ForumGarden

I have always found what people think is their right, to be an interesting subject, as well as what they consider a privilege. Because we have doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, higher education, housing, electronics and all the services and material things that go to make up a society does this mean that everyone has a right to these things? Some say "everyone has a right to free health care", "everyone has a right to a free education". Where do we draw the line on what is a right and a privilege? Where do you draw the line?

Lon;695125 wrote: I have always found what people think is their right, to be an interesting subject, as well as what they consider a privilege. Because we have doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, higher education, housing, electronics and all the services and material things that go to make up a society does this mean that everyone has a right to these things? Some say "everyone has a right to free health care", "everyone has a right to a free education". Where do we draw the line on what is a right and a privilege? Where do you draw the line?




Right here Lon. If I even see one footprint over this line so help me I cant be held responsible for my actions. -----> ________________________________________________

It's an interesting question, Lon, and one that doesn't have any black and white answers. Everyone has their opinion, obviously. I believe everyone has a right to health care, clean water, education, healthy food, etc.. But I also believe the people who render such services should be compensated. That being said, I believe everyone has the right to affordable health care, clean water, education, healthy food, etc. The issue of affordability seems to be what everyone bickers about.

I believe everyone has a right to health care, clean water, education, healthy food, etc...


What or who dictates these rights. Where is it written or ordained that people have a right to those things? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get a bit more in depth.

Lon;695204 wrote: I believe everyone has a right to health care, clean water, education, healthy food, etc...


What or who dictates these rights. Where is it written or ordained that people have a right to those things? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get a bit more in depth.


I've never been without those things you mention (maybe that's a priviledge?) so maybe someone who has been without them will respond for more deeper reflection on the matter. However and I'm no genius when it comes to political and democratic principles, I failed history first year of college, I do remember something about the constitution of the United States, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about our rights.

In a different but similar vein, I feel that everyone that receives these rights of health and maintenance of the human body should also in some way contribute to the goods, unless of course said person is physically or mentally incapable. Nothing in life is free. I think God said that.

Erin

Lon;695204 wrote:

What or who dictates these rights. Where is it written or ordained that people have a right to those things? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get a bit more in depth.


I feel a trap fixing to be sprung here.... I'm just kidding you, Lon.:wah:

I would offer that it's written in the code of humanity. Even if you were to remove education from that list, the other things would have to remain as things all human beings are entitled to by nature. If pressed, I'd have to say that it's instinct. We "know" we are deserving of those things. We recognize that....

Good question. I think that when people have it they consider it to be their ‘right’, those who don’t have it consider it to be a ‘privilege’.

You can only have a right to something, when it is there, if it is taken away, they you would consider yourself to have been privileged to have it in the first place.

I think that people abuse things that they see as their ‘right’, such as healthcare and other services that they feel they have a ‘right to’. If they saw these things more as privileges, then they may take better care of them.

Most parents would like their children to have a college education. Is this a right that each child has, or is it a privilege?

Most people would like to own (or be able to buy) their own home. Is this a right that people have or is it a privilege?

Is decent housing or shelter a right or a privilege.

What things are people entitled to as a right and what things are a privilege?

Lon;695301 wrote: Most parents would like their children to have a college education. Is this a right that each child has, or is it a privilege?

Most people would like to own (or be able to buy) their own home. Is this a right that people have or is it a privilege?

Is decent housing or shelter a right or a privilege.

What things are people entitled to as a right and what things are a privilege?


If it is deemed essential that is your "right"

If it's special and you work towards it and pay above and beyond that is your "privledge"

Food, shelter, education are a right, to elaborate upon those becomes a privledge? Perhaps??

Lon;695301 wrote: Most parents would like their children to have a college education. Is this a right that each child has, or is it a privilege?


In my opinion, every individual has a duty to obtain the best education they can.

Lon;695301 wrote: Most people would like to own (or be able to buy) their own home. Is this a right that people have or is it a privilege?


This is a choice, determined in great part by income.

Lon;695301 wrote: Is decent housing or shelter a right or a privilege.


Neither, provision of adequate, weather-proof housing is (or should be) a function of local government.

Lon;695301 wrote: What things are people entitled to as a right and what things are a privilege?


I am having difficulty with your choice of terminology here "rights/privileges", some of your examples of rights/privileges, I would identify as duties. Some duties of the individual, as in my comment on education above, others are duties incumbent on either local or national government.

Some examples of the duties of local government are:-

1) Provision of affordable housing

2) Provision of sewerage

3) Provision of public roads, lighting and waste collection

4) Provision of Police and Fire-fighting services

Duties of national governments include:-

1) Collection and distribution of taxes

2) Provision of universal healthcare

3) Defence

Lon;695204 wrote: I believe everyone has a right to health care, clean water, education, healthy food, etc...


What or who dictates these rights. Where is it written or ordained that people have a right to those things? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get a bit more in depth.


Lon, you're asking why these very basic things to human health and happiness are considered a right. And I understand the devil's advocate argument you're presenting here for sake of conversation. But, my question for you is, why would it not be considered a right? And for what purpose?

If you'd like your basic human rights to be in question, there are many other countries you could reside besides your current one.

Thankfully, most of us here have the luxury and time to ask these questions and talk semantics because we aren't living in a place where our basic rights are violated on every level. Not to mention, even in so-called modern societies there are those who would prefer others' rights to be taken away to gain more privileges for themselves.

I lost an argument with him indoors on this. He's a lawyer and reckons we have NO rights, as such, except those which are given to us by law. This is a philosophical interpretation of the word, and he convinced me.

It depends what one means by 'right'. If you have a Bill of Rights, then the advantages conveyed by that are enshrined in law. They are rights because they are defined as rights, that's all.

There is a difference between a 'right' and 'what it would be nice for everyone to have'.

It would be nice if everyone was free, well fed, sheltered, had health care, etc etc - it isn't very nice if they get tortured, thrown in jail without trial etc etc.

Freedom to pursue happiness etc isn't a right unless given by law, even 'common law'.

I lost an argument with him indoors on this. He's a lawyer and reckons we have NO rights, as such, except those which are given to us by law. This is a philosophical interpretation of the word, and he convinced me.

well as law is unique to each country, which country's law you choose to believe is subjective

and as a lawyer, your other half is paid to spout b******t and persuade people to believe what he wants them too. Doesn't make it right. What you believe to be rights or privileges..or the difference between them, is down to you own personal moral code.

Maybe it's a misuse of the actual work "right".

I can remember when my sister was married to this rude attorney who used to say that filing bankruptcy "isn't a right". But everyone who wants to do that, does it. So I could never quite understand why he (or anyone) speaks as if they have the "right" to tell another what their "rights" are.:rolleyes:

A lot of illegal Mexicans think they have rights, and have a sense of entitlement that offends me to no end.

As AP says, in nature nothing, including staying alive, is a right. Everything is a privilege that you must earn by your own efforts.

In an attempt to better our lot, humans have declared certain things to be the right of everyone. What these "things" are is different in each legislature and, by the very nature of the law, artificial.

So I'd suggest that the answer to the OP is, what we decide it is - both in the making of the laws and in their enforcement.

AussiePam;695435 wrote: I lost an argument with him indoors on this. He's a lawyer and reckons we have NO rights, as such, except those which are given to us by law.




So you don't believe in human rights at all unless those "rights" are given by any particular government? Frankly, I believe that is complete bull****. Perhaps you should test out your belief of "no such thing as human rights" by going to a country where women are treated like sh**. Where they are stoned to death for showing their ankles or for walking in front of a man, etc. While living in a country where our basic human rights are mostly fulfilled it is very easy to run our mouths about what a human right is and what it isn't.

For anyone interested, check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html One very influential definition of human rights.

laneybug;695490 wrote: So you don't believe in human rights at all unless those "rights" are given by any particular government? Frankly, I believe that is complete bull****. Perhaps you should test out your belief of "no such thing as human rights" by going to a country where women are treated like sh**. Where they are stoned to death for showing their ankles or for walking in front of a man, etc. While living in a country where our basic human rights are mostly fulfilled it is very easy to run our mouths about what a human right is and what it isn't.

For anyone interested, check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html One very influential definition of human rights.


But the example you give is the perfect example for the lack of universal human rights. When you've shown your ankle, to whom do you appeal to stop the people stoning you? If that right does not exist in the country in which you find yourself then you're just as dead for showing an ankle as for the serial killing of babies.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a wish list, not an underlying truth or a definition of any existing state of affairs.

There are three debates going on here, one is the basic political debate as to what "rights" should be enshrined by law, the second is the ethical debate as to which "rights" are fundamentals, and third is the philosophical one as to whether rights have any fundamental meaning.

I would say that it is self-explanatory that the notion of rights or guarantees of security, freedom, property is fairly common in all human societies, even in what to us would be very controlled societies most individuals are given a place in the hierarchy and with this place comes rights and duties.

These rights are not absolute things in themselves, no more than the law would exist without people to create and maintain it. The idea of people having fundamental rights involves them being permitted to have them by others, who are in the powerful position of being able to grant them these rights within a framework provided by power. Those who actually are powerful enough that they need not answer to anyone don't need rights, as their will determines the way events will go.

Of course when it comes to natural things such as old age, disease, natural disasters then natural law prevails, and of course you cannot ask mother nature for an appeal should things go against you (you may petition god if you wish, though the results would be questionable).

So in general I agree with the idea that rights do not exist outside of human systems of law, which is why we need to work hard to protect them, as they do not arise as of themselves, so if we want to enjoy them its important to first create them, and then maintain them. Luckily for people in most western countries, this has been their inheritance, but such things are easily thrown away, as people in previous times knew only too well.

No, no, some of you are misunderstanding me entirely. And this is the difference between a discussion of philosophical concepts and an emotional conversation, in a thread under General Chit Chat. That's all.

Jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, is about ideas, and is international - and this thread (and probably this forum) is not the place for academic debate. Sorry. For a moment I forgot my online crazy MonaLisa'd persona and reverted to a more serious self.

On the emotional level I agree with what you've all said. I wish for all humanity to enjoy the good stuff I enjoy - and try not to take for granted - in Australia.

--------------

Edited: My post crossed with Galbally's excellent post.

I am with Nomad, see me standing behind him:wah:

Lon;695125 wrote: I have always found what people think is their right, to be an interesting subject, as well as what they consider a privilege. Because we have doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, higher education, housing, electronics and all the services and material things that go to make up a society does this mean that everyone has a right to these things? Some say "everyone has a right to free health care", "everyone has a right to a free education". Where do we draw the line on what is a right and a privilege? Where do you draw the line?


I am just a little upset by your thread. I went through cancer without health insurance. I have health insurance now....................WHAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF...............With insurance the insurance company pays 33% TO 45% of the total bill. When I paid with NO insurance I paid 100% of the total bill. How freaking wrong is that!!!!!!!!!!

Red I was just going to say humanity, you beat me too it.

A privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity for a particular person or group.

A right is something which is morally right. or a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

Take land ownership for instance. Once upon a time you could wander where you wanted but then you might come across a stronger group that would want keep a bit of land for themselves-control the resources. your right to wander where you like was taken away, you could challenge but that meant warfare. The strongest ended up ruling the roost but could only stay there by getting the agreement of others. What was a right became a privilege doled out by the privileged few that had won control. Owning the land you live on is that a right or a privilege?

posted by aussie pam

I lost an argument with him indoors on this. He's a lawyer and reckons we have NO rights, as such, except those which are given to us by law.


the law are originally agreements made amongst peoples to control conflict and manage affairs peaceably. Originally in mass meetings when all could air their points of view and general agreement could be had-arguably democracy is the oldest and most basic form of government. Laws reflect the society they are drawn up in and have varied through time.

Take the rights of women for instance-used to be the law that they couldn't own property and were indeed property themselves as were the children. Ask him indoors if you have your rights taken away by the lawmakers would you not morally still have the right to freedom and liberty even if the law said you now belonged to him indoors to dispose of as he wished? If you only have rights given to you by law then who gets to make the laws?

posted by galbally

So in general I agree with the idea that rights do not exist outside of human systems of law, which is why we need to work hard to protect them, as they do not arise as of themselves, so if we want to enjoy them its important to first create them, and then maintain them. Luckily for people in most western countries, this has been their inheritance, but such things are easily thrown away, as people in previous times knew only too well.


Once upon a time you could be made a slave through war or paying off a debt but you could also be free again. Black slavery took on a whole new dimension with the idea that some were born to be slaves and an inferior species. Legally they had no rights but morally they did. I doubt if many nowadays would argue that skin colour means you have no rights. Are there not certain rights that no one can take away form you no matter what the law says? If those rights are not intrinsic to all then they are not going to arise as of themselves are they? There is I would suggest a basic sense of what is right built in to us. Sometimes we have it brainwashed out of us.

There are those who argue that god's laws supersede all of man's law anyway. We call them religious fundamentalists and funnily enough they always seem to know what god really meant.

Thank you all----------I'm delighted with the response to my post and in particular, the well thought out responses by many of you. I still wrestle with some of these rights/privileges of human beings. In my mind, a certain sense of logic, fairness and compassion must dictate what some people should be entitled to as a right. Those things that defy logic, fairness and compassion are privileges in my opinion. One thing I would personally like to see everyone enjoy is the right to opportunity.

AussiePam;695501 wrote: No, no, some of you are misunderstanding me entirely. And this is the difference between a discussion of philosophical concepts and an emotional conversation, in a thread under General Chit Chat. That's all.

Jurisprudence, the philosophy of law, is about ideas, and is international - and this thread (and probably this forum) is not the place for academic debate. Sorry. For a moment I forgot my online crazy MonaLisa'd persona and reverted to a more serious self.

On the emotional level I agree with what you've all said. I wish for all humanity to enjoy the good stuff I enjoy - and try not to take for granted - in Australia.

--------------

Edited: My post crossed with Galbally's excellent post.


Understood. I see what you mean now. And yes, I do think we all have our own definition of "rights" that are directing our opinions and it can get a bit confusing!!

And, just for the record, I think a forum like this (maybe not under General Chit Chat, but on something like Politics or wherever) is a good place. Why not? The internet is not just a place for light-heartedness. But I agree. With only keyboards and screens to communicate, the real art of conversation is lost. You don't have gestures, tones of voice, facial expressions and other non-verbal cues to guide you in a discussion like this!

Lon;695784 wrote: Thank you all----------I'm delighted with the response to my post and in particular, the well thought out responses by many of you. I still wrestle with some of these rights/privileges of human beings. In my mind, a certain sense of logic, fairness and compassion must dictate what some people should be entitled to as a right. Those things that defy logic, fairness and compassion are privileges in my opinion. One thing I would personally like to see everyone enjoy is the right to opportunity.


It's a good debate, Lon, and a really great topic. And one that I feel strongly about. Myself, I come from a more spiritual standpoint (not a religious one, by the way, as I don't observe any particular god.) I also work in the nursing profession and "rights" always seem to come into play, such as, the "right to refuse," "the right to submit a grievance," "the right to quality care," etc. etc.

The wonderful thing about human rights is everyone is entitled their opinion and the freedom to express it, whether or not someone else agrees!

laneybug;695923 wrote: Understood. I see what you mean now. And yes, I do think we all have our own definition of "rights" that are directing our opinions and it can get a bit confusing!!

And, just for the record, I think a forum like this (maybe not under General Chit Chat, but on something like Politics or wherever) is a good place. Why not? The internet is not just a place for light-heartedness. But I agree. With only keyboards and screens to communicate, the real art of conversation is lost. You don't have gestures, tones of voice, facial expressions and other non-verbal cues to guide you in a discussion like this!


It's my opinion that most posts, irrespective of subject matter, have a better chance of being read by more people under General Chit Chat than in other subject titles.

Lon;695928 wrote: It's my opinion that most posts, irrespective of subject matter, have a better chance of being read by more people under General Chit Chat than in other subject titles.


Yes, I agree with you there. I have no problem with heavier, more thought-provoking topics being posted under General Chit Chat. I prefer it actually. Breaks up the monotony. Not everything has to fall into specific, neatly ordered categories. Life certainly isn't organized like that!

Lon;695784 wrote: Thank you all----------I'm delighted with the response to my post and in particular, the well thought out responses by many of you. I still wrestle with some of these rights/privileges of human beings. In my mind, a certain sense of logic, fairness and compassion must dictate what some people should be entitled to as a right. Those things that defy logic, fairness and compassion are privileges in my opinion. One thing I would personally like to see everyone enjoy is the right to opportunity.


Thank you Lon. I think this is one of the best topics you've brought up. You see that I took somewhat of a stab at answering your question but it proved more difficult than I had expected. In fact, I've had occasion to go over it in my mind quite often since. I have read everyone's comments and I've concluded there's probably no concrete answer. Or is there? Maybe rights and privileges are one big hologram and one disappears as one comes in, depending on how you turn it and who's doing the turning.

I agree that it's good to put this under General Chat too. Myself, I get a little weary of the lighter threads after a while and it was nice to have this topic to toss around. I admit though, at first I wondered if this subject came up in light of the illegal immigrant issue. When I said I was expecting you to spring a trap, that's what I was referring to but it was meant in jest.

Give us another topic, another thing to chew on.

Lon;695784 wrote: Thank you all----------I'm delighted with the response to my post and in particular, the well thought out responses by many of you. I still wrestle with some of these rights/privileges of human beings. In my mind, a certain sense of logic, fairness and compassion must dictate what some people should be entitled to as a right. Those things that defy logic, fairness and compassion are privileges in my opinion. One thing I would personally like to see everyone enjoy is the right to opportunity.


Don't know how familiar you are with this but you might hear echoes of the same argument 120 years later on another continent.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glo ... ebates.htm