Which is your preferred Gov't. One that grants rights, or one that's prevented from interfering?

Carjosse said:

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? You can have both, it is the defining trait of modern liberalism.

Click to expand...

Here in the US we have given up on a representative government of/by/for the people.

code1211 said:

Of course there are.

I have the right to free speech unless it is removed by others.

I don't have the right to vote or drive or buy stuff unless it is granted and protected by others.

See the difference?

If Code says something in the forest, did he actually make a sound? Doesn't matter. He has the right to say it.

Click to expand...

Those are rights granted by the government

I read Might Makes Right a couple of years ago. That is how it is and how it's going to be in the future.

vegas giants said:

Those are rights granted by the government

Click to expand...

So, if I say something in the forest and nobody hears it, who will stop it from happening?

The point is that there is a difference in the things that I may do. Speaking is an intrinsic right. If it hurts no one, I may do it.

Voting is not an intrinsic right. It requires the cooperation of others to do so.

If my actions require no cooperation to commit them, they are my right to perform.

If my actions require the cooperation of others to commit within a society of any size, they are a granted privilege.

"You can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?"
- Kahlil Gibran

code1211 said:

So, if I say something in the forest and nobody hears it, who will stop it from happening?

The point is that there is a difference in the things that I may do. Speaking is an intrinsic right. If it hurts no one, I may do it.

Voting is not an intrinsic right. It requires the cooperation of others to do so.

If my actions require no cooperation to commit them, they are my right to perform.

If my actions require the cooperation of others to commit within a society of any size, they are a granted privilege.

"You can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?"
- Kahlil Gibran

Click to expand...

This is pointless semantics. It is saying if no one sees it then you can do it. Completely pointless

vegas giants said:

This is pointless semantics. It is saying if no one sees it then you can do it. Completely pointless

Click to expand...

Actual fact is described using words.

In that way, it is semantics.

HOWEVER, the only rights a person has within a society are rights that would also exist outside a society.

Every other activity or process in which participation is allowed is granted as a granted privilege.

"We hold these truths to be self evident... Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These are the "rights" recognized by the framers.

These are things that exist inside of or outside of any society. They are intrinsic to existence unless acted upon by others.

Granted privileges are activities or processes that exist inside of society and DO NOT exist outside of society. They are contrivances of societal interactions and do not exist in the wild.

Think Jeremiah Johnson compared to Susan B.Anthony.