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

[eye95]

Please elaborate on your eloquent observation.

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

My post says what I mean to say.

Knock off the insults, or I will just move on. I don't play these games on the Internet any more. Kick it up a notch. We usually get better from you. I kinda expect it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[independence]

I agree.

But again... just because you like guns doesn't mean your pro freedom or that your anti background checks.

For example wasn't there a majority of gun owners that were ok with background checks the last time the polls came out? I'm nor asserting this because I can't remember if it was just gun owners or citizens in general. I'm asking it and open to any correction.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Quite true. I know tons of people like that. They have myriads of guns, but believe that it is "too easy to get them", lol. They believe that only the elite (often meaning whites) should be able to purchase them.

OP, I have a friend who says that because he believes in states' rights, that means that states have the right to regulate firearms via permits. I told him that infringing rights was not the right of the state, but we ended the discussion without coming to an agreement. :/ smh

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

 

[countryclubjoe]

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

The point is; I learned how to shot a weapon and disassemble a weapon and put it back together at 10 years of age, I learned how to drive an automobile and change a tire and rebuild an engine at 12 years of age.. So why would I need a state agent to tell me its ok for me to drive an automobile or it is ok for me to purchase or fire a weapon when I am say 18 years of age?

Now regarding your borrowing LOL of your mom's car in the middle of the night, Lets face it, you were not thinking with the big head and also learning how to operate an automobile is much easier then attempting your first kiss at 15 years old.. LOL

Now how would you feel if the G wanted to impose a fine or tax or request a license to kiss that beautiful young lass?

Regards

CCJ

 

[independence]

I am not getting what you are saying, but OCDO has fallen mightily from when I first joined. It used to be the height of rationality. I started here arguing the literal meaning of what we called, in Alabama, -52. It sure read like OC was illegal in Alabama.

I fought like the dickens to get someone, anyone to explain how OC could possibly be legal in Alabama. We went back and forth for hundreds of posts before Mike, one of the originators of OCDO, posted a cogent argument, including case law and codified law, that established, beyond any doubt that OC was absolutely legal in Alabama.

I immediately started OCing on my own, no support at all.

It worked until I was stopped at Eastdale Mall. What I learned HERE was of immensely helped in my battle with Montgomery, AL. Finally, I won the deputy chief over and the city attorney. That FIXED Montgomery.

I was amazed.

Since then, OCDO slowly (and then quickly, of late) turned to crap. You are seeing this crappy side of OCDO. I am sorry. It used to be so much better, but John and Mike are mostly absent now,---mod edited, personal insult--


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Interesting story that I had never heard.

Sometime, I'd like to know what specifically is the type of content on the site that makes you say it is going downhill. Maybe a PM? (I have my own opinion but want to know yours.)

Anyway, it's funny that the people who say that you should have a permit system think that the actual class you take is worth something. The permit class I took was actually the opposite. Lots of *[mis]information, etc. Just another example of the guberment providing useless "training".


Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

*edit

 

[Primus]

The point is; I learned how to shot a weapon and disassemble a weapon and put it back together at 10 years of age, I learned how to drive an automobile and change a tire and rebuild an engine at 12 years of age.. So why would I need a state agent to tell me its ok for me to drive an automobile or it is ok for me to purchase or fire a weapon when I am say 18 years of age?

Now regarding your borrowing LOL of your mom's car in the middle of the night, Lets face it, you were not thinking with the big head and also learning how to operate an automobile is much easier then attempting your first kiss at 15 years old.. LOL

Now how would you feel if the G wanted to impose a fine or tax or request a license to kiss that beautiful young lass?

Regards

CCJ

Easy.. she said I kissed great.

Again.... I'm sure you were an amazing driver at 12. But it doesn't mean everyone is. Some people FAIL the drivers test. I have a pretty close cousin. She is over 30 years old. Doesnt drive and has no license. Why? She failed the drivers training. Specifically the driving part. She almost got into and accident freaked out and almost caused another. If the state didnt force her to see an instructor and get a license she may have learned that all by herself in her on car and killed someone first try around the block.

I'm glad the state forces her to try it under supervision before she was licensed to legally do so.

Again... as I laid out... the more damage or danger the thing is ABLE to produce the more license you need. Its pretty straight forward.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[countryclubjoe]

My post says what I mean to say.

Knock off the insults, or I will just move on. I don't play these games on the Internet any more. Kick it up a notch. We usually get better from you. I kinda expect it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Where in my post did I insult anyone? Are you insulted by my reference? Do you believe the G could legally regulate a citizen into entering a contract? Do you have any knowledge on the subject concerning " Liberty Of Contract" and how liberty, and right to contract is a natural right?
If you wish to punch some holes in my opinion, with either facts or some insightful opinions of your own, please do, I will respect either or however you saying that I insulted someone or someone's without pointing out the insult is dogging the issue... So please kick it up a notch yourself and explain the insult. What part of my post hit a nerve on you? Clearly eye95, you do not stand in line at the DMV with your social security card, and birth certificate and some utility bill and present them to the $11.00 an hour state worker, who will feed your information into a national data base, then tell you to stand in another line to have your photo taken, a photo by the way that you are paying for however you CANNOT SMILE IN THE PHOTO, THE PHOTO YOU ARE PAYING FOR... Na, you wouldn't do that.. So please explain..

Thank you and Best regards.

CCJ

 

[eye95]

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

I am not getting what you are saying, but OCDO [if you want the rest of the idea, PM me]. I started here arguing the literal meaning of what we called, in Alabama, -52. It sure read like OC was illegal in Alabama.

I fought like the dickens to get someone, anyone to explain how OC could possibly be legal in Alabama. We went back and forth for hundreds of posts before Mike, one of the originators of OCDO, posted a cogent argument, including case law and codified law, that established, beyond any doubt that OC was absolutely legal in Alabama.

I immediately started OCing on my own, no support at all.

It worked until I was stopped at Eastdale Mall. What I learned HERE was of immensely helped in my battle with Montgomery, AL. Finally, I won the deputy chief over and the city attorney. That FIXED Montgomery.

I was amazed.

Since then, OCDO slowly... [if you want the rest of the idea, PM me.]

 

[eye95]

Interesting story that I had never heard.

Sometime, I'd like to know what specifically is the type of content on the site that makes you say it is going downhill. Maybe a PM? (I have my own opinion but want to know yours.)

Anyway, it's funny that the people who say that you should have a permit system think that the actual class you take is worth something. The permit class I took was actually the opposite. Lots of information, etc. Just another example of the guberment providing useless "training".


Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

Thank you for actually reading and quoting my post. Folks can try to exercise their power, but they cannot shut those up who won't be shut up.

On edit: It is amazing how a certain individual knew a certain comment was about him. Could it be that he recognized the truth in that statement, even though it did not NAME him. Quite telling!

 

[stealthyeliminator]

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

Your arguments are pragmatic (what works, what doesn't work) (and at least partially fallacious as is-ought, though irrelevant) which is a completely separate issue than what's being discussed. What's being discussed is defining rights vs. privileges (what should be, what shouldn't be). What's practical can, and often is, different than the moral, right choice. That's why doing what's right is often a difficult decision to make.

Also, you should look into supporting the MDA. They're all about common sense gun regulation.

 

[Primus]

Your arguments are pragmatic (what works, what doesn't work) (and at least partially fallacious as is-ought, though irrelevant) which is a completely separate issue than what's being discussed. What's being discussed is defining rights vs. privileges (what should be, what shouldn't be). What's practical can, and often is, different than the moral, right choice. That's why doing what's right is often a difficult decision to make.

Also, you should look into supporting the MDA. They're all about common sense gun regulation.

You asserted previously that driving a car for travel is a right. I asserted its a privilege. I explained such in that post.

Are you asserting that you should be able to hope in a car because its the "right" thing to do? Although you may kill/injure others, which is the "tough" part of doing "right"?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

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.

Let's see what the law has to say

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

The courts

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and...

2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid.

"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate...the use of the highways for gain." Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

Hell one state, Georgia wanted to codify the fact that using your automobile on the roads is a RIGHT and always has been.

http://sovereigninamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/right-to-travel-act-proposed-in-georgia/
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;
(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;
(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers’ licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law and constitutional right to travel;
(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel “is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association…it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Freedom1Man]

You asserted previously that driving a car for travel is a right. I asserted its a privilege. I explained such in that post.

Are you asserting that you should be able to hope in a car because its the "right" thing to do? Although you may kill/injure others, which is the "tough" part of doing "right"?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You can people with your guns, so, you're saying that carrying a gun is not a right either based on your own logic.

 

[SouthernBoy]

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.

So does that permit constitute a "permit to possess" or does it fit both possession and carry?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

You asserted previously that driving a car for travel is a right. I asserted its a privilege. I explained such in that post.

Are you asserting that you should be able to hope in a car because its the "right" thing to do? Although you may kill/injure others, which is the "tough" part of doing "right"?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You haven't explained how driving is a privilege, you gave examples of how bad things might happen without government regulation of the use of certain items. That's pragmatic argument (what works, what doesn't work). We are dealing in the realm of rights (what's right, what's wrong). To ask if driving a car is the "right" thing to do is not asking the right question. The right question is, do you have the right to stop me, or imprison me, or take my money because I have driven a car without following rules that you've created? If I drive a car on your property and have intentionally, knowingly and purposefully ignored rules that you've set out for driving on your property, then you are due compensation for my infringement upon your property rights. But, do you have the right to go on other people's property and tell them how they can and cannot drive on their property (or on public property)? Please explain how a police officer or politician has this authority? Is their authority a right (they have a God given right to rule others) or a privilege (derived from the people, you might argue?)? The argument "bad things will happen without prohibitions and regulations" belongs in a discussion of the practicality of liberty, not in a discussion of the difference between rights and privileges or any enumerations thereof. Your argument needs to be morally based - as that is the realm that we are dealing in (right vs. wrong, not 'works' vs. 'doesn't work')

To address the OP. The difference, in my opinion, between rights and privileges.

Rights are authority which are derived directly from a higher power, and as such cannot be overruled by any man.

Privileges, on the other hand, are authority which is derived from another person, which would would not naturally possess. It is theoretically possible for a privilege to be legitimately retracted or overruled, contrary to a right.

 

[OC for ME]

Government does not have rights, government has powers (authority) granted to them. I have a right to travel, I have a right to use my property upon the public roads, the vehicle tag is the "proof" that I have paid my tribute unto Caesar to use my property upon the public road.

A DL is nothing but a revenue scam. A DL does not and can never determine that a driver is a good driver.

 

[Primus]

Let's see what the law has to say


The courts


Hell one state, Georgia wanted to codify the fact that using your automobile on the roads is a RIGHT and always has been.




Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

First... looks like you posted USC or federal definition or a motor vehicle..... so means squat for States. Pretty sure that's in reference to DOT stuff for say.... commercial trucking?

Also... quotes from cases are cool. Except what does that show me? That a judge somewhere made a statement sometime somewhere? If your the dissenting judge (in a Supreme court setting) or even if your a primary judge but you rule against the defendant just happen to make a statement then it doesn't make the quote worth anything.

When I get a second I'll actually look at those cases and post on it. Pretty certain they aren't as clear cut as your presenting them.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

You haven't explained how driving is a privilege, you gave examples of how bad things might happen without government regulation of the use of certain items. That's pragmatic argument (what works, what doesn't work). We are dealing in the realm of rights (what's right, what's wrong). To ask if driving a car is the "right" thing to do is not asking the right question. The right question is, do you have the right to stop me, or imprison me, or take my money because I have driven a car without following rules that you've created? If I drive a car on your property and have intentionally, knowingly and purposefully ignored rules that you've set out for driving on your property, then you are due compensation for my infringement upon your property rights. But, do you have the right to go on other people's property and tell them how they can and cannot drive on their property (or on public property)? Please explain how a police officer or politician has this authority? Is their authority a right (they have a God given right to rule others) or a privilege (derived from the people, you might argue?)? The argument "bad things will happen without prohibitions and regulations" belongs in a discussion of the practicality of liberty, not in a discussion of the difference between rights and privileges or any enumerations thereof. Your argument needs to be morally based - as that is the realm that we are dealing in (right vs. wrong, not 'works' vs. 'doesn't work')

To address the OP. The difference, in my opinion, between rights and privileges.

Rights are authority which are derived directly from a higher power, and as such cannot be overruled by any man.

Privileges, on the other hand, are authority which is derived from another person, which would would not naturally possess. It is theoretically possible for a privilege to be legitimately retracted or overruled, contrary to a right.

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

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And they still cannot explain where the authority to grant "privilege" comes from.

 

[OC for ME]

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

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

DL is about law enFORCEment and tracking people, our ex govorner pretty much admitted that, and that's why she was Ok with "illegals" getting licenses.