Rights vs Privileges

I rarely start threads in this forum but over the years I have seen tons of posts talking about Rights. In interviews, you hear people telling us it's their RIGHT to do/have/say something. Is it? When is a so called Right actually a Privilege? Often, I think accidents of birth (usually where, but there are other considerations) determine what Privileges you are entitled to. So, my question (leaving the US Constitution aside) is what BASIC rights should ALL people have as opposed to what Privileges they enjoy based around such things as where they live?

I'm interested too to see if the European and perhaps Asian viewpoints differ from the Western (American) one.

Interesting topic. You could start from the U.N. definition of what should be every humans right. That would give a worldwide minimum I suppose?

If you go by swedish standard it becomes more obscure... now internet, tv and phone is a standard "right" that all swedish people should have. This is defined by what you are allowed to have in order to get money from the gouverment.

However in order to get money from gouverment you can't have a car, own your apartment or house or other things considered "luxury"

It's an impossible question to answer, because we all have different needs and standards. The answer will inevitably be one that will fit whatever society any individual belongs to - and be based on the norms of that society. Norms are different and in constant fluctuation.

Seeing as how I like to consider myself an outsider, because I don't feel comfortable being considered part of any group (except my family), I don't think much of what others say I have the right to do.

So, I don't really care about rights. I just do what I THINK is right, whenever possible.

But, obviously, we have to make society work as long as there is no alternative. In that way, I think all individuals should have the right to everything that brings more benefit than harm. But that's also impossible to determine. When does something become harmful, and who gets to decide that?

In my opinion, the society of the world - and of this country - is shock full of legal ways to do harm. The entire structure of our society is based on harming others.

People generally feel comfortable following the law, no matter the consequences. It's like everything that is legal is ok. That is a horrible way of thinking, but as far as I can see - it's the norm.

But, I really have no way of answering the question with any kind of precision.

Well, an example close to home here would be the right to express your opinion on your own website vs the privilege of expressing it on someones else's site.

I'm raising the bar here above the "obvious" minimums, but mine would be the right to free speech in any common medium and education, where higher education is a privilege (but is debatable when it's unaffordable).

It really depends on the views of every person. I would basically say everybody should have as follows-

1. Safety
2. Shelter
3. Food

Everything else is a luxury. If a government provides the three basic needs its done it job. The right of the individual shouldn't matter as long as the majority
of your citizens are provided for. Everybody living in Free country's thinks and lives under an illusion that your rights matter to the government. You can change a government to any type and it will always be the same. Those with power and those who have none. The problem is some governments wont provide anything and only enrich themselves and we see what happens to those country's riots and revolutions.

I tend to think along the lines of Couchpotato. I believe very strongly in negative rights (IE the right not to have something taken away such as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, Bare Arms, etc.). Those rights cost very little in terms of the government protecting them.

Positive rights, on the other hand, have quantifiable costs that can be quite high. The only real question to me is if the societal benefit of having the government provide those benefits outweighs the societal cost. So for instance, the right to a fair trail (or justice) is not cheap, but I think most reasonable people would agree that without it, society would break down. Hence the benefits outweigh the costs.

When you start getting into food, shelter, healthcare, etc., then it starts getting a little more dicey. Food and shelter are fairly straight forward to provide though there is some variability in cost, but IMO, it really should only be for the most desperate. Despite being a hard core liberaterian in most aspects, I firmly believe that in countries as rich as western countries are, there is simply no excuse for ANYONE to be homeless or hungry.

Healthcare is a huge mess to provide though and I really have zero confidence for a government run program to work any better, in total, than the hodge podge of private/public plans we have now. It's a huge can of warms and the cost really has no roof, so I think the government should stay out of it.

I don't know that you're going to get as much disagreement on this as you'd think with the way the question is worded, Corwin. I expect most everyone is going to settle in on survival necessities (food, shelter, safety) as basic rights and everything else is gravy. You really have to introduce the entitlement angle (what does society owe you?) to get the spittle flying.

The Swedish standard is that every citizen have the right to participate in the democracy. That means you need everything essential to participate. This includes internet, phone, tv, education and a couple of other things not seen as luxury, but seen as a must to be a democratic citizen.


Now as I see it, the goal of a society is survival. The strategy to survive is to preserve stability. This may be done by keeping enough people satisfied enough to grant the government power to quell the opposition. Over time a population grow with experience, so it might be neccessary to reform estabilished principles in order to adapt to new challeges.

With that in mind I have learned that sometimes you have to give to someone who do not deserve it, in order to keep true to the principles that holds up society as a whole. The common myths of a left-aligned branch is that all in power are evil elitists where as the right-aligned branch consider all who get handouts to be freeloaders or parasites who should get a real job. Once you begin to analyse these two you may find that common assumptions and myths aren't regulary true, but it does happen, and it only takes a few famous cases to create and keep the myths alive.

Now whether something is a right or a privilegium, that is up the democratic process. The answer to that question may change over time. When a large population agree that it is their right to get something out of the society, can the society say no? If you keep saying no you might be in for a revolution. A society who wants to survive might grant such wishes, even if those wishes under a just analysis is actually a privilegium.

GothicGothicness said:

Interesting topic. You could start from the U.N. definition of what should be every humans right. That would give a worldwide minimum I suppose?

If you go by swedish standard it becomes more obscure… now internet, tv and phone is a standard "right" that all swedish people should have. This is defined by what you are allowed to have in order to get money from the gouverment.

However in order to get money from gouverment you can't have a car, own your apartment or house or other things considered "luxury"

Click to expand...

If you're refering to what welfare will pay for you, you're a bit of. the government will not pay your internet or tv-bills and a bit anachronistically will only pay for land-line phones and not mobile ones. You might however be allowed to keep your apartment espescially if you have kids or keep your car if it could help you get a job. The goal is to get people out of wellfare without completely screwing up their lives.

My own take on what rights we should all have is I suppose quite swedish, I believe food, shelter and securtity to be a bare minimum. I think that healthcare and education should also be basic rights. The ability to actively participate in democracy with all that might entail should also be guaranteed, though not necessarily for example a right to have a computer at home but rather access to one. Can't think of anything else right now.

First of all: Equality. Equal respect, equal payment for equal work, equal opportunities, equal liberties, equal rights.

The right to be treated equally should not be a privilege that's been given to some by birth.
Some are more equal than others, but that won't change any time soon I'm afraid.

Omega said:

First of all: Equality. Equal respect, equal payment for equal work, equal opportunities, equal liberties, equal rights.

The right to be treated equally should not be a privilege that's been given to some by birth.
Some are more equal than others, but that won't change any time soon I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Ah, just the opening I needed. If something is a right, could we not agree that it should be verifiable that is it given evenly to all, both in quality and quantity? How does one quantify opportunity? If someone is going to declare something a right, it has to be documentable. (That's the advantage of privileges, BTW—they don't have to be equal for all, by definition) So, how do you decide if two people have been given their right to equal opportunity? Aside from the fundamental impossibility of a universal definition of a subjective term like "equal", do you base your measure on starting point ("promise") or ending point ("results")? If you base it on level beginnings, you don't get an equal result as different people will get different results from the exact same starting point. If you base it on level results, you don't get equal inputs as different people will require more or less assistance to get to the same finish line. Either way, there's no objective way to verify your results. Thus, people will always complain that they didn't get a fair shake and your utopian "equality for all" is doomed to failure.

Equal opportunity is different from equal results, so I'd definitely prefer the initial conditions definition. You can't control/predict what people do with their opportunities.

Hard to measure the equality of opportunity, I think, but its a good goal to strive for, even if a few of privileged class get their panties in a bunch.

Certainly equal access to education is a big one. And related, information provided on the public airwaves should not be used to deceive.

dteowner said:

Ah, just the opening I needed.

Click to expand...

Great to see you onboard with us free speech advocates!

I remember a friend of mine who is a professor in a university on politics and human rights. The discussions would go on for hours and he would always counter with an answer that would make you think. Basically about what are the laws of the land and if they are just. Do we have the right to tell others how to live and about government corruption. All I know is he made me think about my country in new views and open your eyes on how the world works. I highly recommended taking a political major or minor it will open your eyes.

dteowner said:

Thus (…) your utopian "equality for all" is doomed to failure.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a pessimistic view.

dteowner said:

If you base it on level results (…)

Click to expand...

To base the measure on ending point is ridiculous IMHO. The right to be treated equally doesn't imply everybody needs to be equal in the end. Everybody's unique in one way or another (individuality is not a right but a natural phenomenon), so hey, there'll be always an area of tension when dealing with equal right and equal opportunities in particular.

dteowner said:

How does one quantify opportunity?

Click to expand...

The administration of justice, at least in my country, already takes into account personal circumstances, why this explicit need to quantify when dealing with equal opportunity? To me equal right isn't a matter of simply adding and subtracting, it isn't mathematics. It may be science but science has dealt with uncertainties before.

dteowner said:

Either way, there's no objective way to verify your results. Thus, people will always complain that they didn't get a fair shake

Click to expand...

Because some things are debatable, it doesn't mean *every*thing's questionable. Some things are easily to assess, e.g. equal payment for equal work, equal treatment when dealing with civil service or judicial authorities, the ability to speak your mind. Some things may take more time, beforehand (to define the specific right) and afterwards (to evaluate an individual case, to deal with a single complaint). Sometimes it may well be impossible to assess the exact damage done and I'm quite sure that in certain cases it will be impossible to repair damage done. But there would be attention, it would be noticed, it would be looked into, not ignored completely, which in itself would already make a huge difference, I think.

O, and another basic right IMO: the right to take your own life in a humane way, i.e. via a drug. Not only when suffering from a terminal physical disease like cancer, but when having alzheimer's disease, when having a serious psychiatric disorder for years and years, which, in fact, can't be cured, or when having reached 90 or 100 or so, everybody you once knew is dead, you have no binding with the present era and you're just tired and have had enough and are craving for the end.

I think it is ridiculous to force people to live their life against their strongest and deepfelt will/longing. I do not think it is humane to have people kill themselves by jumping of buildings or throwing themselves in front of a train.
The government has little problem sending many young women and men in the prime of their life to war, but when a few are trying to take their own life all of a sudden life is sacred.

(No, I'm not suicidal)

If you're going to give people rights or take them away, you shouldn't do it based on anything at all - except what's available.

You give everything to everyone, regardless. That's because we're all equal - and if we're not, no one can measure worth or entitlement. That's not possible.

You'll find humanity much better off if you don't try to separate one human being from the other.

I think it is ridiculous to force people to live their life against their strongest and deepfelt will/longing. I do not think it is humane to have people kill themselves by jumping of buildings or throwing themselves in front of a train.

Click to expand...

There is a huge problem with this statement. Because people can be depressed for a lot of reasons... one of them being medication against a sickness. Their value of postive enzymes might be very low in a certain moment making them certain they want to take their own life. Only to regret it later.

If someone whoever is really sick with a disease that cannot be cured.... that is another mater entirely.

GothicGothicness said:

There is a huge problem with this statement. Because people can be depressed for a lot of reasons… one of them being medication against a sickness. Their value of postive enzymes might be very low in a certain moment making them certain they want to take their own life. Only to regret it later.

If someone whoever is really sick with a disease that cannot be cured…. that is another mater entirely.

Click to expand...

He's saying that we're providing the conditions in many cases, where people feel it's the best way out.

I don't know how much of that we can prevent, but I'm 100% sure that we could prevent A LOT of people from killing themselves in such ways.

Actually, I think we could prevent A LOT of people from killing themselves altogether - but that's another story.

He's saying that we're providing the conditions in many cases, where people feel it's the best way out.

Click to expand...

Correction, she is saying

Anyway, this had been discussed almost endlessly here, and the problem is really where to draw the line, who gets help and who doesn't ?