Rights vs Privileges

[detlef]

The debate about whether or not health care is a right or a privilege has managed to squeeze itself into the middle of this whole mess and I was fortunate enough to be involved in a pretty interesting conversation about it.

 

In general, my stance is that it doesn't much matter if we're trying to argue the merits of the health care bill. Our status as a first world country is built as much on privilege as it is on rights. We enjoy a privileged life here in America and are damned proud of it. And that's OK. America is not only better than the third world because of the bill of rights, but because of all the privileges that we enjoy the luxury of taking for granted. It's like the difference within this country between the rich and the poor. The rich don't have more "rights", they have more "privileges". And that defines their status within this country. Just like our many privileges defines our status within this world. Thus, to take measures to ensure basic "privileges" to everyone in the US isn't any less American than ensuring them basic "rights".

 

Now, that doesn't mean that the way we've decided to attack health care makes sense, nor does it mean that health care is among the basic privileges we should make a point of ensuring. That, of course, is what the debate should be about. However, trying to downgrade health care as a privilege should have no bearing on the argument.

 

After all, what exactly is the difference between rights and privileges. See, I argue that the line is thinner than one might want to admit. What we in progressive countries take as rights are nothing more than a pipe dream to millions of others in this world. Why? Because we're privileged. We were privileged to be born in or found our way to a country that assumes that these things are simply things that should not be taken away. "So is it really the Bill of Privileges?" I was asked, amazed as if I'd been cornered by faulty logic.

 

"Well yes, it sort of is. It is a set of rules that we as Americans are bound to and protected by because we are fortunate to be born to a country founded by visionaries who, having lived through oppressive government, agreed that no person should be denied. But they're only rights to us because we've decided they are and demand them from our government."

 

"But if it's a privilege, it can be taken away. A right can't be taken away."

 

"Tell that to the people who've had their right's taken away by oppressive leaders. Sure, it sounds nice that we are all born into certain rights, but quite frankly, many of us are not. We owe it to ourselves to fight like hell for the privilege to do what we want, but we are born into nothing but our spot on the food chain. There is far too much evidence to the contrary to believe that as humans, there are things we are owed that simply can't be taken away. Because they are, all the time. If you need to call something a right in order to fight like hell for it, so be it. But it's all really a matter of semantics. I say you are fighting to earn the privileged status to call your own shots. Either that or, like many of us, you're privileged to be born in a country where others have gone before you and fought on your behalf. Either you, or they, fought to secure for you a privileged spot on the human food chain."

 

And so it went on. Of course, at some point, God does rear it's head, because the phrase "god given rights" ends up popping up. Obviously, as a non-believer, I just see this as yet another example of man implying the existence of god to further a political agenda, even if, as in this case, with very noble intent.

 

After all, in my opinion, our constitution was formed because a bunch of rational and intelligent men got together and hashed out a set of rules that anyone who wanted to call themselves an American had to live by and would be protected by. There was no divine guidance. No set of rules passed down by an all-knowing and wise being that could not be refuted. Each had a list of things important to them, there were debates, compromises, and one of the most amazing and visionary documents ever resulted. After all, if these were, in fact, god given rights, then these guys would have all showed up with the same list and said, "Wow, you spoke to god as well? Perfect, someone right this down and let's call it a day." But it wasn't, someone made a compelling case about all of the things set forth and they all ended up agreeing on something that worked. Something amazing, in fact.

 

Thoughts?

[bpwallace49]

After all, in my opinion, our constitution was formed because a bunch of rational and intelligent men got together and hashed out a set of rules that anyone who wanted to call themselves an American had to live by and would be protected by. There was no divine guidance. No set of rules passed down by an all-knowing and wise being that could not be refuted. Each had a list of things important to them, there were debates, compromises, and one of the most amazing and visionary documents ever resulted. After all, if these were, in fact, god given rights, then these guys would have all showed up with the same list and said, "Wow, you spoke to god as well? Perfect, someone right this down and let's call it a day." But it wasn't, someone made a compelling case about all of the things set forth and they all ended up agreeing on something that worked. Something amazing, in fact.

 

 

Very well written!

 

but if it doesnt have catch phrases like "obamacare" or "obamamessiah" so I doubt others will fell the same

[westvirginia]

The debate about whether or not health care is a right or a privilege has managed to squeeze itself into the middle of this whole mess and I was fortunate enough to be involved in a pretty interesting conversation about it.

 

In general, my stance is that it doesn't much matter if we're trying to argue the merits of the health care bill. Our status as a first world country is built as much on privilege as it is on rights. We enjoy a privileged life here in America and are damned proud of it. And that's OK. America is not only better than the third world because of the bill of rights, but because of all the privileges that we enjoy the luxury of taking for granted. It's like the difference within this country between the rich and the poor. The rich don't have more "rights", they have more "privileges".Because they or their antecedents have done something to EARN that wealth and privilege, in most cases And that defines their status within this country. Just like our many privileges defines our status within this world. Thus, to take measures to ensure basic "privileges" to everyone in the US isn't any less American than ensuring them basic "rights".

 

Now, that doesn't mean that the way we've decided to attack health care makes sense, nor does it mean that health care is among the basic privileges we should make a point of ensuring. That, of course, is what the debate should be about. However, trying to downgrade health care as a privilege should have no bearing on the argument.

 

After all, what exactly is the difference between rights and privileges. See, I argue that the line is thinner than one might want to admit. What we in progressive countries take as rights are nothing more than a pipe dream to millions of others in this world. Why? Because we're privileged. We were privileged to be born in or found our way to a country that assumes that these things are simply things that should not be taken away. "So is it really the Bill of Privileges?" I was asked, amazed as if I'd been cornered by faulty logic.

 

"Well yes, it sort of is. It is a set of rules that we as Americans are bound to and protected by because we are fortunate to be born to a country founded by visionaries who, having lived through oppressive government, agreed that no person should be denied. But they're only rights to us because we've decided they are and demand them from our government."

 

"But if it's a privilege, it can be taken away. A right can't be taken away."

 

"Tell that to the people who've had their right's taken away by oppressive leaders. So because a woman is raped, she didn't have the right to control her own body, just a privilege? Because someone can take your life away, does that in any way diminish your right to it? Sure, it sounds nice that we are all born into certain rights, but quite frankly, many of us are not. We owe it to ourselves to fight like hell for the privilege to do what we want, but we are born into nothing but our spot on the food chain. But because we are sentient beings with rights, we all have the same spot on the food chain - i.e. before the law. That's the difference between the government we're supposed to have and democracy. Democracy is literally mob rule. If 51% of the people in Durham decided 2 Dogs should be free, and used the power of coercive force to make it so and force you to keep operating it, that wouldn't lessen your right not to have to do it, would it? There is far too much evidence to the contrary to believe that as humans, there are things we are owed that simply can't be taken away. Not owed, but inherent. BIG BIG difference. It CAN'T be a right if someone else has to give up something for you to get it. Because they are, all the time. If you need to call something a right in order to fight like hell for it, so be it. But it's all really a matter of semantics. I say you are fighting to earn the privileged status to call your own shots. Either that or, like many of us, you're privileged to be born in a country where others have gone before you and fought on your behalf. Either you, or they, fought to secure for you a privileged spot on the human food chain."

 

And so it went on. Of course, at some point, God does rear it's head, because the phrase "god given rights" ends up popping up. Obviously, as a non-believer, I just see this as yet another example of man implying the existence of god to further a political agenda, even if, as in this case, with very noble intent.

 

After all, in my opinion, our constitution was formed because a bunch of rational and intelligent men got together and hashed out a set of rules that anyone who wanted to call themselves an American had to live by and would be protected by. There was no divine guidance. No set of rules passed down by an all-knowing and wise being that could not be refuted. Each had a list of things important to them, there were debates, compromises, and one of the most amazing and visionary documents ever resulted. After all, if these were, in fact, god given rights, then these guys would have all showed up with the same list and said, "Wow, you spoke to god as well? Perfect, someone right this down and let's call it a day." But it wasn't, someone made a compelling case about all of the things set forth and they all ended up agreeing on something that worked. Something amazing, in fact.

 

Thoughts?

 

You do realize you're saying that might makes right? At least in the paragraph where you're talking about oppressive governments. And using your definition, if a right can only be something that someone else can't take away, then we truly have no rights. None at all. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence - especially the part about governance being created by a people to protect those rights. Whether you believe those rights to come from God, Midichlorians or the great pumpkin is not any issue at all. If you are a sentient being then you have those rights.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you are a sentient being then you have those rights.

Or, for purity: If you are a sentient being then you SHOULD have those rights. Fact is that what we call rights are only rights as long as some more powerful entity lets them be so. IMO, this would be the most difficult country in the world to remove those rights from since we have set up an apparatus - your detested government - in such a way as to guarantee those rights to a far higher degree than anywhere else.

 

I don't think he was saying "might makes right" at all except insofar as might can do what it wants.

[cre8tiff]

You do realize you're saying that might makes right? At least in the paragraph where you're talking about oppressive governments. And using your definition, if a right can only be something that someone else can't take away, then we truly have no rights. None at all. Take a look at the Declaration of Independence - especially the part about governance being created by a people to protect those rights. Whether you believe those rights to come from God, Midichlorians or the great pumpkin is not any issue at all. If you are a sentient being then you have those rights.

 

It is a good thing the founding fathers were no A-types.

 

Too much detail would have ruined the whole thing, eh? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are as specific as possible to allow the advancement of the human race as a whole. Especially the Pursuit of Happiness. It is so vague and personal, one could put just about anything against it. That is why the (continuing) work of our government is important, to handle the changing human condition as a whole.

 

Look at Prohibition. The country was SO for it, it passed as an Amendment not just a law as we just passed. A few years later it was repealed as society changed. Fact is, the system allows for changed minds. If the healthcare law is something that is so all-fired bad, then work to change it.

 

But I don't believe it is. However, I as an American, withhold the right to change my mind and vote accordingly.

[bpwallace49]

It CAN'T be a right if someone else has to give up something for you to get it.

 

Did the slave owners have to give up something when the slaves were freed? This is all relativistic and is granted by the governing body. Under your argumnet, slave owners were unfairly treated by the mean ol federal gubmnet.

 

And considering that men fought and died for this country . . you can argue that ther are NO RIGHTS AT ALL to be an American, because someone gave up their life for you to get it . . . right?

Edited March 25, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Chavez]

Whether you believe those rights to come from God, Midichlorians or the great pumpkin is not any issue at all.

I know SOME who make a very big issue of the fact that those rights supposedly "come" from one deity in particular.

 

Myself, I agree 100% with this...

If you are a sentient being then you have those rights.

....which is why I can't condone NOT giving terrorists the full extent of rights that some feel only native-born Americans "deserve." If we don't extend those rights to the WORST of us, what's the point in bothering to elucidate them?

 

Sorry if I'm semi-derailing here.

[The Mucca]

Now everybody has the right to either 1 buy health insurance, or 2 the right to go to prison.

So with this argument, mandatory health insurance is neither a right, or a privilege, it

is simply a mandate.

[bpwallace49]

Now everybody has the right to either 1 buy health insurance, or 2 the right to pay fines that help pay for your health care in an emergency

 

Fixed for accuracy

[millerx]

Fixed for accuracy

and if you don't pay the fine? just drawing your argument out to it's logical conclusion.

[bpwallace49]

and if you don't pay the fine? just drawing your argument out to it's logical conclusion.

 

You mean like if you break any other of the laws passed by a majority of our duly elected representives in gubmnet as detailed in this grand experiment we call democracy?

 

Then you choose to place yourself in jail for breaking the rules decided on by the society you choose to live in.

[millerx]

You mean like if you break any other of the laws passed by a majority of our duly elected representives in gubmnet as detailed in this grand experiment we call democracy?

 

Then you choose to place yourself in jail for breaking the rules decided on by the society you choose to live in.

Would I be in jail if I wasn't forced to buy something (health insurance) by our government?

 

Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will ...... Never, that is, until now.

Edited March 25, 2010 by millerx

[wiegie]

Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will ...... Never, that is, until now.

not sure about that

 

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Edited March 25, 2010 by wiegie

[wiegie]

not sure about that

 

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

millerx, don't f'ck with

(likely NSFW)

[The Mucca]

"You mean like if you areforced against your will by our socialist government.

 

Then they place you jail."

 

 

Fixed

[cre8tiff]

Fixed

 

Not very well fixed, though.

[Azazello1313]

when the founders talked about rights being inherent, or god-given, they were describing the way they felt government OUGHT to be. obviously the rights to life, liberty, property CAN be taken away by an oppressive government -- and in the course of human history, they seem to be absent far more often than not, to varying degrees. rights are something we have to be vigilant to protect, we don't just have them because someone else says we do.

 

as far as parsing the semantic difference between "rights" and "privileges"....I dunno, I can't really think of any clear, meaningful dividing lines. I'll just say that I think BOTH terms are overused, and neither is appropriately tied to corresponding responsibilities often enough, IMO. I don't think a material benefit people are or feel somehow entitled to is really a right OR a privilege. privileges and especially rights, as I see them, have more to do with the power relationship between the individual and his government than they do to any perceived entitlement to material benefit.

[westvirginia]

You mean like if you break any other of the laws passed by a majority of our duly elected representives in gubmnet as detailed in this grand experiment we call democracy?

 

Then you choose to place yourself in jail for breaking the rules decided on by the society you choose to live in.

 

See, you don't get it either. Just because you can get 51% of the vote to do something doesn't make it right. Like in my example to detlef, if the gov't votes to take all of "beauty princess" wallace's income and make him a sex slave to Che Guevera, that doesn't make it right. There are some things a government has no right, authority or business voting on. When the gov't gets into those areas, IMO, the use of force is justified to protect those rights (we're talking theoretically/academically here) because force is the only way the state can enforce its illegitimate edict. And the only way the sovereign individual can retain their rights. Can you not see that?

[Ursa Majoris]

when the founders talked about rights being inherent, or god-given, they were describing the way they felt government OUGHT to be. obviously the rights to life, liberty, property CAN be taken away by an oppressive government -- and in the course of human history, they seem to be absent far more often than not, to varying degrees. rights are something we have to be vigilant to protect, we don't just have them because someone else says we do.

 

as far as parsing the semantic difference between "rights" and "privileges"....I dunno, I can't really think of any clear, meaningful dividing lines. I'll just say that I think BOTH terms are overused, and neither is appropriately tied to corresponding responsibilities often enough, IMO. I don't think a material benefit people are or feel somehow entitled to is really a right OR a privilege. privileges and especially rights, as I see them, have more to do with the power relationship between the individual and his government than they do to any perceived entitlement to material benefit.

This.

[westvirginia]

This.

 

Says the man who thinks welfare (i.e. using gov't force to sponge off of others because of the poor results of your irresponsible decisions is just fine? I don't get it ursa.

 

Now the way I see it, the responsibilities of a citizen of this nation is voting, keep from harming/removing the rights of your fellow citizens, perhaps military service

[Ursa Majoris]

Says the man who thinks welfare (i.e. using gov't force to sponge off of others because of the poor results of your irresponsible decisions is just fine? I don't get it ursa.

Because you aren't really listening, presumably, as I've never supported that, certainly not how it comes across here.

[westvirginia]

Because you aren't really listening, presumably, as I've never supported that, certainly not how it comes across here.

 

You support turning SS and medicare both into welfare entitlements with your "means testing".

[Caveman_Nick]

Great sigline WV.

[Ursa Majoris]

You support turning SS and medicare both into welfare entitlements with your "means testing".

No, I support repackaging them as insurance. Is it welfare when you claim on your insurance?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[millerx]

No, I support repackaging them as insurance. Is it welfare when you claim on your insurance?

Question: are you saying everyone actually pays into the "repackaged insurance"? ...because if not, all you did was relabel welfare.