so I'm not sure there's much value in turning around the question like this.
Driving license is a right. Marriage is a freedom. Pretty simple for me. :)
A little too simple. I have trained both of my kids to drive and have driven all over the country. Driving should not only be a privilege, it should require an IQ test and should have serious performance testing requirements.
Saying having a driver's license is a right is completely contrary to common sense and preservation of the species. Speaking of which...
As far as marriage is concerned, such is based on thousands of years of legal precedence with variations that have very slowly evolved over time. Radically changing such is by no means simple.
Less than a century of revolution will not entirely overcome eons of evolution.
What we often refer to as rights were granted by governments. The only functional difference between rights and privileges is scope of application.
Well, virtually every bit of society, from our eating rituals to our religions to our invented ideas of "natural laws" can be (and are) condemned as artificial social constructs, so I'm not sure there's much value in turning around the question like this.Let's turn your question on it's head shall we? Where have you heard the phrase It isn't a privilege, it's a right? An even better question perhaps would be, how do we know it is a right and not a privilege? Remember that for the majority of human history it was taken for granted that your rights were in fact defined by the ruling class. It was not until 1689 that anyone had actually proposed the idea of natural rights in a large scale form. Therefore it could be argued that the idea of rights, as you are using them, is an artificial construct that has only existed for the past 420 years. So, before we start deciding what rights are being unduly withheld from us, should we not define what constitutes a right?"It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
I disagree respectfully. Turning the question around can change how people think about a problem. Perspective is important and we should all try to change ours occasionally.
Well, yeah, I agree.
My point is that saying there is such a thing as "Natural Rights" is the same as saying "my religion is 100% true because my holy book says so".
While a religious person or an 18th century Enlightenment zealot might disagree that God or
"Natural Law" are cultural constructs, there is considerable room for debate on the matter.
I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that the idea of "rights" at all is a cultural construct, in which case "natural" rights as an absolute concept is rather absurd.
Well, yeah, I agree.
My point is that saying there is such a thing as "Natural Rights" is the same as saying "my religion is 100% true because my holy book says so".
While a religious person or an 18th century Enlightenment zealot might disagree that God or
"Natural Law" are cultural constructs, there is considerable room for debate on the matter.I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that the idea of "rights" at all is a cultural construct, in which case "natural" rights as an absolute concept is rather absurd.
I won't argue that "rights" are a construct. However the distinction between rights, priveledges, and commodities is important.
I've not read enough of the Founding Fathers to speak with authority, but it seems to me that Locke knew he was constructing a philosophy and that the Founding Fathers were aware of a certain arbitrary quality to it, but were convinced that it was the most equitable basis of government.
I also agree that you will find Paizonians to take up the cudgels on either side of any argument.
I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that the idea of "rights" at all is a cultural construct, in which case "natural" rights as an absolute concept is rather absurd.
And, there's this: Nothing unnatural exists.
If all is part of nature, all is natural, however oddly juxtaposed.
Even the most unnatural seeming things are composed of natural parts.
Everything just depends on one's localized (geographical and temporal) perception of normality.
Cell phones are natural... here and now. A few centuries ago, having a cell phone would get you burned at the stake.
There can be no absolute "natural law". Heck, even "law" itself is often an imposition on "nature".
Nature cares not about rights or privileges. Nature cares not at all.
If anyone thinks otherwise, then I challenge them to negotiate with a tornado.
:)
Ok, with that out of the way, I agree. By all means let's move on from my semantics diversion and get back to the topic.
Yes, please pull me back from the semantic abyss :)
Preacher once told me: "Admission into heaven is not a right, it's a privilege."
Doctor once told me: "Good health is a privilege earned by taking care of yourself."
I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that the idea of "rights" at all is a cultural construct, in which case "natural" rights as an absolute concept is rather absurd.And, there's this: Nothing unnatural exists.
If all is part of nature, all is natural, however oddly juxtaposed.
Even the most unnatural seeming things are composed of natural parts.
Oh! I know this one. Love and Rockets from the Earth, Sun, and Moon album ... umm, song name: No New Tale to Tell.
You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It's part of nature too
Our little lives get complicated
It's a simple thing
Simple as a flower
And that's a complicated thing
Did I win?
I think you could make a fairly compelling argument that the idea of "rights" at all is a cultural construct, in which case "natural" rights as an absolute concept is rather absurd.And, there's this: Nothing unnatural exists.
If all is part of nature, all is natural, however oddly juxtaposed.
Even the most unnatural seeming things are composed of natural parts.
Oh! I know this one. Love and Rockets from the Earth, Sun, and Moon album ... umm, song name: No New Tale to Tell.
** spoiler omitted **
Did I win?
Heh :) I have no idea... I would claim the original wording, but I'm sure I heard it somewhere - can't recall where/when... :)
Gay marriage and getting a driver's license."It isn't a right. Its a priviledge."
This comment is often made by those who govern the freedoms of others...often without our approval.
Where have you heard it used?
Driver's license? It called a license, not a driver's right. By definition a license is NOT a right.
NOTHING is a RIGHT unless you make it so. Those who have the power will deny you everything, unless it is taken from them. That is the lesson of history and the corruption of power. Every right we have now was earned through conflict and sometimes bloodshed. Every right given away in the false name of security is a blasphemy against freedom and security.
In essence, what I have as a right, is there because I, and others, demand it so. It remains a right only until it is taken from us.
It remains a right only until it is taken from us.Or until we surrender it.
I agree with Proudhon's words from 1849:
All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.
I also agree with Thomas Paine:
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices...The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society [...] is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worse state an intolerable one.
Actually, come to think of it, my mom and dad used the "not a right, a privilege" bit whenever they referred to me being alive and well.They thought that only a select few had the right to be alive and well?
No, they thought I earned the privilige of them not killing me. My father was always fond of the old Bill Cosby line - "Remember, I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out. And it doesn't matter, because I'll make another one that looks just like you."
To answer the OP, one of the first times I heard it was when the ACLU sued the city of New York for shutting off cable to Riker's Island. The ACLU claimed that having cable television was a right and not a privilege.Which is, of course, absurd.
I agree that it's absurd. The district court however, did not.
According to the Clash.....
This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them
Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights
And number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Dont mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang
Know these rights
Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as youre not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You dont have a home to go to
Smush
Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you
Listen to this
Run
The way I look at things, a right is something everybody should have simply by being. Rights are not determined by wealth, intelligence, sexual preference, race, ethnic background, height, or profession. I don't necessarily see all rights as equal and they may be prioritized as circumstances dictate. But any loss of rights must come with compeling reason.
A privilege is something nobody should have except by qualifying for it and may be revoked by breaking certain qualifications, generally not as serious as what is required to lose a right.
I do not see whether or not something requires a license, currently, as defining whether something is a right or a privilege. That, I believe, is putting the cart ahead of the horse. A privilege might be recognized via a license, but the requirement of a license in this imperfect society is no indicator whether something should be a right or a privilege.
That's my general baseline and I approach questions of civil rights/liberties, social equality, and other similar topics with that in mind. Ultimately, this is all intellectually constructed and not defined by anything objective in nature, but I think it's a good basis for going forward.