Do Americans have "privileges" and not "rights?"

[ohaimark]

I've been struggling with word choices in my country's constitution. Many of the things we consider rights in America have been turned into privileges or are privileges by definition (and have been since the constitution was written). I'd like to discuss the idea...

Let's take a good look at our good friend Merriam-Webster's definitions of both terms.


RIGHT =
-something to which one has a just claim
-an entitlement to something
-the practice of giving to others what is their due

PRIVILEGE =
-a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others


So... Citizens of the United States don't have rights.

WHAT? WHY? YOU'RE BRAINWASHED AND WRONG! (Many Americans would say so.)

No I'm not.

By definition, since we are a certain group of people receiving rights/entitlements that DON'T apply to every human being, we have privileges.

What's more, some of the privileges we have are taken away in certain circumstances. That lends credence to my analysis.

Even though gun ownership is a constitutional "right," felons can be banned from it. That makes it a privilege.

Even life is a privilege. Look at wars (where we collectively determine whether other people deserve to live based on factors such as self defense, ideals, and economics) and the death penalty (we take a criminal's privilege to life, liberty, and pursuit away if he commits a crime heinous enough).


So... What do you think?

[Hak Foo]

It could be read "aspirationally". The authors of the constitution believed all people deserve these privileges, but for technical reasons (limits to their authority, for one), they can't actually provide them to everyone.

[ohaimark]

I think it can be interpreted "aspirationally," but it's still effectively privileges. Correct?

Not only can we not provide the "rights" to everyone; we choose to exclude some people from them. That agency is telling.

[matt3o]

it's not America, it's being part of a community and being human actually.

The Italian constitution says that I have the right to a job AND that it is my duty to work. There wouldn't be unemployment if that were true. I see the constitution more as of a set of ideologies we strive to than the written Truth. We are faulty creatures after all.

[Muirium]

Exactly. A constitution, and law in general, is not a magic spell. It's words on paper.

You know how often the relatives of a dead victim propose new legislation to ensure their loved one didn't die in vain. Poor bastards. A noble enough ambition, but law is not magic. Murder is already illegal. All their work tends to achieve is more knots in the legal system, with their dead child's name attached. Ultimately to be thrown away the next time that area of criminal law is reformed.

People die. Children too. No amount of ritual and incantation will change that. Only the effective reform of healthcare and the lower ranks of the justice system. Where too few people give a shit.

America belongs to the people. No, not those people at home. The people who own them, by owning the media, the lawmakers and political discourse. Guns represent more to them now than life itself. So long as those lives are strangers. Guns are about the fight against progress. Let the blood flow, so long as the gate is held.

[ohaimark]

A Constitution (which is the base law of a country) should pay close attention to semantics, though. If something isn't actually a right it shouldn't be written as one, should it? It muddles further laws.

I posit that a country should have a statement of ideals AND a constitution. The statement of ideals should put forth what rights the people want everyone to have and the constitution should create the privilege system that makes those ideals functional.

The "right to a job" example is perfect. Because everyone doesn't have a job, it's not a right. It's a privilege by definition.

The goal of law is to deal with fault, so making it something idealistic inherently disadvantages it for that role.

[Muirium]

You don't even need a constitution to form a legal system around. No constitution here in he olde England and her possessions.

[seebart]

Take into account that your constitution is from 1787 if I'm not mistaken. Youngish by european standards but still. My point being how well does this important document "translate" into 2015? Should something like this be "updated"?

[matt3o]

it's not that once you wrote something in the constitution those words become magically true. There's no God's Authority to enforce them. Governments are still made out of humans and despite we often say "it's not the people, it's the government" when we have to blame someone, I believe that we have exactly the government we deserve.

[mtl]

Think about the historical context in which rights are asserted. It's a principled assertion against the status quo that leaves no room for negotiation. Hey England, these are our unalienable rights, so go f yourselves! You want me to ratify this constitution? Not until you agree to my bill of rights! Enshrining them as privileges, though they may be, weakens the effect. Laws are written opportunistically with language designed to achieve a desired effect while trying to minimize unwanted consequences. Hence semantic arguments such as this are argued back to the original intent of the law, with the understanding that a literal interpretation can lead to all sorts of problems.

[seebart]

it's not that once you wrote something in the constitution those words become magically true. There's no God's Authority to enforce them. Governments are still made out of humans and despite we often say "it's not the people, it's the government" when we have to blame someone, I believe that we have exactly the government we deserve.

In my experience some people in the government often do not act in the best interest of those who voted for them who are usually also tax payers, but rather act on other interests within the government or even worse economical interests of companies and corporations who have managed to lobby their agenda to the government.

[fohat]

http://prospect.org/article/how-john-pa ... nstitution

[kbdfr]

This whole discussion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "right" in its legal sense.
A "right" is not something you are entitled to, but something nobody can deny you.
So having a constitutional "right to a job" doesn't mean that anybody is obliged to actually provide you with a job,
but that no law can prohibit you from taking up a job.

I think this becomes even more obvious if you consider the right to marry

[Halvar]

Well, most of the constitutional rights can be denied in some circumstances, like putting people in jail, or searching their home etc. I think it works differently in the USA, but where I live, the legistative must meet certain conditions detailed in the constitution in order to make laws that limit the scope of some of these rights. Government and judiciary cannot take someone's rights on their own, it always has to be on the base of a law. Of course, in times where legislative and executive power aren't properly separated any more, that can become a problem. Here in Germany, both legislative and executive power basically lay in the hand of the governing parties that themselves lack sufficient democratic structures.

I wouldn't see the words "rights" and "privileges" to be in opposition to each other. The way it's supposed to work is that all citizens have all the rights granted by the constitution by birth, but some of those rights can be limited by laws. Of course, rights that are systematically taken away from certain parts of the population can be called privileges, like back when women or the non-white population was denied many rights, but otherwise, I don't see much difference.

[andrewjoy]

You have the right to .....



Honestly , they are rights not privileges.

Only the patriarchy has privileges! /sarcasm

[SL89]

This whole discussion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "right" in its legal sense.
A "right" is not something you are entitled to, but something nobody can deny you.
So having a constitutional "right to a job" doesn't mean that anybody is obliged to actually provide you with a job,
but that no law can prohibit you from taking up a job.

I think this becomes even more obvious if you consider the right to marry

boom, end thread, pack it up everyone.

p.s. this sort of thread is exactly why i want the ability to mute threads in the Spy function... if i want platitudes and implying implications i'll stay on reddit...

[Muirium]

Thread silencing is not a right. It's a privilege. No matter what bloody Jefferson said!

[kbdfr]

p.s. this sort of thread is exactly why i want the ability to mute threads in the Spy function... if i want platitudes and implying implications i'll stay on reddit...

As you quote my post, I suppose you mean me.
Well, sorry if I raised your displeasure by answering the following statement of the thread opener, which discloses the "fundamental misunderstainding" I was speaking of:

[…] The "right to a job" example is perfect. Because everyone doesn't have a job, it's not a right. […]

Concerning the "ability to mute threads in the Spy function", you will have noticed the Spy displays only part of longer posts.
You are not obliged (now this is indeed a platitude ) to read them in full extent.

[Muirium]

As we're offering platitudes, here's mine:

http://deskthority.net/search.php?searc ... ive_topics

[seebart]

You are not obliged (now this is indeed a platitude ) to read them in full extent.

You have the right to read them in full extent.

[Muirium]

Yet there is no privilege, and certainly nothing right, about Reddit!

[SL89]

As you quote my post, I suppose you mean me.
Well, sorry if I raised your displeasure by answering the following statement of the thread opener, which discloses the "fundamental misunderstainding" I was speaking of:

Nah, your quote was spot on kbdfr, I couldn't agree more with you.

I was talking about OP, i should have been more accurate with my quotes.

[kbdfr]

As you quote my post, I suppose you mean me.
Well, sorry if I raised your displeasure by answering the following statement of the thread opener, which discloses the "fundamental misunderstainding" I was speaking of:

Nah, your quote was spot on kbdfr, I couldn't agree more with you.

I was talking about OP, i should have been more accurate with my quotes.

Oh, so another "fundamental misunderstanding" - this time on my part

[ohaimark]

This whole discussion rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "right" in its legal sense.
A "right" is not something you are entitled to, but something nobody can deny you.
So having a constitutional "right to a job" doesn't mean that anybody is obliged to actually provide you with a job,
but that no law can prohibit you from taking up a job.

I think this becomes even more obvious if you consider the right to marry

boom, end thread, pack it up everyone.

p.s. this sort of thread is exactly why i want the ability to mute threads in the Spy function... if i want platitudes and implying implications i'll stay on reddit...

I'm not trying to pull Reddit shenanigans! I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation with people who are more intelligent than those on Reddit. And I'm within my rights to put this in the OT section. -laughs- Also, I double checked the 1800s Webster dictionary to see if the definitions have changed significantly. They haven't.

I agree with kbdfr that rights are something that cannot be denied to you. That's the basis for my argument.

Gun ownership in the U.S. is listed as a right. Yet felons are denied the ability to own guns. Because they are denied, by law, the ability to own/carry guns... Carrying/owning guns is a privilege.

All I'm pointing out is the definition-based inconsistencies between the Constitution and the law code.

SL89: has this line of thought been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful? Also, I don't quite think I'm guilty of implying implications. I think I'm making assertions about implications, though I may be wrong about that.

[ohaimark]

I can drop the discussion if it offends your sensibilities as a forum. I was just interested in some debate and discussion on the subject.

[webwit]

I can drop the discussion if it offends your sensibilities as a forum. I was just interested in some debate and discussion on the subject.

"As a forum"? Some person on the Internet called SL89 expressed his free speech on DT and snubbed your post, some other persons replied with their opinion. And maybe some other persons find it an interesting discussion. It seems to me some of the replies offend your sensibilities as a person. Considering this topic is about rights, constitution, and all that, you should instead champion this free speech. No way to vote down here.

[SL89]

yeah, i mean carry on with your discussion or don't i have no skin in the game one way or another, i've just been trying to get webwit to add the ability to hide posts to his monumental to-do list at some point

[webwit]

I'm usually a bit slow with those requests, because I've implemented a filter in the spy to get rid of those.

[SL89]

You win webwit.

[zts]

I've been struggling with word choices in my country's constitution. Many of the things we consider rights in America have been turned into privileges or are privileges by definition (and have been since the constitution was written). I'd like to discuss the idea...

You can think about this as a division on "natural" rights and legal rights -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness phrase is an example of natural rights of every human being (also called, "unalienable rights", very abstract in a sense) and property rights, is an example of legal rights (frequently more specific).