It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Left vs Right, is as easy as: rights vs privileges

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Most of the Lefts, rights are privileges. Its easy to tell a right from a privilege. A true right does not come at a certain age. If marriage was a right, then two 13 year old should be able to do it. Especially if you think a 13 year old boy can "know" he's a girl. I don't see how one can "know" they are a girl yet don't really fully understand that they "know", that they are truly madly deeply in love and want to get married.

On the flip side life: When is life a privilege vs when is it a right. On the Right, its a right. One can do something to forfeit their right to life but until then, that life if your right. On the Left, life starts when the state recognizes it starts.

I am sure more people will add to this list....happy Sunday




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

I think people make their own arbitrary distinctions and categories on things and people that are constantly evolving, but what I know?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Do you want the right to bear arms, or do you want the state to grant you the privilege to own a firearm of their choosing?

Do you want the right to free speech/expression, or do you want the state to determine what you can say, do, believe?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The difference between a right and a privilege is a legal matter.

Thus, rights, are much harder to take away.

Smoking is a privilege. And it took a long time, but now you basically cannot smoke anywhere.

In the US, owning a gun is a right. People have been trying to infringe on that right for longer than they've battled smoking. But gun ownerships is higher than ever. And most attempts to infringe that right have failed.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline



Most of the Lefts, rights are privileges. Its easy to tell a right from a privilege. A true right does not come at a certain age. If marriage was a right, then two 13 year old should be able to do it.


You didn't think this through did you?

So you don't believe in gun rights? Isn't voting a right or are infants allowed to vote? If you think marriage is a privilege do you think it would be ok for San Francisco to ban hetro marriages?
edit on July 5th 2015 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)

edit on July 5th 2015 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
If the right had their way, companies and corporations would be completely unregulated and would abuse the worker much like we saw prior to the worker's revolts in the early 20th and late 19th century.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
The difference between a right and a privilege is a legal matter.

Thus, rights, are much harder to take away.

Smoking is a privilege. And it took a long time, but now you basically cannot smoke anywhere.

In the US, owning a gun is a right. People have been trying to infringe on that right for longer than they've battled smoking. But gun ownerships is higher than ever. And most attempts to infringe that right have failed.


Since when was smoking a privilege ? Is drinking water or eating food a privilege ? I can tell you but I want your answer.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If the right had their way, companies and corporations would be completely unregulated and would abuse the worker much like we saw prior to the worker's revolts in the early 20th and late 19th century.


Giving women the right to vote really screwed things up also.

You forgot that one as well.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
There's only one single born right the government allows as far as I can tell, which is the right to sustain yourself with food. Even in the (apparent) land of the free of the US, breathing ain't even a born right because they have capital punishment.

Voting and the right to bear arms aren't born rights either, because the government doesn't allow convicted criminals to own guns or vote.

So called 'rights' are just a myth the masters use to give the herd a false sense of security.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I'd like to think as a civilization becomes more mature over time, we'd develop a thing called a "social contract" in which we agree to come together for the common good of all, and give up anarchy (total freedom) to allow the government to protect rights we have.



Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.


So, for things to actually "run smoothly" in a population the size of America, we have to give a little to give a little. Why would we need something like this?



Thomas Hobbes famously said that in the "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute Sovereign, one man or an assembly of men.

Wikipedia

Ever seen that movie "The Purge"? Society would descend into something like that unless we had some form of government to hold everything in place.

If we ever want to colonize other planets, advance our technology beyond where it is today -- we need social contracts to organize and free ourselves from living in fear of total anarchy and instability. Human ingenuity shines when there is social order and stability, a social contract provides this.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

It is important to remember that our Bill of Rights is strictly negative rights though, there can be some discussion about the positive nature of the right to representation, etc. In general, the idea is to prevent government from arbitrarily using its undisputed power against citizens in ways that naturally occur if not expressly forbidden and constantly scrutinized.

Negative and positive rights.

I would argue that there are no positive "rights" but rather contracted entitlements which have nothing to do with rights at all. A candidate or government may choose to buy votes with taxpayer funds but, those bribes do not constitute a right in any sense of the word that I recognize.

There are many cults out there that would be happy to take in anybody who doesn't want to or can't be responsible for themselves. Instead of leaving society and going to join a cult, many people seem to want to convert our entire country into one.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If the right had their way, companies and corporations would be completely unregulated and would abuse the worker much like we saw prior to the worker's revolts in the early 20th and late 19th century.


And if the left had their way we all would be forced to think alike. Clones come to mind.......

The 2 party system is polar opposites for a reason. To create and divide so that we fight over them like uneducated idiots while they laugh all the way to the bank and have personal masturbatory romps with themselves because we are dumb enough to believe in their BS!

Thus the country will burn......

Look at who contributes money to them!

On the right? Corporations!

On the left? Law firms and Unions.

But yet let's not forget the MSM who is programming our minds to support their corporate donors such Big Pharm, Monsanto etc etc......

Also let's not forget that 6 Corporations now own 90% of the worlds media?

Follow the money! We are all being played!

I forgot the bankers! They support BOTH parties because they have the means and money to Win no matter who controls the world!

"Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty
edit on 5-7-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If the right believe that corporations are people
does that mean a merger is a marriage?

Does the right believe in Merger Equality?




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

In a way they balance each other out. If you go to far to the left you get Stalin. If you go to far to the right you get Hitler, and each of those are pretty similar in a lot of ways. It's actually not a spectrum, but a circle.

We need each side to balance the other. Each one gives perspective.

The conservatives keep the liberals from marching ahead to fast, and the liberals help push the conservatives forward and not stagnate. Despite how much both sides "hate" each other, they really do need each other.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I understand the want for black and white, right and wrong, definitive answers to questions such as "What are rights?" and "What are privileges?", but I find that want to be the inherent problem with our inability to agree on what the answers are to these questions.

To me, it boils down to over-simplification of complex issues. Marriage, to borrow from the OP, is a varied and complex notion, and in its case in America, has been largely, in my opinion as well as many others, religious in nature. This immediately creates a conflict when determining who can and cannot be married because a fundamental right is freedom of religion, which has historically been interpreted as the necessity for the state (read "Government") to remain secular in nature. When one starts inserting rationale based on religious teachings into an institution that is, in fact, upheld by our government we see how it becomes an issue towards fundamental rights.

As to the OP's statement that the "Right" wing of our government is correct in its notion, and the "Left" wing of our government is incorrect it its, how do you defend that position? Do you have examples? Are there left wing politicians harping that there are no rights, only privileges and examples of right wing politicians stating that there are certain rights and certain privileges? And on production of this evidence, how do you intend to defend either position?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: seeker1963

In a way they balance each other out. If you go to far to the left you get Stalin. If you go to far to the right you get Hitler, and each of those are pretty similar in a lot of ways. It's actually not a spectrum, but a circle.

We need each side to balance the other. Each one gives perspective.

The conservatives keep the liberals from marching ahead to fast, and the liberals help push the conservatives forward and not stagnate. Despite how much both sides "hate" each other, they really do need each other.


I absolutely agree with that!

Yet, we have a new thing called Political Correctness that has taken root as a cancer on society, where anyone who speaks in a manner against the "doctrine" is ostracized and condemned because they no longer have a freedom of speech to say something with out being bullied on social media or have the MSM jump on it in the style of Edwin Bernays to sway our thought process in a manner befitting to those in charge who we all seem to complain about?

What is disturbing is the Progressives started the PC movement, and now it has become such a cancer that those who do not have the Progressive mind are being forced to use the tactic back!

See where I am coming from? Where do we go from here unless one side surrenders? What ever happened to "Compromise"?
Those in power GET THEIR WAY! Look at the BS conflicts where many innocent people are being killed. Is it really in the name of "Democracy"? Or is it to satisfy the hunger of money hungry entity who want more wealth and power?

Now think about the state of this world and the division and just how long or short is this "FUSE" going to be!

They call it "Political Science" for a reason.........
edit on 5-7-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Try this:

Politcal Compass test

or google "Political Compass" for examples of leaders and where they fall. This test has its criticisms, don't get me wrong, but it uses the most current political theory as its basis. Note that on the Y axis of the graph, Hitler and Stalin are nearly the same, yet on the X axis, they are much farther apart. Modern poli-sci is at least a two-dimensional thing.
edit on 5-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: far out man...



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yea and I bet that they would make full time 32 hours a week instead of 40... Oh wait that's what Obama did.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Rights versus privileges? Who grants privileges? Privileges are only valid if its a parent to a child, saying, going on the computer is a privilege but you need to keep up with the chores. ie. you didn't do the dishes last night.

But courts, politicians are but servants to sovereign beings. No one grants them privileges, they have infinite rights.

There is no parent to our child here, savvy? And dictators get narded!

To all the wanna be slimy toad dictators and corporate heads of the world, tests will be over soon enough, and then its the cosmic nardings. You got your F's, abuse of power.


Balls of Steel - The Ultimate Nutshot

Its a privilege for them to serve the world, but they don't grant us any such thing as a privilege.


edit on 6-7-2015 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
Most of the Lefts, rights are privileges. Its easy to tell a right from a privilege. A true right does not come at a certain age. If marriage was a right, then two 13 year old should be able to do it. Especially if you think a 13 year old boy can "know" he's a girl. I don't see how one can "know" they are a girl yet don't really fully understand that they "know", that they are truly madly deeply in love and want to get married.


You seem to misunderstand the case. Marriage is not a right. What is a right, is to not be discriminated against for sexual orientation under the 14th amendment, and even going back to the countries founding ideals that all mankind is created equal. This means that while a church doesn't have to marry someone, two women who wish to get married must be free to do so through the same court that issues marriage licenses to everyone else.


On the flip side life: When is life a privilege vs when is it a right. On the Right, its a right. One can do something to forfeit their right to life but until then, that life if your right. On the Left, life starts when the state recognizes it starts.


We've made tremendous progress with animal rights lately and the right to life has mostly be extended from humans to any sentient animal. So let me ask you this, a tree isn't sentient thus it has no right to life and can be chopped down despite the fact that biological processes are occurring. At conception biological processes begin in a human embryo but at what point is it sentient? Science currently states that this process happens around 5 months old, well after birth even. This is why I am perfectly secure with using non kill mousetraps and coexisting with a wasp nest right outside my window, and even watch where I walk so I don't step on an ant but have no problem with abortion. Unlike the equal protection clause which has a concrete answer that everyone gets the same constitutional protections, your second point is much more controversial and doesn't have a single answer everyone will agree with.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join