quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant

Rights are inherent to the individual and privileges are given by an outside authority. Under U.S. Constitutional law, certain rights are recognized as needing particular protections; the Constitution, nor any government, "grants" rights. The Constitution is also very specific in pointing out that the rights it enumerates are not all rights. Others do exist. A parallel I often have heard is that traveling from one area to another unmolested is a right, however going it in an automobile under a state license is a privilege.

The most frequent disagreement I have is in the nature of those unenumerated rights, such as the supposed "right" to health care. Rights can be exercised by an individual without forcing the participation of others, so free doctor visits are not a right. Should a government decide via law to provide health care subsidized by taxation, that is a privilege.

How we use words to shape our culture is extremely important. The media, governments, businesses, and every individual on the planet, choose words whose connotations support their agenda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


I have had people on here state that rights and privilages are the same thing.

No you haven't. privileges; perhaps. And indeed your lack of knowledge of the English language would cause you to blow a fucking headpipe like all the other imbeciles.

A very common sense (and it is in dictionaries) is: A SPECIAL RIGHT.

quote:

Rights can be exercised by an individual without forcing the participation of others

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Rights can be exercised by an individual without forcing the participation of others

the right to peaceable assembly?
The right to a speedy trail by jury?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

True, however to assemble requires the participation of others as does a trial by jury, therefore it is impossible for the individual to exercise those rights without requiring (or forcing in the case of a jury) the participation of others.

quote:

Each individual exercises his right to assembly.

quote:

Haveing a jury is a right.
Being on a jury is a duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Each individual exercises his right to assembly.

Point taken.

quote:

Haveing a jury is a right.
Being on a jury is a duty.

And yet the individual cannot exercise their right to a trial by jury without requiring the participation of others, which was the point I disagreed with.
Not all rights work that way. The right of a free press for example, is not one that can be exercised individually, it is one that by definition requires the participation of many people to exercise.
My point is that rights are too complicated to be reduced to such a simplistic formula, and also far too important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Irrelevant to my point. I'll take that as a concession. Thanks.

quote:

Hardly, it is an example of people trying to treat a right as a privilage.

quote:

It speaks to the fact that a right is to the individual, a privilage for the group

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Hardly, it is an example of people trying to treat a right as a privilage.

Irrelevant to the point i was making

quote:

It speaks to the fact that a right is to the individual, a privilage for the group

Also irrelevant to the point.

Care to try again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

The right to assemble has been abridged but then it really had to be. Look at when rioters block the highway even ambulances, and block streets ad pull truck driver out of the truck and beat the shit out of them. Need I mention the rest of the detail on that ? And burn down the chicken place right in front of the cops who are so outnumbered they don't dare do a thing. Wait until we start that shit, the sewers will overflow with blood.

Now the trial shit, in some cases you either have to represent yourself or fire your lawyer before closing arguments.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here to judge both the facts and the law. If you believe that the facts do not pass muster about reasonable doubt, your duty is to acquit. If you believe for any reason that the law was applied improperly your duty is to acquit. If you believe the law to unjust or unfair, your duty is to acquit".

That is law and that is right but if a lawyer ever said it he would be disbarred. You can say it but you have to literally fire your lawyer or have defended yourself pro se. When a jury acquits because they believe the law is unjust or applied unfairly, if they acquit it is called "jury nullification" and it happens in tax court the most. But that is the sole reason a jury even exists. Why else ? If not for that a computer could make all the decisions and probably do better than the judge in his capacity, which has much opportunity for abuse which you need to know how to get past to have a really fair trial. Buddy of mine learned how to beat them but he studied for years and hired a retired Harvard law professor as a tutor for a time to get to that point. It is not easy. He shared alot of this information with me but I am not so sure I am ready to take them on. Not with a felony, I would hire a lawyer who knows the prosecutor and judge. But I don't anticipate and felony charges so it is a moot point.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

But when they block the highway, even to ambulances carrying Whites, they can claim that because they are not hitting anyone, but some poor sap is dying ?

I say run the motherfuckers over. I would in a heartbeat, especially if I was driving an ambulance with a critical patient on board. Fuck you, now YOU can wait for the next ambulance bleeding to death in the traffic jam YOU caused. Perfect justice and almost think Stand Your Ground might be a valid defense. Not sure, but it is possible. But that's for normal people, I would run them over in my car on the way to the beer store. Fukum.

And Al Sharpton can go join Martin Luther King.

I have no problem with equal rights it is special rights that are the problem.

T^T