Difference between rights and privilege?

[Owen Sparks]

Is there any legal precedent that differentiates a right from a privilege?

As I understand it a privilege is something that can be granted or denied at the whim of the state but a right is unalienable and can only be denied after due process leading to a criminal conviction in a court of law.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yup. The folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that rights were God-given and existed even in the absence of any government whatsoever. That's why the BOR "enumerates"; it does not grant.

Privileges are what you are allowed to do.

Government has no rights. It has power.

 

[Black Duck Charlie]

So we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- as well as to eat what we want, when we want; to live where we want (unless we can't afford to, then it's a privilege); to worship whatever god(s) we want in the manner of our choosing (unless doing so will endanger the lives of others, then it's a privilege); and so on and so forth, all the way through wearing clothing to entering a Civil Union with ("marrying") who we wish to enter a Civil Union with.

Seems to me that when any of these is legislated in any way, they are no longer "rights" -- they become privileges.

 

[henschman]

I think the concept of rights were best summed up in the Declaration of Independence. "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One main point is that rights do not come from the whim of man... they are natural and inalienable. Also, we've heard it so much that it seems like nothing too special, but consider the significance of the right to "pursuit of Happiness." That is really what makes this country different from all others before or since. Every other government proclaimed that man has no right to exist for his own sake -- that his highest duty is to the king, the country, society, the collective, or his fellow man. The United States is the first and only country founded on the idea that a man has a right to exist for his own sake, as an end unto himself, with an absolute right to the pursuit of his own happiness (as long as he does so within the limits of the rights of others -- hence the language "all men are created equal").

That is a truly revolutionary concept. The fact that the right to pursuit of Happiness was given more protection in this country than in any other is why we were able to, in such a short time, create the most prosperous society the world has ever known.

Certainly it is true that if permission to do something may be granted or denied, it is not a right. Call it what you will -- privilege, grant, license, dispensation, the master's grace... but calling these things "rights" waters down the true meaning of the word, and blurs an important distinction. Remember that even a slave gets rations and a place to lay his head. Calling these things a "right" doesn't change the fact that the master can take them away at any time.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If life is an unalienable right, you also have a natural right to defend your life. Then by logical extension possession of the proper tools, weapons, is also an unalienable right because without them your life can easily be taken from you.

 

[DFWB]

Life is not unalienable, for if it were, there would be no act that justified the taking of one's life. This is obviously not true.

 

[DFWB]

In other words, if rights can be forfeit as punishment for an indiscretion of some sort, they are merely privileges. Some privileges require a harsher offense for them to be forfeit than others. We may speak of those privileges that require the harshest offenses to justify their forfeiture as 'rights', but this does not make them so, at least not in practice.

This may not hold ideally, but in practice, even in this country, there is no right or privilege that cannot be forfeit, except maybe those regarding things that cannot as of yet be controlled (i.e. thoughts, ideas, etc...).

 

[Art Eatman]

What is controlled by governmental power is how one exercises one's rights. For instance, free speech is not properly exercised by yelling and screaming into people's faces as you walk down the street.

Sure, the power of government can trample on rights and turn them into privileges. You as the public can remedy this via the courts and the ballot box--but nobody ever said it would be free and easy.

 

[ATLDave]

Are you asking a philosophical question or a legal one? Either way, it's a complicated question. Lots of different answers have been given by lots of smart people over the past 300 years or so.

It's also the kind of question that people who are not lawyers spend a lot of time arguing about in cases where they are representing themselves; it's a sure fire sign they are about to lose their case (criminal or civil, doesn't matter). No matter what answers you get to your question, don't base any real-world decisions on them.

 

[freyasman]

Henschman, I agree whole-heartedly, and I wish I was able to articulate that as well as you have. Well said!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Government has no rights. It has power.

According to the Constitution, government has enumerated powers and authorities; in reality, it has whatever powers and authorities it claims that we, the people don't specifically prohibit it from exercising.

I believe bureaucracies are closely similar to living organisms. They interact with their environments to sustain themselves, seek to reproduce themselves, and endeavor to aggrandize themselves. Is that so strange? Not at all. Any business does likewise, as does any church, neighborhood association, or other social organization. Families do this, and so do tribes, and so do nations and cultures.

Here's the catch: government as our founding fathers established it quickly discovered how to elude the constraints placed upon it, and we, the people didn't do anything about it. The longer we left government to its own devices, the more constraints it tossed aside, usually in the name of "public safety" or the "public good" or the "necessity of protecting the union," et cetera.

Government bribed us to be compliant with promises of "social security" and "welfare" and "medical care." We were naive enough to believe its promises. We let it divide and conquer us. We let it claim powers and authorities to do as it pleases and grow itself exponentially. Do you doubt me? Look at a chart of the percentage of the gross national product consumed by government over the past 100 years, say, or even the past 50. We, the people didn't exercise responsibility.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Declaration of Independence also recognizes that governments are instututed among peoples to protect the rights of the people.

Constitution of the United States refers to the States, the United States, the Congress, the Presidency and the Court as having Powers and Authorities, never Rights. So the modern reference to any government entity having "rights" is a corruption of language that serves to diminish the status of the rights of the people.

And the Supreme Court of the US has also observed that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

 

[The War Wagon]

One thing that do-gooders (think, "hoplophobes") in particular are hard-pressed to understand, is that, THEIR rights end, at MY nose!

If they desire to BE gun-free, and for their household to be as well, fine & dandy. A man's home is his castle, and if you wish to defend yours with well-wishes and unicorn farts, more power to you.

You CANNOT however, dictate to me, that I also, must defend MY castle, with nothing OTHER than unicorn methane! If YOUR rights are inalienable, than so are MINE. Do-gooders seem to take their cue too often from the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm. "All of us barnyard animals is equals... it's just that SOME of us is MORE 'equal' than others!"

Besides, if they love getting high on the unicorn methane, you can always post one of THESE in your yard, so as to affirm them in their differentness!

 

[cambeul41]

War Wagon --

Rather than, "THEIR rights end, at MY nose!" I like this one -- But I, of course, do have a gun.

"Some Thirty Inches from My Nose"
by W. H. Auden

Some thirty inches from my nose
The frontier of my Person goes,
And all the untilled air between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize,
Beware of rudely crossing it:
I have no gun, but I can spit.

 

[henschman]

Life is not unalienable, for if it were, there would be no act that justified the taking of one's life. This is obviously not true.

[. . . ]

In other words, if rights can be forfeit as punishment for an indiscretion of some sort, they are merely privileges. Some privileges require a harsher offense for them to be forfeit than others. We may speak of those privileges that require the harshest offenses to justify their forfeiture as 'rights', but this does not make them so, at least not in practice.

This may not hold ideally, but in practice, even in this country, there is no right or privilege that cannot be forfeit, except maybe those regarding things that cannot as of yet be controlled (i.e. thoughts, ideas, etc...).

I think you are missing the definition of rights. The idea is that one person's rights end where another person's equal rights begin. The fact that there are limits to everyone's rights does not mean rights are not inalienable. "Inalienable" just means that the rights cannot be legitimately denied by anyone. You have an inalienable right to live in such a manner that your continued life does not constitute a threat to any of the equal rights of others. We abbreviate this by saying you have a "right to life." No one's right to life includes the right to live a life of murder and mayhem, as that would diminish the rights of others and give that person special privileges. That would violate the definition of rights, which can be summed up as "the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally."

 

[brickeyee]

Life is not unalienable, for if it were, there would be no act that justified the taking of one's life.

ANY right can be taken away following due process.

Life is indeed unalienable under our system, and takes the highest level of diu process to take away.

 

[beatledog7]

Rights vs. Privileges?

Rights are inherent; each person has them by virtue of having been born into existence. Rights cannot be suspended except by due process of law and then only because the right-holder voluntarily engaged in an activity deemed egregious enough to warrant a trial which could result in such suspension. Person A's rights can never extend past the border of Person B's rights.

A classic example: If A wants to smoke he has that right as long as the smoke doesn't intrude on B's right to breathe smoke-free air. Nobody has the power to tell A he can't smoke as long as his smoking doesn't violate B's air. (Granted, that's not always as cut and dried as I state it, but we all understand the principle.)

Privileges are earned. They are bestowed upon an individual by some entity (government, employer, parent, teacher, etc.) who has the requisite and legitimate authority to either grant or withhold the same once the proposed recipient of the privilege has demonstrated the appropriate level of responsibility and deservedness. Privileges, once granted, can be revoked for whatever reason the grantor decides.

A classic example: Mom and Dad are impressed by their teenage daughter's school grades and willingness to help out around the house, and they decide to let her begin dating: a privilege she has earned and which the parents have the power to grant. Daughter's first date out involves a prohibited activity and ends in a curfew violation. Dating privilege is revoked. No discussion, no trial. Parents granted it, parents revoked it.

The Second Amendment does not grant RKBA; it recognizes that we have always had RKBA and guarantees protection of RKBA. That's the very definition of a right.

 

[Owen Sparks]

brickeyee

ANY right can be taken away following due process.

Life is indeed unalienable under our system, and takes the highest level of diu process to take away.

So if we were to apply this principle to weapons, you could only be denied the right to keep and bear upon conviction in a court of law with witnesses and evidence proving you to be danger to society.

John Stewart Mill said:

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

 

[Tipro]

Is there any legal precedent that differentiates a right from a privilege?

As I understand it a privilege is something that can be granted or denied at the whim of the state but a right is unalienable and can only be denied after due process leading to a criminal conviction in a court of law.

A right pre-exists, while a privilege is granted.

We have a right to keep and bear arms (at least, that's how I read the 2A. Don't know about some others...)

We have the privilege of wearing them concealed.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Where does the Constitution say anything about bearing concealed arms being a privilege?

 

[Tipro]

Where does the Constitution say anything about bearing concealed arms being a privilege?

Yeah, it doesn't say anything about it...A constitutional right to carry concealed has not yet been recognized (by the fed's), and has been interpreted in the vast majority of states as a privilege. That's why here in NC we have to prove to the government we are capable of carrying concealed, whereas the government has to prove you are not capable of simply purchasing a pistol. A right has to be taken, a privilege has to be given.

 

[Tipro]

Is there any legal precedent that differentiates a right from a privilege?

"But it is said that a suit for injunction will not lie in the instant case because no property rights of the appellant have been invaded. Whether a right to use the public highways for the ordinary and usual purposes of life be a property right or not, it is a very valuable right, not a mere privilege." Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 586 (VA 1930).

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

If you noticed your post disappeared, it's because you either started talking about birth control or replied to someone talking about birth control. That's not a topic for this forum.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Sometimes the distinction between a right and a privilege is blurry. The Second Amendment may enumerate the right to keep and bear arms, but by and large you have to get a permit or license to actually do it.

 

[pseudonymity]

In the context of RKBA, the second amendment did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights specifically kept the federal government from exercising its power with respect to that right (not that it has really stopped the federal government in any substantial way, regulation of commerce my eye). In all other areas the states were considered sovereign, and the second amendment did not withhold the states from restricting the RKBA and the constitution held no sway over the states with respect to RKBA until the passage of the fourteenth amendment. Even then, the incorporation of the second amendment was not upheld in case law until McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

Interestingly, the incorporation of the second amendment is based on the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. As important as I think McDonald v. Chicago is to the RKBA, I wonder if there is a future loophole in the implicit admission that the RKBA was incorporated as a privilege, not an extension of the natural right to self defence and self governance.