• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why The 'Rights' Vs 'Privileges' Argument Is Silly

Geoist

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
35,088
Reaction score
26,938
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
 
Good luck with that with your fellow libertarians. It's why I'm no longer one.
 
Because "Erhmahgerhd!!! SOCIALISM!!" :roll:
 
Governments aren't a privilege. They are a necessary evil. Their responsibility is to construct and enforce laws with the minimum infringement on personal liberty. That is what our founding was about. It is what our Bill of Rights is about. Yet, governments also gather ever greater powers to themselves and that power comes at the expense of individual rights. It is why surrendering your freedom in order to find security is a losing proposition. Government is needed. It's simply the degree we are willing to tolerate. Also, all the services which government provides are ultimately paid for by taxpayers so they are hardly privileges. They are no more privileges than buying a loaf of bread is a privilege given you by the grocery store. Government bestows very few privileges in fact.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to schools, or fire departments. Just because the state provides a service does not mean you have a right to it. I don't think you understand the term, or natural rights for that matter.

Your rights are what your government cannot do to you. Read your way down the bill of rights, they're all "negative rights." None of my rights cost anyone a dime. They're all things I can invoke in a court of law that a judge must uphold.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...

That's your right to think that.










Had to go there.
 
In our Constitutional Republic form of governance, there are distinct & demarcated legal & constitutional differences between the two (rights v privileges).
 
veritas1 said:
Governments aren't a privilege. They are a necessary evil. Their responsibility is to construct and enforce laws with the minimum infringement on personal liberty. That is what our founding was about. It is what our Bill of Rights is about. Yet, governments also gather ever greater powers to themselves and that power comes at the expense of individual rights. It is why surrendering your freedom in order to find security is a losing proposition. Government is needed. It's simply the degree we are willing to tolerate. Also, all the services which government provides are ultimately paid for by taxpayers so they are hardly privileges. They are no more privileges than buying a loaf of bread is a privilege given you by the grocery store. Government bestows very few privileges in fact.
Click to expand...

A representative government is supposed to be reflective of the people they represent. That you instantly hate it speaks to your mind set you have of your own countrymen.
 
Chomsky said:
In our Constitutional Republic form of governance, there are distinct & demarcated legal & constitutional differences between the two (rights v privileges).
Click to expand...

Legally maybe that's true. But philosophically and ideologically, there are no easy lines to draw of where something is a right or a privilege. Because it doesn't take much to take any right to some ridiculous extreme that is clearly dysfunctional. So even if you define something as a right, it can never be unlimited and inviolable. All rights have limits.

And that's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia when talking, for example here when about gun rights:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, in Heller vs. DC
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
A representative government is supposed to be reflective of the people they represent. That you instantly hate it speaks to your mind set you have of your own countrymen.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. If you bothered to read for comprehension, you'd see that I was describing what government is and what it is supposed to do. I said nothing about hating it. To say that any government is protective of individual rights simply because a people either tolerate it or feel compelled to surrender their freedom to it, is a silly argument. It is false on its face.
 
ataraxia said:
Legally maybe that's true. But philosophically and ideologically, there are no easy lines to draw of where something is a right or a privilege. Because it doesn't take much to take any right to some ridiculous extreme that is clearly dysfunctional. So even if you define something as a right, it can never be unlimited and inviolable. All rights have limits.

And that's not just my opinion. That's the opinion of the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia when talking, for example here when about gun rights:
Click to expand...
Alright, I can respect that.
 
veritas1 said:
Complete nonsense. If you bothered to read for comprehension, you'd see that I was describing what government is and what it is supposed to do. I said nothing about hating it. To say that any government is protective of individual rights simply because a people either tolerate it or feel compelled to surrender their freedom to it, is a silly argument. It is false on its face.
Click to expand...

veritas1 said:
Governments aren't a privilege. They are a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

That is your description. No amount of parsing undoes that unless you were to precede it with, "I'd be and idiot if I said..."
 
poweRob said:
That is your description. No amount of parsing undoes that unless you were to precede it with, "I'd be and idiot if I said..."
Click to expand...

I stand by that 100%. It is a statement of fact. No government means chaos and the strong terrorizing the weak. However, too much government is equally as dangerous. Government should do that which is productive of security and stability commensurate with maximum allowable individual liberty. Like I said, you haven't read for comprehension in your eagerness to attack me. You have failed.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...

What are you actually saying? I honestly have no idea. That the government is a privilege? That a police force is a privilege? That sounds about right, but How does that relate to a natural rights?
 
I also think we should distinguish among specific rights found in the Constitution, natural rights spoken of by Jefferson, and the legislation that has created rights to a minimum wage, et al.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/04/16/rights-versus-wishes


Here is what presidential aspirant Sen. Bernie Sanders said: "I believe that health care is a right of all people." President Barack Obama declared that health care "should be a right for every American." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Every person has a right to adequate health care." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his January 1944 message to Congress, called for "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." And it is not just a health care right that people claim. There are rights to decent housing, good food and a decent job, and for senior citizens, there's a right to prescription drugs. In a free and moral society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

In the standard historical usage of the term, a "right" is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Contrast those rights to free speech and travel with the supposed rights to medical care and decent housing. Those supposed rights do impose obligations upon others. We see that by recognizing that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy. If one does not have money to pay for a medical service or decent housing and the government provides it, where do you think the government gets the money?
Click to expand...
 
Government privileges are postive rights, which are subordinate to negative rights. That is how the US's government was structured.
 
Geoist said:
I often see posters bring up the privilege/right argument when it comes to the role of government. What they fail to realize is that having a government system in the first place is already a privilege intended to benefit society. So unless you are against any and all forms of government (e.g. an anarcho-capitalist), you already believe in government's role to provide privileges. Do you believe taxpayers should fund police departments? Schools? Fire departments? Infrastructure? How are any of those any more of a 'right' than, say, a public health system or a student loans program?

Instead of arguing over what are 'natural rights' (if that even exists) we should be debating over the best ways to correct the problems our society faces.
Click to expand...


Rights things granted by the US Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, it's a privilege.

This is why many progressives support an amendment making health care a right in order to put an end to republicans blocking providing health care to all citizens.

Not silly at all, it's an important debate. Life and death, for some people.
 
OscarLevant said:
Rights things granted by the US Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, it's a privilege.

This is why many progressives support an amendment making health care a right in order to put an end to republicans blocking providing health care to all citizens.

Not silly at all, it's an important debate. Life and death, for some people.
Click to expand...

You have many rights that ae not listed in the constitution. I refer you to the ninth amendment
 
vegas giants said:
You have many rights that ae not listed in the constitution. I refer you to the ninth amendment
Click to expand...

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction regarding Article I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom