Rights vs Priviledges, how do we convey the difference to people?

[Primus]

In Missouri, and likely other states, a DL is required to operate certain types of vehicles on the public roads. No DL is required to operate farm machinery on the public roads. This clearly indicates that a DL is a scam and rights violation in those states that do not require a DL to drive a tractor on the road.

It might also have to do with the damage a kabota can do. Sure they are big and heavy and run into stuff..... but they aren't 5000lbs and can do over a hundred...

Could also be how many ok road tractor accident fatalities are there? Probably not many.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

First... looks like you posted USC or federal definition or a motor vehicle..... so means squat for States...

Yeah. He does that. I don't pay any attention to his arguments. I bet he puts real lawyers in stitches. He's one of these guys who thinks you can do anything you want on a highway without bothering to get a license.

I wouldn't take him too seriously. Just point out the silliness of his post, as you did, and move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

First.... you have to decide is driving a car a right. Your basing that on your right to travel. Well your right to travel is exactly that... right to travel. It means move from location to location. Never specified HOW.

So since the right we have is to TRAVEL not to drive (different as already pointed out) then its a privilege.

A few have said if you drive commercially then you need a license. Well why? Either its your right or its not. Its all or nothing. Either you can drive a bulldozer down the road with out a license and a fuel truck down the highway because you are traveling or you can't. Either its a right or its not.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So, using this argument, we have the right to black powder rifles, but 1911's are a privilege. We have the right to a 1700's era printing press or writing by hand, but smart phones and wifi are a privilege.

To think rights are only applicable to past technology instead of available technology...*shakes head*

We have a right to travel. Not a right to only travel by horse, buggy or pogo stick.
We have a right to bear arms; not a right to only bear flintlocks or daggers.
We have a right to peaceful assembly and free speech; not a right to only have approved assembly and favorable speech.

What is the criteria here; rights, or the means used to exercise them?

 

[Freedom1Man]

So, using this argument, we have the right to black powder rifles, but 1911's are a privilege. We have the right to a 1700's era printing press or writing by hand, but smart phones and wifi are a privilege.

To think rights are only applicable to past technology instead of available technology...*shakes head*

We have a right to travel. Not a right to only travel by horse, buggy or pogo stick.
We have a right to bear arms; not a right to only bear flintlocks or daggers.
We have a right to peaceful assembly and free speech; not a right to only have approved assembly and favorable speech.

What is the criteria here; rights, or the means used to exercise them?

Thank you.

The right to travel is expressed in the 1st amendment anyways. As you have the right to peaceably assemble and that means you have the right to use the modern modes of conveyance to travel to get to an assembly and that was not a limitation on that right at all.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

"First.... you have to decide is driving a car a right. Your basing that on your right to travel."

No, I am not. The question is not "do I have a right to do this?" The question is, what authority do you have to stop me? None. If you disagree, let's hear an argument which addresses the right of the issue, not the practicality of one stance or the other.


"Well your right to travel is exactly that... right to travel. It means move from location to location. Never specified HOW."

Same argument that gun control proponents use, which has been refuted countless times. Would you say that the government may regulate the amount of breaths you may take in one minute? Or would you say that as you have a right to life, you are protected from prohibitions or regulations on breathing air? You have a God-given right to breath, and regulation of your breathing would absolutely be an infringement on your right to breath, even though it wouldn't (probably) kill you.

"So since the right we have is to TRAVEL not to drive (different as already pointed out) then its a privilege."

This really makes no sense. "You have a right to eat fruit, but not specifically apples. Eating apples is a privilege (no foundation for this presumption is necessary). You can still eat oranges unregulated, so your so called "right" to eat fruit is unabridged." This, again, is the same reasoning (or lack thereof) used by gun control proponents and I'm sure that this line of reasoning has been thoroughly refuted countless times on these forums. Just change the Xs and the Ys and you are <some gun control proponent> all of a sudden like.

Edit:

MOREOVER - as we (or at least I) have been able to determine, a "privilege" is authority which is derived from a humanly source that isn't naturally possessed. So, for argument's sake, let's say that "driving" is a privilege. Who originally has that authority to drive, such that they can then grant (or deny) the privilege of driving to another person? From where is the authority (in the form of "privilege") derived? The government? Where the **** did they get it, if not from the consent of the people?!?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Yeah. He does that. I don't pay any attention to his arguments. I bet he puts real lawyers in stitches. He's one of these guys who thinks you can do anything you want on a highway without bothering to get a license.

I wouldn't take him too seriously. Just point out the silliness of his post, as you did, and move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Are you his debate coach now?

 

[Freedom1Man]

SNIP
Edit:

MOREOVER - as we (or at least I) have been able to determine, a "privilege" is authority which is derived from a humanly source that isn't naturally possessed. So, for argument's sake, let's say that "driving" is a privilege. Who originally has that authority to drive, such that they can then grant (or deny) the privilege of driving to another person? From where is the authority (in the form of "privilege") derived? The government? Where the **** did they get it, if not from the consent of the people?!?

Cut short to not re-post the entire statement.

I have been thinking about this and I offer up this idea about rights.
Since rights are a natural thing and they exist without government then we only need to ask the question, "If the government were to dissolve this intense could I still do this activity?"

I own an automobile and I have the right to travel about in it, now the government is gone, could I still use it on the roadways? Yes or no? (yes)
I have a right to defend myself, does this still exist once the government is gone? Yes or no? (yes)
I have the right to vote, does this still exist once the government is gone? Yes or no? (no) The 'right' to vote is a privilege that can only exist when there is a form of government.

 

[eye95]

Are you his debate coach now?

Nope, I just see him being routinely abused by the cadre here. He is handling the childishness well, but I thought of a few useful tips. Sorry if that bothers you. Wait...no, I'm not.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Nope, I just see him being routinely abused by the cadre here. He is handling the childishness well, but I thought of a few useful tips. Sorry if that bothers you. Wait...no, I'm not.

Curious as to why you condemn in others what this particular pet poster of your's is noted for engaging in? Primus is the poster child for evasiveness, and any post he submits with over four words typically employs straw man / red herring / appeals to popularity fallacies. That is by no means the limit of his fallacy repertoire, just the one's he typically leads with. This you find acceptable, and condemn those that respond in like or respond out of frustration at the childish, circular antics.

I suspect what we are experiencing from you in this is little more than desperate clinging to fear based Statism, enlisting help from any quarter that might benefit you in your attempts to control the forum.

Please don't view any of this as a slight or an attack. It's an observation that has generated some questions. The answers might clarify your agenda, whether it is one of promoting discussion or establishing control. You'll find some resistance in attempts to dominate others here, whether it be under the guise of superior intellect or appeals to your concept of appropriate forum discourse. Something tells me you are no longer satisfied "being a part of" and are engaging in some kind of power struggle. One problem you'll face in that is not many here agreed to play.

 

[OC for ME]

It might also have to do with the damage a kabota can do. Sure they are big and heavy and run into stuff..... but they aren't 5000lbs and can do over a hundred...

Could also be how many ok road tractor accident fatalities are there? Probably not many.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

John Deere S650 Combine, 7280R Row Crop, 9410R 4WD, and 7760 cotton picker. None of these are Kabota "tractors." All of them driven lawfully on the public road(s) w/o a requirement for a DL. I routinely drive the appropriate "tractor" on the public roads, depending on the task, to work my farm in SC.

In MO, a 5045D JD is the tractor I use, and I rarely drive it on the public roads because there is no need to. Also, there is a high number of city folk and i would not trust my fellow citizen to be aware of what may be coming towards then around the next bend in the road.

On my farm in SC, out in the country, drivers are very cautions during daylight hours because they know, being country folk, that farm machinery is on the move and could be around that next bend in the road.

Your dismissive post is noted. Further discussion on this matter with you is unproductive.

 

[eye95]

Curious as to why you condemn in others what this particular pet poster of your's is noted for engaging in? ...

If you were really curious, you wouldn't have bothered to go on to "answer" your own question.

If you are genuinely curious, ask in an adult way, and I will engage. Otherwise, I will assume that you are looking for an opportunity to mock, so I won't engage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[georg jetson]

Cut short to not re-post the entire statement.

I have been thinking about this and I offer up this idea about rights.
Since rights are a natural thing and they exist without government then we only need to ask the question, "If the government were to dissolve this intense could I still do this activity?"

I own an automobile and I have the right to travel about in it, now the government is gone, could I still use it on the roadways? Yes or no? (yes)
I have a right to defend myself, does this still exist once the government is gone? Yes or no? (yes)
I have the right to vote, does this still exist once the government is gone? Yes or no? (no) The 'right' to vote is a privilege that can only exist when there is a form of government.

As usuall, you defend the "right" to travel well. Allow me to add a bit;

We most certainly have a "right" to travel, but consider the magnitude of this. As someone has already stated, having a right to travel is required for first amendment reasons. Also, my right to travel extends to travel with my property. Because I have paid for the roads, I have a right to use them. Regulation for these reasons is beyond the scope of a free republic.

The privileged use of the citizen paid for roads is considered when the roads are used for commerce or for some purpose other than they were designed. Examples as follows...

Using the roadways for profit, such as taxis or hauling frieght.
Moving property which has physical dimensions exceeding the design limits of everyday use.

Those defending priveleges for any other reason are ignorant of the concept of liberty or are purposefully on the side of governemnt ownership of everything.

 

[georg jetson]

It might also have to do with the damage a kabota can do. Sure they are big and heavy and run into stuff..... but they aren't 5000lbs and can do over a hundred...

Could also be how many ok road tractor accident fatalities are there? Probably not many.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You subscribe to the following...

Government has authority to regulate anything at anytime if there is a legitimate public safety interest.

Btw - 5000lbs is light for a farm tractor.

 

[Primus]

You subscribe to the following...

Government has authority to regulate anything at anytime if there is a legitimate public safety interest.

Btw - 5000lbs is light for a farm tractor.

Correct I do subscribe to that belief. As long as the safety interest is to OTHERS.

And the greater the threat to others safety either through negligence or intentional can/should be a factor. The other factor being how much do you need said thing to not be regulated.

For example... vehicles can and do kill people... a lot. Especially young inexperienced and then drunks if course. They kill a lot of people.

That poses a pretty good risk of at least injury to others. So therefore its regulated. How? By filing out some forms and taking a photo. Maybe taking a test to show you know the basic is of driving.

Again this is common sense. The fight is.... "but I don't wanna..... how dare you tell me to do common sense things. I don't care if it makes sense you can't tell me to so it"

ALL things that are regulated are in a scale. From weapons to vehicles.

Does anyone think you need a background check, licenses, etc. Etc. For a .22 revolver? Or a single shot .22? Probably not. I don't.

Now does anyone think you shouldn't be able to own nuclear weapons? I would hope a lot.

.22 on one end...... a bomb in the other. Both weapons. But .22 shouldn't be regulated and a bomb definitely should be.

This is pretty straight forward stuff.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So, using this argument, we have the right to black powder rifles, but 1911's are a privilege. We have the right to a 1700's era printing press or writing by hand, but smart phones and wifi are a privilege.

To think rights are only applicable to past technology instead of available technology...*shakes head*

We have a right to travel. Not a right to only travel by horse, buggy or pogo stick.
We have a right to bear arms; not a right to only bear flintlocks or daggers.
We have a right to peaceful assembly and free speech; not a right to only have approved assembly and favorable speech.

What is the criteria here; rights, or the means used to exercise them?

+1

I quoted this following post, and then gave a list of things that are anti rights as far as guns are concerned and he supports.........

He doesn't understand the difference between rights and privilege.

On a federal level there is even a law that says our rights are enumerable.

My state constitution says it's first job is to protect individual rights.

They who support this theory of state granted privileges have yet to explain where the state gets this power.

To be honest freedom I think your mixing the two up. As you put in the op you said gun(freedom).

That are not one in the same. I person can LOVE guns can own 19000 of them and shoot/carry everyday. Doesn't mean they didn't believe in the background check needed to get them. Doesn't mean they didn't think it was ok to get the license.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I think I agree with much of this. Pro gun guys are often our worse enemies when it comes to liberty.

Many will disparage OC.

Many will believe in state background checks.

Many will believe in state licensing schemes for CC.

Many will believe in mandated training programs.

Many will believe in catering to the fear of others and not OC'ing just in case someone might not like it. Like in a bank.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Correct I do subscribe to that belief. As long as the safety interest is to OTHERS.

Guns pose a safety risk to others? What an over broad statement that is based on no constitution of a free people.

And the greater the threat to others safety either through negligence or intentional can/should be a factor. The other factor being how much do you need said thing to not be regulated.

That's what courts were meant to be for, so people pay for their negligence, you can't outlaw stupidity.

For example... vehicles can and do kill people... a lot. Especially young inexperienced and then drunks if course. They kill a lot of people.

Good thing you had your licensing scheme then it saved those dead people.

That poses a pretty good risk of at least injury to others. So therefore its regulated. How? By filing out some forms and taking a photo. Maybe taking a test to show you know the basic is of driving.

Yet it isn't about competency no matter how hard you try to make it about that.
It matters not how little the inconvenience is it is still an infringement if it's an inconvenience at all.

Again this is common sense. The fight is.... "but I don't wanna..... how dare you tell me to do common sense things. I don't care if it makes sense you can't tell me to so it"

Utter phoey and one of the most ridiculous statements. No one has argued against common sense they have argued against your rights vs privilege statist opinion.

ALL things that are regulated are in a scale. From weapons to vehicles.

LOL.....please name some things that are not regulated in one form or another. You do realize that the modern term for "regulated" didn't mean exactly the same thing at the time of the writing of the constitution?

Does anyone think you need a background check, licenses, etc. Etc. For a .22 revolver? Or a single shot .22? Probably not. I don't.

Now does anyone think you shouldn't be able to own nuclear weapons? I would hope a lot.

.22 on one end...... a bomb in the other. Both weapons. But .22 shouldn't be regulated and a bomb definitely should be.

This is pretty straight forward stuff.

Way to go at building up an arbitrary argument and then burning it down.....

I don't think anyone including government should have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately those who are least accountable for their actions do possess them.

 

[Primus]

Guns pose a safety risk to others? What an over broad statement that is based on no constitution of a free people.



That's what courts were meant to be for, so people pay for their negligence, you can't outlaw stupidity.



Good thing you had your licensing scheme then it saved those dead people.



Yet it isn't about competency no matter how hard you try to make it about that.
It matters not how little the inconvenience is it is still an infringement if it's an inconvenience at all.



Utter phoey and one of the most ridiculous statements. No one has argued against common sense they have argued against your rights vs privilege statist opinion.



LOL.....please name some things that are not regulated in one form or another. You do realize that the modern term for "regulated" didn't mean exactly the same thing at the time of the writing of the constitution?



Way to go at building up an arbitrary argument and then burning it down.....

I don't think anyone including government should have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately those who are least accountable for their actions do possess them.

Well why shouldn't I have a near weapon?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well why shouldn't I have a near weapon?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

My weapons work pretty good near.

 

[Primus]

My weapons work pretty good near.

Is that an evasion?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

Correct I do subscribe to that belief. As long as the safety interest is to OTHERS...

They should not be able to regulate anything.

Franklin gave us a good test by warning us not to give up essential Liberty for temporary security.

The 2A is essential to all other Liberties--which is why the framers made it the most strongly protected Right in its wording.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>