rights and privileges

Status
Not open for further replies.
I value the right to govern myself in all thngs, God and the Wife notwithstanding.

What good is life if you're a trained puppy. Regulated from birth and making payments to the powers that be for everything? When I try to do the right thing, they come back with 'you didn't dot your i, pay more please.

That's crap. They know it, I know it, you all know it. It's a game they play to see how far they can push us and how much they can extort without causing revolution.

Trying to do the right thing is like panning for gold in a pool full og diahrehha, even if you find a nugget, you're still covered in s**t.

200,000 years from now when I look back at my life, I don't want to see myself as a puppy dog who caved into everything the guys with the guns & badges said for me to do. The least I could've done was to die standing up for what was right. They can only kill my body once, never can they kill my spirit.

No slam to good LEO's. Just philisophically speaking.
 
We a little bitter?


Personally, I feel the right to breathe, the right to see my family every day, the right to worship whom I wish, and the right to see my daughter grow up are the most important rights in my life.

The rest, even the right to keep and bear arms, is trivial, in the grand scheme of things. If I could trade every gun in the world for a guarantee of a happy and prosperous life for my daughter, Id do it in a heartbeat.
 
If I could trade every gun in the world for a guarantee of a happy and prosperous life for my daughter, Id do it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Isn't that more or less the bargain being offered by the gun control groups?
 
It is promised, but Im not an idiot, I know this can and will never happen. I speak only in terms of fantasy, to prove a point.
 
What rights do you value most?
Click to expand...

I value a right that seems very broad at it's beginning but ends up being rather narrow.

It is the right to do as I please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
 
It is promised, but Im not an idiot, I know this can and will never happen. I speak only in terms of fantasy, to prove a point.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a lot of idiots think that fantasy can be a reality...

If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that you value your (and your families) right to life above all else? Guns are a means to that end, tools to be used when necessary, and you value them only insofar as they further that end?
 
It is the right to do as I please as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

The problem is that "others" will claim needs, wants, and privileges and then call them "rights"...failure to satisfy their demands will lead to accusations that you are "infringing on their rights"
 
Contemporary life is a balancing act of all sorts of compromises. The overwhelming view on this board is one of personal responsibility and personal consequences. The prevailing view in this country, and most of the modern world, is one of big government intervention into the daily lives of citizens. That is why you see the term "rights" hijacked and twisted into a meaning it does not have. I see the BOR as a codification of the natural rights of all humans. In other words, all humans have natural rights, endowed to them by their creator. Most governments (and people, for that matter) believe that society confers rights on individuals, and that each society, as represented by it government, has the moral "right" to bestow and withdraw benefits to its citizens. People who think that way, IMO, do not recognize any natural law or creator as a higher authority. To them, society, as represented by government, IS the higher power.
 
So far as I'm concerned, Ayn Rand absolutely nailed the definition of what constitutes a right.

One of the litmus tests she came up with goes thusly:

Whenever someone starts pining about having a right to this or that, ask yourself "At whose cost do we get that right?" If that right can only come at the forced expense of another, then it obviously is not a true civil right.

Based on this litmus test, it becomes painfully obvious that most people aren't advocating civil rights so much as forced extortion.

Also, civil rights cannot possibly be collective. In other words, the rights of five, ten, or 200 million people do not outweigh liberties of a single individual. To do so is to simply allow a situation where everyone's rights can be erroded a bit at a time for the so-called "common good."
 
I'm more concerned that so many people cannot understand what are, and are not, rights. Probably more than half of America believes they have a "right" to free healthcare, free education, a "livable" wage, and any number of other goodies.

Our freedoms can only be infringed by force or threat of force, thus it stands that any alleged "right" that can only be guaranteed by initiation of force is a fraud. Real rights prohibit the initiation of force, and the counterfeit variety authorize it. Since the welfare state can only be achieved through predatory taxation and redistribution of wealth, conducted under threat of JBT, it is an assault on freedom, sold to the people under the guise of counterfeit "rights".
 
The problem is that "others" will claim needs, wants, and privileges and then call them "rights"...failure to satisfy their demands will lead to accusations that you are "infringing on their rights"
Click to expand...

Only if they ignore the positive/negative rights dichotomy. Read what Justin wrote--I have a right to own a gun. I have a right to healthcare. I do not have the rights to either of those for free.

Just ask: "At whose expense?" If the answer is anybody else but you, sorry, pal, you're out of luck.
 
Justin said:
Also, civil rights cannot possibly be collective. In other words, the rights of five, ten, or 200 million people do not outweigh liberties of a single individual. To do so is to simply allow a situation where everyone's rights can be erroded a bit at a time for the so-called "common good."
Click to expand...
Agreed in principle, however, there may be limits. The owner of a steel mill in a small town decides it's cheaper to dump waste into the local river, than to pay someone to haul it off. Over time, the local water quality deteriorates and becomes a health hazard for many people. Under the Ayn Rand theory, does the government not have the power, under threat of force, to compel the owner to stop dumping waste? Or would that be "coercion", therefore prohibited?

Building codes might be another example.
 
No, Im not, as this is a work in fantasy only. It will never happen[...]
I was merely stating that , given the choice between a perfect world with no guns, and the ensuing prosperous and happy life of my child, or the world as it nnow is, the guns would gladly go...notice I said ALL guns.

if you wouldnt do the same, you have some issues with material possesions being more important than family, friens, and people in general. They are simply objects.

(Rude and crude comments deleted)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was merely stating that , given the choice between a perfect world with no guns, and the ensuing prosperous and happy life of my child, or the world as it nnow is, the guns would gladly go...notice I said ALL guns.
Click to expand...
Well, at least we know where you stand.
if you wouldnt do the same, you have some issues with material possesions being more important than family, friens, and people in general. They are simply objects.
Click to expand...
Either that, or some people see an issue with living in a world where the strong will always be able to coerce and control the weak through force. No guns, right? Who'd do your job? Me and some buddies decide to have some "fun" with (unwilling) junior-high age girls, armed with baseball bats and kitchen knives. There are 8 of us.

Who's gonna stop us? You? Without a gun?

I don't think so. But at least your teenage daughter is safe. Be happy about that.
 
Hey, you might try a course in reading comprehension.....this is a work in fantasy..never gonna happen. If it did, it would under the assumption that no one would NEED the guns that are gone..Hello?
 
If you'd meant that, you would have posited a world where all children were guaranteed a "happy and prosperous life." Instead, you offered to sell us all out for the hypothetical benefit of your daughter alone.

Now I have a better understanding of where you're coming from on other threads. Thanks.
 
The whole inalienable, inherent, human rights, etc. etc. thing is giving me a headache. Can't we just find someone that will tell us what we can and cannot do? It seems like things would be a lot easier. I would definitely have more time to watch TV if that's ok with whoever is in charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
RKBA, natural right or 'licensed privilege'?
Replies
11
Views
672
Art Eatman
A
O
  • Locked
Bill of Rights or Privileges?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
General Geoff
General Geoff
C
  • Locked
Rights vs Privileges
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
w_houle
W
B
  • Locked
Freedom
Replies
3
Views
418
Correia
C
S
  • Locked
What is the 'legal' definition of a 'license', a 'right'?
Replies
0
Views
3K
suijurisfreeman
S
Back
Top