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

[stealthyeliminator]

Public announcement... more evasion.

Its called hypocrisy when you say you shouldn't have weapon A but everyone should have weapon B. Wither its a weapon or its not. And either weapons can be regulated or not. Period.

Same with vehicles. Either you can regulate travel with A (planes, trains, cruise ships, fuel trucks) AND travel mode B (bicycles, foot, car, pick up truck) or you can't.

To say you can regulate A but not B is hypocritical.

Why the nuclear thing? Well because you need to use extremes to get to the point.

We all agree you need NO regulation to regulate walking. But we all agree that you need regulation for commercial sized jets or even airplanes in general. Or even more extreme space ships.

But here's the hard part...... where is the MIDDLE.

That's how ALL of these "can't regulate me" arguments go. The extremes are easy but when you get in the weeds is where it gets ugly.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Excellent. So, since you believe that the government can regulate a form of travel (driving), you believe that the government can (as they do) also regulate all forms of travel, including walking and riding your bike (which were previously your "see you can still travel" escapes). So, [strike]being that travel is a[/strike] travel being a "right" doesn't actually protect it from government regulation, is what you're saying. We must conclude that you believe as long as there is not a 100% prohibition (there is some way left to "exercise the right" or some small portion of it in one single, probably expensive way) the government has not infringed on that right. Thanks for clearing that up.

The truth is that regulation is an infringement. Some believe that some infringement is "necessary" and so they dismiss the morality of the issue and cling to the pragmatism (never mind that even the pragmatism of statism is debatable) and conclude it's "ok" (it's not evil, it's just common sense) without acknowledging the fact that what works and what's right may not be the same. How they reconcile this with words like "shall not be infringed" I do not know.

Just to further clarify my point, we will use the "take it to the extreme" method, as you have done (which can be a legitimate tool). I'm certain you would agree that if all firearms were banned, except a single model of black powder rifle, that regulation would be an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. Right? So, here we can conclude that even regulation (short of outright prohibition) is an infringement upon a right. What you are doing, Primus, is justifying that infringement (there is no legitimate argument supporting the claim that it is not an infringement) under the guise of necessity, or public safety, or what have you. The problem is, as we are dealing with rights, you justification needs to have moral backing. This means that your argument for regulating the right (to negate that right for X purposes, and to X degree) must be in the same realm as where the right originated. The right originates from a higher power. The only way to negate that right and justify regulation of it is with authority on an equal keel to that higher power which has granted the right. Akin to our court levels. If the Supreme court rules one way, a lower court cannot overrule that ruling. If a "higher power" grants a right, an equally high power is the only authority which can negate that right or justify regulation of it. No legislature has the authority to negate a "ruling" which God has made.

There is no "middle", Primus. There is no amount of rights abridgment which is ok or acceptable. It is not about finding a balance between good and evil, it is about finding ways to accomplish your goals by only doing good. There is no such thing as "necessary evil."

 

[stealthyeliminator]

To expand on the A B thing...

When a definitive argument is made using things like.... all..... never.... always....none....etc. its easy to defeat.

Try it. No weapons should ever be regulated.

Nukes? Defeated.

No methods of travel can be regulated.

Airliner? (Empty) defeated.

Government can never regulate travel...

Well buses full of kids. Defeated (assuming you agree the person operating said vehicle should have some license)

Government can never regulate weapons.

Well I want to grow ebola virus to use on an attacker. I don't care if they rob my TV I want to kill them with biological weapons. Defeated. (Assuming we all agree ebola in your neighbors fridge is bad.

Now these are extremes to prove the point. These extremes 99% of people with agree with (think Ebola in fridge). IMHO if you think that Ebola in your fridge is ok then you are extreme.

So either you can admit that things CAN/SHOULD be regulated or you can't. The faster you admit that it CAN be regulated the faster you can focus on the specifics.... Ebola yes, a bomb yes, at 4 yes, hand grenades yes, Ar 15s maybe, handguns maybe, hunting rifles hell no, knives no

Its a scale.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", NOT "shall not be infringed too much"

 

[sudden valley gunner]

By his theory there is nothing than can't be infringed upon.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I happen to agree on bombs, but that is another discussion (and we have too many going on in one thread already).

You said they should be able to regulate anything. That is where I took exception. They should not be able to regulate, for example, handguns. To do so would be to take an essential Liberty, one that Franklin warned we should not give up.

Franklin did not warn us against giving up nonessential Liberties for long-lasting security. Some here would call him a "statist" for that view.

Coming back to this, your past argument of what "bearing arms" means. Would be a logical argument against allowing nukes. Not the fallacious argument of the anti's who compare a .22 to a nuke.

Your argument is worthy of discussion the other is not.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

And he (Primus) has no moral backing or justification for his position, as we are, what, 4 pages in and he's yet to post anything but pragmatic arguments (which are still debatable, but irrelevant to the OP)

/\ Yes, I almost expanded on my "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", NOT "shall not be infringed too much" post to point that out, but, I didn't.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And he (Primus) has no moral backing or justification for his position, as we are, what, 4 pages in and he's yet to post anything but pragmatic arguments (which are still debatable, but irrelevant to the OP)

/\ Yes, I almost expanded on my "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", NOT "shall not be infringed too much" post to point that out, but, I didn't.

+1

He has been given every chance to, yet resorts again to dishonest debate tactics, redherrings, strawmen and adhominem.

 

[eye95]

Now now Eye, you are using a rational definitive argument logically? Is that allowed?

Not on OCDO! I feel another "infraction" coming on.

 

[georg jetson]

To expand on the A B thing...

When a definitive argument is made using things like.... all..... never.... always....none....etc. its easy to defeat.

Try it. No weapons should ever be regulated.

Nukes? Defeated.

No methods of travel can be regulated.

Airliner? (Empty) defeated.

Government can never regulate travel...

Well buses full of kids. Defeated (assuming you agree the person operating said vehicle should have some license)

Government can never regulate weapons.

Well I want to grow ebola virus to use on an attacker. I don't care if they rob my TV I want to kill them with biological weapons. Defeated. (Assuming we all agree ebola in your neighbors fridge is bad.

Now these are extremes to prove the point. These extremes 99% of people with agree with (think Ebola in fridge). IMHO if you think that Ebola in your fridge is ok then you are extreme.

So either you can admit that things CAN/SHOULD be regulated or you can't. The faster you admit that it CAN be regulated the faster you can focus on the specifics.... Ebola yes, a bomb yes, at 4 yes, hand grenades yes, Ar 15s maybe, handguns maybe, hunting rifles hell no, knives no

Its a scale.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You do not believe that a constitution binds a government. You don't understand that regardless of the issue, if the constitution does not give authority to a government then it doesn't have it. You are unable or unwilling to understand the "safety" ramifications of a government operating outside of its authority.

In your world, unfortunately it is also reality, a constitution is irrelevant.

We are devolving as a country because we've forgotten that a government must work within the authority it has been given. We are devolving because we're becoming less educated about why and how a government must be restricted.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You do not believe that a constitution binds a government. You don't understand that regardless of the issue, if the constitution does not give authority to a government then it doesn't have it. You are unable or unwilling to understand the "safety" ramifications of a government operating outside of its authority.

In your world, unfortunately it is also reality, a constitution is irrelevant.

We are devolving as a country because we've forgotten that a government must work within the authority it has been given. We are devolving because we're becoming less educated about why and how a government must be restricted.

He likes it that way too!

 

[Rusty Young Man]

SNIP...Now these are extremes to prove the point. These extremes 99% of people with agree with (think Ebola in fridge). IMHO if you think that Ebola in your fridge is ok then you are extreme.

So either you can admit that things CAN/SHOULD be regulated or you can't. The faster you admit that it CAN be regulated the faster you can focus on the specifics.... Ebola yes, a bomb yes, at 4 yes, hand grenades yes, Ar 15s maybe, handguns maybe, hunting rifles hell no, knives no

Its a scale.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

What your post fails to address is the fact that by "regulating" the weapons you mention, the governments in possession of them are in actuality only excluding others from acquiring them. But then, who will guard the guards?
I'll put it this way (roughly borrowing the words of another member on OCDO, since I can't find the exact post at the moment): If it is too dangerous for me to own, it is too dangerous for the government to have.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

 

[OC for ME]

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

The state has the "power." Our goal should be to educate our fellow citizens not on what a right or a privilege is, but on what we as citizens can do to remove the power to decide rights and privileges from the state and return it back to the citizenry.
When a cop infringes upon a citizen's rights, based on the authority provided to him, he diminishes himself when he does so out of ignorance of the laws.

When a cop infringes upon a citizen's rights, based on the authority provided to him, he diminishes me when he does so out of some urge to protect me.

I need not the state to protect me from 'X'. The state is terribly inept and inefficient at protecting anyone, the proof is apparent every day. The MD mall incident is just another incident in a long line of incidents where the state can protect no one, yet claim that their acts are to protect everyone.

I need the state to assist me in gaining redress from my fellow citizens when they deprive me of my right to life, liberty, and property.

 

[marshaul]

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.

I can't say I find your definition interesting or useful.

For starters,

authority |əˈTHôritē, ôˈTHär-|(abbr.: auth. )
noun ( pl. authorities )
1 the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: he had absolute authority over his subordinates | positions of authority | they acted under the authority of the UN Security Council | a rebellion against those in authority .
• [ often with infinitive ] the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another: military forces have the legal authority to arrest drug traffickers.
• official permission; sanction: the money was spent without congressional authority.
2 (often authorities) a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere: the health authorities | the Chicago Transit Authority | the authorities ordered all foreign embassies to close | she wasn't used to dealing with authority.
3 the power to influence others, esp. because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something: he has the natural authority of one who is used to being obeyed | he spoke with authority on the subject.
• the confidence resulting from personal expertise: he hit the ball with authority.
• a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert: she was an authority on the stock market.
• a book or other source able to supply reliable information or evidence, typically to settle a dispute: the court cited a series of authorities supporting their decision.

I don't need any "authority" to be armed. Contrarily, authority is needed to prevent me from doing so.

I prefer my recursive definition, which is ultimately Jeffersonian in origin (modified for the sake of completeness).

A right is any activity which may be exercised without reducing the ability for another to act equivalently.

To work with a couple extremely simple examples…

I do not have a right to kill another person, because to do so would prevent him from having an equivalent ability to kill me (which he cannot do being dead himself).

I do, however, have a right to drive a car safely, because my doing so does not infringe upon the ability of others to drive cars as well. Note that, while a multitude of cars may create traffic which reduces the ability of anyone to use the roads, this happens in a distributed and fair manner. If 100 people all try to use the same street, then all 100 people will have the same difficulty passing through the resulting traffic. Every person still retains an equivalent ability to get stuck in traffic. Therefore, no rights are infringed.

By this analysis, a privilege is any action which may reduce the ability of another to act equivalently, but which that other has permitted of you regardless. For instance, I cannot call another man's house my own, because to do so would strip him of any equivalent right to have his own house. I can, however, be permitted to stay in the other man's home, and (at his discretion) even treat it as my own home. To do so is therefore a privilege.

 

[marshaul]

There is no "middle", Primus. There is no amount of rights abridgment which is ok or acceptable. It is not about finding a balance between good and evil, it is about finding ways to accomplish your goals by only doing good. There is no such thing as "necessary evil."

Primus needs to read this, and read it again. And then read it again. And then he needs to grok it.

 

[marshaul]

The ends never justify the means.

And moreover, the correct means either are the only possible justifiable ends, or lead to the definitionally best-possible ends (depending on your perspective).

To state otherwise is to place any utility above all human value; the root of morally-bankrupt utilitarianism

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The state has the "power." Our goal should be to educate our fellow citizens not on what a right or a privilege is, but on what we as citizens can do to remove the power to decide rights and privileges from the state and return it back to the citizenry.
When a cop infringes upon a citizen's rights, based on the authority provided to him, he diminishes himself when he does so out of ignorance of the laws.

When a cop infringes upon a citizen's rights, based on the authority provided to him, he diminishes me when he does so out of some urge to protect me.

I need not the state to protect me from 'X'. The state is terribly inept and inefficient at protecting anyone, the proof is apparent every day. The MD mall incident is just another incident in a long line of incidents where the state can protect no one, yet claim that their acts are to protect everyone.

I need the state to assist me in gaining redress from my fellow citizens when they deprive me of my right to life, liberty, and property.

+1

This could go to a whole other tangent.

Privileges should be spelled out in the constitution, and should be granted to the state by consent. When not they are rights reserved to the people.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

the ends never justify the means.

and moreover, the correct means either are the only possible justifiable ends, or lead to the definitionally best-possible ends (depending on your perspective).

To state otherwise is to place any utility above all human value; the root of morally-bankrupt utilitarianism

qft

 

[Logan 5]

Without reading all 6 pages of other people's opinions, I'll offer my own.

I had a conversation with someone this morning that does not seem to know what "shall not be infringed" means.
He made the claim, through his choice of words, that the state grants rights.

The definition for "infringed" may change per person, but not in the dictionary or in the suspected intent by our forefathers. It means, essentially, "hands off homey"- that those rights cannot be tampered with or lawfully removed.

I was told that if you're not guilty of anything then you should have no problems proving that you're not to be able to even carry a gun.
"Everyone should have to prove they are not a felon to be allowed to carry a gun."

I think that alone is in violation of the 5th Amendment where we are not burdened with having to "be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". But to be fair, since they feel that way, let's make sure that same person that you're talking about proves they are not child molesters before we can allow them to go to the park or to the store without an ankle bracelet. And until they prove they aren't a ChiMo, they'll be listed on the local sex offender database.

I personally see no benefit to anyone having to prove anything about themselves. Unless they have been charged, their integrity should't even be questioned. If it's questioned for the RKBA then question it for everyone and everything.

So, while I don't know about other people, the trigger words that tip me off to warn me that the person I am talking to/dealing with does not believe in rights is when they say words like "allow, permission, background check, not a criminal, etc".

It all depends on the scene and intent. You don't need my permission to OC, nor should anyone ask that of you. Until you are on private property. Then it's a different story.

How do we get these, self proclaimed, pro-gun people to understand that they are not, in-fact, pro-gun(freedom)?

You won't. Because really, their arrogance is literally everywhere. They are somehow no better and no worse than you and I, by their own words yet they still feel they are omnipotent, holier than thou, blessed little junior Jesus' than can decide IF you or I have any rights whatsoever. I have tried to define the political ideology of "their kind", but I can't even call them democrats (I used to). They are all across the political spectrum- Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, even Tea Party.

How do we open them to the truth?

Ya can't. Not legally anyhow.

How do we them to drop their elitism when it comes to rights (guns)?

Ya won't. Not legally, anyhow.

 

[OC for ME]

+1

This could go to a whole other tangent.

Privileges should be spelled out in the constitution, and should be granted to the state by consent. When not they are rights reserved to the people.

I, as well as everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and property. We all even have a few rights specifically enumerated, and we all should know those few which are the most important rights. Privileges should only be addressed in the law where my exercising of my right(s) may conflict with you exercising your rights.

The best example is, as always, your 2A stops at my property line. I may extend the privilege of allowing you to exercise your 2A on my property, or not and then you can decline to come onto my property if your 2A and the exercising thereof is important to you. The state has a vested interest in assisting me in my attempts to gain redress if you violate the terms and conditions for entry onto my property. Beyond that, the gaining redress part, the state needs to keep their big fat nose out of my business, out of your business, and out of our business.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I, as well as everyone else has a right to life, liberty, and property. We all even have a few rights specifically enumerated, and we all should know those few which are the most important rights. Privileges should only be addressed in the law where my exercising of my right(s) may conflict with you exercising your rights.

The best example is, as always, your 2A stops at my property line. I may extend the privilege of allowing you to exercise your 2A on my property, or not and then you can decline to come onto my property if your 2A and the exercising thereof is important to you. The state has a vested interest in assisting me in my attempts to gain redress if you violate the terms and conditions for entry onto my property. Beyond that, the gaining redress part, the state needs to keep their big fat nose out of my business, out of your business, and out of our business.

+1 If a state has a right to exist it is for what you spelled out here.

 

[OC for ME]

I have never stated that there is no need for a government, federal or otherwise. I believe that anarchy reigns when there is no third party to intercede between conflicting interests amongst the citizenry. Governments primary function is to guarantee that I do not abuse you of your rights, or to hold me to account if I do.

Cops are needed only to the extent that they maintain peace in this regard by their implied threat of force for those who get uppity and desire to take matters into their own hands. Cop must only intercede in a citizen's affairs to assist in the states primary function, mentioned above, guaranteeing that a redress of wrongs can be properly and peacefully achieved under the law. Cops, should stop crime that they witness. Cops must hunt down known criminals and bring them to justice. Cops must never be proactive in the name of justice.