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

[sudden valley gunner]

Really? I wasn't aware of this. Do you happen to know which ones require this?

Washington, I believe I stumbled across the odd wording asked a lawyer about it and he said yep, we are not a farmers state that allows it.

I could be wrong and he could be too.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To the OP, I have encountered more and more people who believe we have no rights. That we don't own ourselves. If this is the person you encounter it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Really? I wasn't aware of this. Do you happen to know which ones require this?

In my state, CT, you can only have a handgun in your house w/o a permit ... you can't walk outside your door with it onto your 100,000 sq ft property nor transport it to a range w/o a permit.

So I applied for a permit w/o having the necessary "NRA safety" class and my argument was that I have a right to practice so this requirement is void, as it is a right, based on the Ezell v. Chicago decision. Well the permit was denied and I appealed to the administrative board the hears denials - they just pointed to the statue that requires it and denied the permit & I intended on going to court but got bogged down with other matters....I intend on doing the process again. You can possess a handgun w/o taking a class but cannot practice? Outrageous.

If there are other states similar? Beats me...maybe.

 

[Citizen]

To the OP, I have encountered more and more people who believe we have no rights. That we don't own ourselves. If this is the person you encounter it's like talking to a brick wall.

Agreed.

While some are emotionally locked into the argument, I'm thinking many are just misled. They adopted the idea put forward by (their school teachers?) without much inspection.

For those people, it will fall apart pretty quick with just a few questions. For example,

Him, "You don't have any rights."

You, "Oh? Who owns me, then?"

Him, "Society, of course."

You, "I see. And, I guess others in society don't own themselves, either?"

Him, "Of course not!"

You, "Then if the other members of society don't even own themselves, how can they own me? How can an individual have any power to own something if he doesn't even have the power to own himself?"

Him, "Ummmm....."

Its important to understand that your verbal opponent may not abandon his old idea in that moment when you are talking to him. He may percolate on it for days, weeks, or months before it finally falls into place for him.

And, don't forget to send a bill to the local school district for your time spent correcting their mis-education.

 

[Freedom1Man]

The pedestrian, the equestrian and the horse/team spook easily for self-preservation. The auto-mobile per se avoids nothing, happily colliding with anything.

If you've ever had a team of horses spook, then you know how little control you have once that happens and how much damage they can cause.

The horses can walk off without you at the controls.

An automobile will not normally work without someone at the controls.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

Its important to understand that your verbal opponent may not abandon his old idea in that moment when you are talking to him. He may percolate on it for days, weeks, or months before it finally falls into place for him.

And, don't forget to send a bill to the local school district for your time spent correcting their mis-education.

This may work with reasonable and somewhat rational folks. It will never work on liberals. Liberals are all about the ideology and not the individual. Individuals are to be sacrificed if the ideology can be advanced as a result. Throwing a few of their own under the bus is nothing but the price of doing business.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Natural rights are FREE

Privileges cost MONEY...

For a better understanding I suggest some good reads with regard to " Individual liberty" -- or " Individualism"

1-" Liberty of Contract" by David N. Mayer
2 " Law of Equal Freedom" by Herbert Spencer
3-" On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill
4-" What Social Classes Owe To Each Other" by William Graham Sumner
5- Cato's Letters---

Think Natural rights and Liberty... Not privileges.

In Law of Equal Freedom by Herbert Spencer and I quote, " Every man has freedom to do all that he wills provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man?

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[marshaul]

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

Just ask eye95:

Licensed marriage IS, by the very fact that it is licensed, a privilege.

:lol:

 

[carolina guy]

I guess a simple question is in order for the OPers discussion-mate:

"Do you have a right to self defense?" (no mention of the method of defense)

If the answer is "yes" then ask where this right derives, and can the right be taken away permanently?

If the answer is "no" then discontinue the attempts to enlighten this person -- waste of time.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Operating thousands of pounds of machinery on publicly-funded roads is not the only means of travel. One can be determined not to be suitable to be licensed to drive without denying them the right to travel.

Driving is a privilege. Rightly so.

So then, I venture to ask, What came first? the right or the privilege? and how did one obtain either or, and how did one lose either or?

This should be fun.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[eye95]

The right to travel and the privilege to drive are separable acts, therefore it is easy for one to be a privilege and the other to be a right without any inconsistency.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The right to travel and the privilege to drive are separable acts, therefore it is easy for one to be a privilege and the other to be a right without any inconsistency.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Not in the context that you're doing it in. The only way that the government could legitimately require licensing to drive on public roads is if they were to exercise property rights to say that you aren't allowed on the property at all without abiding by X rules. Since they don't legitimately own public roadways that's moot.

That it's possible to travel without driving doesn't mean that restricting driving is not an infringement of your right to travel.

 

[eye95]

Not in the context that you're doing it in. The only way that the government could legitimately require licensing to drive on public roads is if they were to exercise property rights to say that you aren't allowed on the property at all without abiding by X rules. Since they don't legitimately own public roadways that's moot.

That it's possible to travel without driving doesn't mean that restricting driving is not an infringement of your right to travel.

That is only true if you refuse the recognize the possibility of the authority of government at all--which many here do not. I don't care; I ain't trying to convince them. As far as I care, they are a lost cause. I am trying to appeal to those with yet open minds on the proper place of government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

Not in the context that you're doing it in. The only way that the government could legitimately require licensing to drive on public roads is if they were to exercise property rights to say that you aren't allowed on the property at all without abiding by X rules. Since they don't legitimately own public roadways that's moot.

That it's possible to travel without driving doesn't mean that restricting driving is not an infringement of your right to travel.

Disagree.

To say they need to own the place (public road) is akin to saying they need to own place you use any item to regulate it. Not possess but USE. So... gun ranges (guns), airports (planes), the ocean (cruise liners), space (spaceships), everywhere (nuclear weapons). Obviously no one owns the above except gun ranges. Those are usually private.

But the .gov still regulates guns, planes, big boats (and some small ones), space ships, and nuclear weapons.

Someone else posted a quote from 1858 that made sense. It basically said that .gov can only regulate things that CAN harm others. Also that it should be relative to the mount of harm it CAN do.

So.... a bomb does ALOT of damage hence you even dream about building one ninjas come kidnap you. .22 revolver CAN do a LITTLE damage.... not hard to get and not overly regulated.

Bicycle? The amount of damage you can to do others is minimal.... so NO license...

An friggin gas tanker can do ALOT of damage.... so its a lot of regulation and licenses.

A 5,000 lb car CAN do a pretty good amount of damage. So you have yo fill out a few pieces of paper and take a written and/or driving test( depending on state). Then usually keep insurance (depending on state) not IF but WHEN someone gets affected by your vehicle.


This isn't evil..... its common sense...

I don't know the numbers (will look them up) but when the model t came out before licenses and regulations dudes were dying all the time because your 8 year old could jump in it take it or you could drive drunk and no one cared UNTIL you KILLED someone.... then it was whoops

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[countryclubjoe]

I have posted case law to support my claim that a license is not needed for simple travel... Unless the travel is for a commercial venture..

I will not waste any more time on the issue.. Anyone that believes in the license concept and believes that the G can regulate a citizen into a contract is simply an ignorant SOB and or a sheep..

To the OP , the person you opined with on rights v privilege is in my educated guess an ", Institutionalized" citizen that cannot think on his/her own.
Trying to debate the concept of liberty and freedom with such a fool is pointless and a waste of your time...

The G is a necessary evil.. The G gets bigger and bigger because so called LAC enter blindly into contracts with the G and then they call others that refuse to enter into contracts thugs or criminals or sovereign citizens.

So my question here is a simple one... What is the justification for denying a citizen his/her rights? And who or whom gets to do the denying and why is that? What authority is empowered to extend a privilege while stealing a right?

We need to think, Natural law, Liberty of contract, common law.. How about the simple doctrine of " Leave me alone" let me and my family attend to our own affairs.. Let us enjoy the fruits of our labor in anyway that we deem fit, provided that we do not infringe upon our neighbors fruits...

The G should be in business for the simple purpose of prosecuting Murders, rapist, kidnappers,child molesters, and folks that commit robbery or fraud onto other citizens.. No other reason should the G exist...

We need to get back to the days of personal liberties.. we need to get back to the days of liberty to/of contract.. Hence the right to contract not the privilege of entering into a contract... A contract based or established via force or with a threat of fines or incarceration is not a valid contract.

We need to think " Individualism"-- we need to think " libertarianism" -- we need to defend against "paternalism'.. Paternalism of any kind is in a way thief of liberty... so called legal paternalism is a forced coercive method of implementing statutes, ordinances, licensing fees, taxes, etc...

Did anyone really want that social security number? Do you enjoy paying for a license to drive, or fish or walk your dog? Do you really think the government should know if you own a gun or a bow and arrow or a micro-wave oven, if yes, should the G make you obtain a license for the gun, the bow and arrow, The Micro Wave? ... Where will the control and the tax of the fruits of your labor end?

We have a right to defend our home and our property, why should the instrument we choice to use in defense of our home and property need be licensed or registered? What reason? Why? Why should our life be entered into a computer because we choice to exercise a natural right? Why?
Again, what is the justification?

Now, if everyone decided never to enter into a contract with the G, via a license to own a fire arm or a license to drive or fish or walk your dog, or enter into a Contract to file a tax return, how may I ask, would the G enforce this non compliance of licensing and non filing by its citizens?
Who or whom would be in charge of making a law abiding citizen comply and where would who or whom acquire that authority in the first place?
What court of common law would then acknowledge who or whom authority? Think of it this way, if enough citizens refused to comply with the quasi laws, the G would stop enforceing the quasi laws. If everyone jay walked, jay walking would not be enforced..

If folks feel the need to stand in line and pay for a license or hire an accountant and pay their fair share, I have no problem with their choices however I do have a problem when they thing I should be making the same choices that they are making...

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[eye95]

Easy to insult. Hard to support. Unimpressive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

Easy to insult. Hard to support. Unimpressive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

More of the same for some reason...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[countryclubjoe]

Disagree.

To say they need to own the place (public road) is akin to saying they need to own place you use any item to regulate it. Not possess but USE. So... gun ranges (guns), airports (planes), the ocean (cruise liners), space (spaceships), everywhere (nuclear weapons). Obviously no one owns the above except gun ranges. Those are usually private.

But the .gov still regulates guns, planes, big boats (and some small ones), space ships, and nuclear weapons.

Someone else posted a quote from 1858 that made sense. It basically said that .gov can only regulate things that CAN harm others. Also that it should be relative to the mount of harm it CAN do.

So.... a bomb does ALOT of damage hence you even dream about building one ninjas come kidnap you. .22 revolver CAN do a LITTLE damage.... not hard to get and not overly regulated.

Bicycle? The amount of damage you can to do others is minimal.... so NO license...




An friggin gas tanker can do ALOT of damage.... so its a lot of regulation and licenses.

A 5,000 lb car CAN do a pretty good amount of damage. So you have yo fill out a few pieces of paper and take a written and/or driving test( depending on state). Then usually keep insurance (depending on state) not IF but WHEN someone gets affected by your vehicle.












































This isn't evil..... its common sense...

I don't know the numbers (will look them up) but when the model t came out before licenses and regulations dudes were dying all the time because your 8 year old could jump in it take it or you could drive drunk and no one cared UNTIL you KILLED someone.... then it was whoops

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

No one is going to attempt to operate a 4000lb automobile without some knowledge of operating that 4000lb automobile... Hence no matter how stupid or ignorant a person may be, said person would not jeopardize his/her own well being in attempting to operate said 4000lb automobile.
Fear of life and limb is possessed even by stupid and ignorant people... " Common sense" so to speak..

Good hearing from you and best regards.

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

Easy to insult. Hard to support. Unimpressive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Please elaborate on your eloquent observation.

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

 

[Primus]

No one is going to attempt to operate a 4000lb automobile without some knowledge of operating that 4000lb automobile... Hence no matter how stupid or ignorant a person may be, said person would not jeopardize his/her own well being in attempting to operate said 4000lb automobile.
Fear of life and limb is possessed even by stupid and ignorant people... " Common sense" so to speak..

Good hearing from you and best regards.

CCJ

No one? Can you guarantee that? Will you personally be held liable if ANY does do that?

Guess you be never had a fast car when you were a kid. What's the first thing you do? A donut or a hole shot. Well how do you do that without actually doing it? You tube? Watch your buddies? You go for it. Right pedal while turning wheel dump clutch hold on.

You always START by having no idea how to do something. You hope someone can/will show you.

You assume everyone is as prudent as you (compliment). I KNOW not everyone is. I'm certain SOMEONE in my state has or will get into a vehicle and drive it.

Lol actually as I'm typing this I remember when I was 15 and took my mother's car in the middle of the night to go see a girl. Took my buddy and we grabbed his girl then went to my girls place. Guess what..... NEVER did it. Had no idea other right pedal goes left pedal stops lol.

I'm very certain I wasn't the first kid (even on this forum) to ever have done that.

You can keep assuming everyone is responsible as you. I'll keep knowing people aren't.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk