What is a "right"?

[Chucktshoes]

Many times the same word can hold very different meanings for different people. There have been a few ongoing threads recently (and usually are at any given time) that I think are greatly impacted by the definition of this word we hold in our heads. So with that in mind, I'll pose a few questions that come to my mind but by no means are an exhaustive list to help better understand what folks are saying when they talk about "rights".

What is a "right"?
Where do they come from?
How do you exercise them?
What are their limiting factors?
Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them?
Can you have a right to a thing?
Can you have a right to a service?

[gregintenn]

What is a "right"? Something bestowed by your Creator that cannot be taken away.
Where do they come from? God
How do you exercise them? By doing what you do.
What are their limiting factors? Only when they impede on the rights of others.
Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them? No.
Can you have a right to a thing? No.
Can you have a right to a service? No.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If you have to ask permission, have to pay for it or if they can be legally taken away they are not a right and are a privilege.

Life is not a right for everyone. An inmate on death row can legally have his life taken away so every breath he takes is a privilege.

Self defense is the only right that I can think of that cannot be taken away. Yes the tools used for self defense can be taken away but not the act of defending oneself.

No one has the right to an object because we have seen time and time again our rulers, and that is exactly what they are, take away objects they do not want those below them to have.

I am talking about how things are, not how they should be. We SHOULD have the right to have and do ANYTHING so long as it does not negatively affect someone else's right to do the same thing. Unfortunately that will NEVER happen in this country. Everything that brings someone joy or happiness is regulated by our oligarchy and without THEIR permission we cannot do it. Name anything that brings people happiness and our government regulates or tries to regulate it.

Every single day I read about more and more freedoms being regulated away. Eventually we will all be criminals begging our rulers for a taste of freedom and that is exactly what our rulers want, a populace dependent upon the government for life, liberty and happiness.

[DaveTN]

You have a right to try to start a marathon thread. I predict you have accomplished that.

This is a wide open discussion that will go all kind of ways.
 

What are their limiting factors?
Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them?

I suspect the biggest debates/questions will be over Constitutional rights and the drama and understanding/misunderstanding of them.
I’ll kick things off with some remarks about the most discussed right on a gun forum; The 2nd Amendment.
 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was arrested in Illinois for having a gun in my car. The charges were dismissed because I knew people to get that done; otherwise I would have been convicted. I thought I had a right to have a gun and that I would fight it all the way to the SCOTUS. That was many years ago and I now have to laugh that I could have been that naïve.

So, do I have a right to carry a gun? Absolutely not. The worst war this country was ever in was our own civil war. Contrary to what is being taught in schools today that war was fought over States Rights. The side fighting for States Rights lost. But it took such a toll on our nation that no one (of average intelligence) wants to fight it again.

So are there limitations to rights? Absolutely. The SCOTUS has seen fit to cut the 2nd amendment in half. They have ruled that you have the right to own a gun. Why didn’t they rule you have the right to carry a gun and let everyone strap on a gun while walking down the street? States’ Rights. They knew they couldn’t enforce it and they would have had a show down with the states.

Our state is not a Constitutional Carry state; it is a crime to carry a gun. We (HCP holders) are a “Special Group” just like cops and other “Special groups”. We purchased our “Privilege” to carry from the state; no Rights are involved.

[EssOne]

Then to muddy the waters further, there are privileges that for all intents and purposes are what I call "qualified rights." Like a drivers license in a state like California where, if you don't drive, you don't work or eat. The drivers privilege there has an immense number of safeguards and can be taken away from you only under the strictest of circumstances enumerated in statutory and case law. I call it a "qualified right" because it is extended to you on condition that your personal conduct while driving, vision, etc., facilitate safe driving, and as long as you meet those requirements, the government can't touch your driving privilege.

[NextExit]

I've watched enough "Law & Order" to know that I have a right to an attorney. :pleased:

[EssOne]

I've watched enough "Law & Order" to know that I have a right to an attorney. :pleased:

 

If the wrong people see your avatar you're gonna need one. :rofl:

[Omega]

What is a "right"?

A right is something you are born with, a natural right, such as self defense, life, liberty etc.  Having a right does not mean others will not violate them, either by force or threat thereof.  Just because that right is taken away or regulated does not mean you don't have it.

Where do they come from?

Force, because again, others will violate them if not defended.

How do you exercise them?

Depends on the right, self defense is a given, 1st Amendment is exercised by not allowing the government to silence those that oppose government actions. The 2nd is exercised by owning guns and supporting others to to do the same and resisting efforts by those that would violate those rights by passing laws that limit them unnecessarily.

What are their limiting factors?

The major limiting factor is when that right violates an other's right.  The law (society) also can have an impact, we regulate left and right limits to the 1st, tools for the 2nd etc.  

Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them?

Absolutely.  Rights cannot be taken away, they can be violated, but not taken away.  You can forfeit certain rights by violating the rights of others such as by murder or grievously injuring someone, but those are legally violated by agreement within a civilized society.

Can you have a right to a thing?

Yes, and no.  We have the right to anything we can afford to own or make, we do not have the right to a thing which is owned or payed for by others.  

Can you have a right to a service?

No, and yes.  Again, we have the right to services which we pay for, or are qualified to receive.  Such as medical, fire and yes, police enforcement.

 

The last two are not what I would deem natural rights, but an extension of those rights.  Making laws which limit how we can exercise or defend our rights is a tricky proposition to except. Laws such as speed limits or not being able to yell fire in an elevator, come from protecting others and many will accept that without question.  Other laws such as gun rights are more polar, some, like me, do not believe ownership should be regulated, while others do not feel anyone should own guns.  Now gun use is a trickier situation, as the line between my right and yours is much more blurred.  I firmly believe that we have the right to have a gun anyplace where our lives may be put in danger, and we have the right to have what ever is needed according to the threat. If we lived in a Utopian society, where no one wanted to hurt one another then maybe I can accept not being able to carry, but as it is those laws only hinder the law abiding.

[runco]

I have certain unalienable rights endowed by The Creator!  Unfortunately, through time others do not recognize the same certain unalienable rights, because they no longer support The Creator!. 

[NextExit]

If the wrong people see your avatar you're gonna need one. :rofl:

Maybe, but I won't exercise the right to remain silent. :tough:

[DaveTN]

Then to muddy the waters further, there are privileges that for all intents and purposes are what I call "qualified rights." Like a drivers license in a state like California where, if you don't drive, you don't work or eat. The drivers privilege there has an immense number of safeguards and can be taken away from you only under the strictest of circumstances enumerated in statutory and case law. I call it a "qualified right" because it is extended to you on condition that your personal conduct while driving, vision, etc., facilitate safe driving, and as long as you meet those requirements, the government can't touch your driving privilege.

I have always felt that driving should be a right; although I acknowledge it is a privilege in every state I’m aware of.

There are people who depend on driving for their very existence.

For example; I don’t believe the state should be able to suspend or revoke your driver’s license for DUI. They should be able to put you in jail for it; they should be able to put you in prison for multiple offenses. You will either quit drinking and driving or know that you will go to prison. If you quit drinking and driving you will still be able to keep a job, but won’t be getting arrested all the time for driving while suspended/revoked.

Another example: If you keep getting speeding tickets; the fines keep increasing or jail time kicks in. In my plan the fine would be based on your income and it would progressively hurt more until you became a careful driver.

I can’t count the number of people I have seen ruined either over a DUI or getting enough points that leads to suspension, revocation, FTA, and jail.

Anyone that has read my posts on DUI knows I don’t condone it in any way, and I won’t drive even after one beer. But people that have made mistakes and corrected them are sometimes caught up in a system there is no recovering from.

However, no states agree with me.

[TNWNGR]

Well the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta they derived from are what I think of but they've been adultrated...

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

[DaveTN]

They aren’t rules from GOD written in stone and our founding fathers didn’t intend them to be. We are responsible for maintaining what is and is not a right or a law.

[Grand Torino]

If you have to ask permission, have to pay for it or if they can be legally taken away they are not a right and are a privilege.

Life is not a right for everyone. An inmate on death row can legally have his life taken away so every breath he takes is a privilege.

Self defense is the only right that I can think of that cannot be taken away. Yes the tools used for self defense can be taken away but not the act of defending oneself.

No one has the right to an object because we have seen time and time again our rulers, and that is exactly what they are, take away objects they do not want those below them to have.

I am talking about how things are, not how they should be. We SHOULD have the right to have and do ANYTHING so long as it does not negatively affect someone else's right to do the same thing. Unfortunately that will NEVER happen in this country. Everything that brings someone joy or happiness is regulated by our oligarchy and without THEIR permission we cannot do it. Name anything that brings people happiness and our government regulates or tries to regulate it.

Every single day I read about more and more freedoms being regulated away. Eventually we will all be criminals begging our rulers for a taste of freedom and that is exactly what our rulers want, a populace dependent upon the government for life, liberty and happiness.

 

 

Eventually we will all be criminals begging our rulers for a taste of freedom and that is exactly what our rulers want, a populace dependent upon the government for life, liberty and happiness.

Reminds me of 1776......

[EssOne]

I have always felt that driving should be a right; although I acknowledge it is a privilege in every state I’m aware of.

There are people who depend on driving for their very existence.

For example; I don’t believe the state should be able to suspend or revoke your driver’s license for DUI. They should be able to put you in jail for it; they should be able to put you in prison for multiple offenses. You will either quit drinking and driving or know that you will go to prison. If you quit drinking and driving you will still be able to keep a job, but won’t be getting arrested all the time for driving while suspended/revoked.

Another example: If you keep getting speeding tickets; the fines keep increasing or jail time kicks in. In my plan the fine would be based on your income and it would progressively hurt more until you became a careful driver.

I can’t count the number of people I have seen ruined either over a DUI or getting enough points that leads to suspension, revocation, FTA, and jail.

Anyone that has read my posts on DUI knows I don’t condone it in any way, and I won’t drive even after one beer. But people that have made mistakes and corrected them are sometimes caught up in a system there is no recovering from.

However, no states agree with me.

 

I agree with a lot of this. The idea of a drivers license goes back to the early 20th century and was predicated on the idea that people would obey the laws, thus when the state revoked or suspended the license, the errant driver would obey and they could, they thought, keep dangerous drivers off the road simply by taking his drivers license away from him. Well, that's no longer true by a darn sight!  We know that literally nobody who gets his license taken away actually stops driving. It's common for drivers appearing in court on a charge of driving on a revoked license to simply pay the fine then go get in their car and drive off, and they do it again and again. But having said that, I believe that as long as public safety is at such terrible risk at the hands of bad or drunk or physically unfit drivers, I don't ever expect to see driving become a full right under the law instead of a "qualified right."

[btq96r]

What is a "right"?

A specific legal guarantee or set of legal guarantees for individuals with relation to their government.

 

Where do they come from?

A political system that recognizes, codifies, and protects them.

 

How do you exercise them?

By using them as they are needed or desired.  Also by accepting & protecting their use by others regardless of personal feelings, and defending them when they are threatened by any process other than the established method to change or eliminate them as part of the political process.

 

What are their limiting factors?

Unless otherwise prescribed in the laws that establish them, when they interfere with the exercise of the rights of others is the standard default for their limits.

 

Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them?

If they are guaranteed under law, they you still possess them, even if you are being denied them or they are being prohibited.  An individual actions can forfeit their rights if convicted by a legal process, such as is the case with imprisonment.

 

Can you have a right to a thing?

If prescribed by law that establishes the right, yes.

 

Can you have a right to a service?

If prescribed by law that establishes the right, yes.

[enfield]

I have a right to a time to live and a place to die. Everything else can be taken from me.

[Jonnin]

Many times the same word can hold very different meanings for different people. There have been a few ongoing threads recently (and usually are at any given time) that I think are greatly impacted by the definition of this word we hold in our heads. So with that in mind, I'll pose a few questions that come to my mind but by no means are an exhaustive list to help better understand what folks are saying when they talk about "rights".

What is a "right"?
Where do they come from?
How do you exercise them?
What are their limiting factors?
Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them?
Can you have a right to a thing?
Can you have a right to a service?

 

 

- right:  I disagree that it cannot be taken away.   Take a visit to north korea to understand this.  Perhaps it is SHOULD NOT here?   It is something you are allowed to do without fear of punishment of any sort from anyone, and if someone does try to stop you from exercising your right you can defend it with your life.  Perhaps the best definition would be if you can make it through the legal system arguing that your right was violated, then you have the right in question (for now...).

 

- They come from herd mentality.  If almost everyone (or your particular government) in a given location agrees to allow it, its a right.  One can claim the almighty here but HE does not seem to get involved too much with details.    You can claim to have the right to be alive, for example, but I surely know someone who can take this from you, and some governments that would do it without a second thought, etc.  You can claim a right to think/say what you please ... except when someone decides to brainwash you... etc.

 

- you exercise them by not being shot, arrested, etc as you go about your life.

 

- its already pretty limited.  If the herd changes its mind, the right goes away.  If government changes its "mind" (laws/behavior/whatever)  the right goes away.  If someone decides to deny you the right against the herd... youll have to fight for it (example, someone decides to murder you).

 

- nope.  If you can't exercise it, you are no longer having that right.  Generally, in that case, you can't even make a public claim about it in safety ... depends on where you are and stuff, you can still do that in the USA because freedom of speech is not totally gone yet.

 

- yes.  If you own something, you have the right to it, in general, with all the above limitations to that + more depending on what it is and where you are and what you want to do with/to it.

 

- yes.  Same as a thing ...  but if you can make it through the legal system with your claim, you have proven your right to the service.   Generally simple things like paying for a service, you have the right to that, for example, because you paid for it .. cellphone, for example.  Within all the limitations...

[Oh Shoot]

If it makes one feel better about espousing a right he can't exercise, fine with me.  We have the right to opine about a right, even from prison.

 

- OS

[Grand Torino]

 

 

Being free is no longer a right, God given or otherwise, or at least in this country it is not. We are not free but because we have always been told we are free we assume that this is free and is as free as we are going to get. Would ANY of the founding fathers, or anyone from the same time, view our society as a free one? Our founding fathers would have fought harder against the government we have now than when we declared ourselves independent of the English crown.

239 years ago we declared ourselves to be a nation of free men but we are now living under the thumbs of our oligarchy rulers that give us some freedom but only when we ask for it. And they only do that because they want nothing more than to control us, or else! This nation fought an overbearing English oligarchy that was well on its way to becoming tyrannical. Sounds pretty familiar to the government we have now except now no one is willing to fight, or even send an email, to be free so long as our government continues to give them permission to call themselves free men.

Let that sink in. We, as Americans, have been reduced from a country of once free men to men who now have to ask permission to call themselves free.

Fundamentally there is very little difference between how our current government, and the 1700's English monarchy. The methods are little different because of technology but fundamentally we are, just as in the 1700's, governed by a ruling class that acts and believes they are superior to us and you know what, they are superior to all of us. They get to pick and choose who lives and who dies, they can pick who is allowed to call themselves free and what freedoms they have, they get to choose who will become successful or who is destined to live and die a poor, miserable life. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

We are not free and have not been for a very, very long time. Freedom is not having to ask our government for the privilege to be free. Free is being able to live the way YOU see fit without first getting permission. We don't have as many freedoms today as we had a few days ago much less 239 years ago. Some may think we are free but that is not so when you have to get permission to be free first.

The English crown ruled over this country without us being represented. Today, we have an oligarchy that does not represent the diversity of our nation and only serves to further limit our freedoms by chipping away at what little privileges we have left until we are all reduced to living as criminals controlled by our masters.

All our government does, despite being charged with protecting its citizens, is further stifle this country, and its citizens, in order to control us like the English monarchy tried to do before our declaration that we are free 239 years ago.

Open up any newspaper and you will see how far our government has encroached into our lives while taking 99% of the freedom we once had away. Our rulers have even went as far as dictating who, what, when and how people can procreate. When that legislator stepped into my house, no my bedroom, and told me what I can and cannot do with the one I love he became a tyrant. Our rulers are making laws that apply to us but not to any of them and that makes them tyrannical.

The one, singular, question I use in determining whether a government is tyrannical is this. If the majority of those ruled by a government are fearful, or distrustful, of their government then that government has become tyrannical. The government's one job is to protect it citizens from harm but when the harm is at the hands of a government that government IS tyrannical.

My point exactly....you laid it out perfectly.