jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (143 posts)

How Does On Differentiate Between Rights & Privileges?

  1. Cagsil profile image58
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    What's your take?

    Feel free. smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A right cannot be taken away in any way, or situation.

      A priveledge can be revoked.

  2. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

    A driving license is a privilege, The First Ammendment is a right

    Getting a loan or a credit card is a privilege, being treated with equal fairness by the banks is a right

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I guess, I'll have to disagree with only a portion of what you said.

      A driving license is NOT a privilege as lead to believe, simply because of the way you learn how to drive.

      Programs, such as Social Security, Employment and Minimum wage are privileges, NOT a right.

      Thank you for your input. Appreciated. smile

    2. aware profile image70
      awareposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ive heard it many times that a dl is a privilege. not a right .but fact is for most of us a dl is a necessity.and for far to many one that is out of their finical means. thats why if you have ever been to trafic court its full of driveing without a lices charges  .

  3. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Rights are what you think you should have.

    Privileges are what the government Inc/ church Inc / corporation Inc tells you you have. For now.......

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would agree to that one, at least to an extent. smile

    2. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed, up to a point. smile

  4. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    Rights are those benefits assigned to you by your existence in compliance with natural law, privledges is everything else.

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A little vague? smile

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Your rights according to natural law and expressed in writing in the constitution of the USA, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, everything else are privledges, or benefits you acquire through other means or as a result of exercising your rights.

        1. WriteAngled profile image92
          WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There are plenty of people on this site who are not in the USA and couldn't give a monkey about its constitution.

          1. Valerie F profile image59
            Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There are a lot of countries that couldn't give a monkey about human rights, either.

            1. WriteAngled profile image92
              WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly, as in the complaint by Amnesty International to the USA regarding the Cuban Five.

              1. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                This thread wasn`t about injustice or humanrights violations. Certainly the USA is not without guilt in this regard, and I`m quite certain it`s not the world`s worst offender. What does Amnesty say about Cuba for example?

          2. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Doesn`t matter where you`re from or where you live we all have the same rights I only cited the constitution because that document recognizes those rights in writing.

            1. Cagsil profile image58
              Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, it does matter where you LIVE because of the simple fact that in some Nations, there are no rights. The most advance set of rights is in America.

              There is NO other Nation in the world who recognize more citizen rights than America does. smile

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm hmm. That is why they buy all their sh** from China - where it is made without regard to human rights.

                http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/nike.jpg

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Ahhhhhhhh, thats a shame, its Americas fault that China doesn't care about its citizens.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No sweetie pie. They just took advantage of it and moved all their manufacturing there.  wink

                    Not their fault at all. Sleep tight. Blame the unions. lol

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The movement of jobs offshore is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated by the corporations this country has ever seen.  In cahoots with the politicians big business sold our jobs to China and the rest of Asia to increase the bottom line.  By cutting out American labor the profits were enough to beat domestic production out price wise, add money to be paid to the politicians and eliminate any grief from the unions or American workforce and record incredible profits.

                  The funny thing is while as distasteful as it sounds, we have been able to secure a good source for slave labor.  The only difference is that they sew shoes, soccer balls, clothing etc., instead of pick cotton.  America has always through capitalism found a way around scrupples and morality with the pocketbook.  We are a consumer nation and the greed needs to feed.

                  A statistic to mull over.  New Yorks garment district used to produce 95% of all the clothing sold in the US.  Today they account for less than 5%.  Who is making all that money?  .....hmmmmm?

                  1. profile image0
                    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You choose to blame corporations I choose to blame government! Corporations are only doing what they are supposed to do, increase profits and a ROI. Would corporations move to China if it wasn`t profitable for them to do so? Government regulation and taxes have forced corporations to leave. Stagnant wages have reduced the ability of Americans to pay the prices corporations would have to charge if they stayed here. Government has become a burden that outweighs the benefit it is supposed to provide. It is responsible for the destruction of prosperity and the middle class.

              2. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That wasn`t your question. You didn`t aak which place in the  world did the best job recognizing those rights, you only asked what they were.

                1. Cagsil profile image58
                  Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, I asked a bunch of people to differentiate between the two.

                  And, you already gave your response. However, it simply proves that MOST people don't know what their individual rights truly are, because Government has deemed certain things as privileges, which borderline invade on a person's individual right of choice. smile

            2. profile image61
              patspnnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              \

              A right is something that you deserve because you are human a priviledge is something either received because you worked for it or it was given to you

          3. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Don't blame Americans for your misfortune.

            1. WriteAngled profile image92
              WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Who said I was blaming. I do not consider myself unfortunate not to be subjected to the US constitution and law. At least I was never forced to worship a flag when I was at school.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Forced to worship a flag? lol lol Only thing that was ever forced upon me was political correctness, I'll bet many Chinese would love to be "subjected" to our constitution and law! I never see anyone lining up to flee the United States!

                1. WriteAngled profile image92
                  WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm certainly not queuing up to live in the US! And I've never been asked whether I wish to make a "pledge of allegiance" to the Union Jack or the monarchy. Not that I have any particular preference about living in the UK. I'd readily move to Greece, Spain, Italy or many other places if I had the chance, but not to the US.

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Too bad for us then lol lol how will we make it?

  5. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    Rights are what I consider my privileges.
    And my privileges are what I consider my rights

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It would be interesting to see how well you do in the U.S. versus living in South America? smile

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You didn't get it.
        It doesn't matter where I'm living.
        My privileges and my rights are mine. I hold them within. I take them with me everywhere.
        What are the rights or priv of others, I can't care less.
        I play with my own rules.
        I'm winning so far.

    2. JOE BARNETT profile image62
      JOE BARNETTposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i think that this is how i think of them as well

  6. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 7 years ago

    Rights are basic to anyone. Privileges are gained, justly or unjustly, through birth, education, nepotism, a$$-licking or whatever.

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting take? smile

  7. Valerie F profile image59
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    Human rights- being life, liberty, the right of an individual to pursue his or her own happiness- exist independently of anyone else's consent.

    You don't need permission to exercise a right. A privilege, on the other hand, requires license or permission from other people.

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your input Valerie. smile

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This sounds great, but the trouble is that the definitions of these words tend to vary from person to person.  Or to be more precise, each person will have a different opinion about which means are necessary to accomplish these ends.  For example, one person might think that playing thrash metal at top volume 24/7 is essential to their own happiness, while their next door neighbour might be of totally the opposite opinion LOL.


  8. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    A right is to love someone, a privilage is when that person loves you back smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely Stated... I agree.

  9. Valerie F profile image59
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    Actually, rights exist, no matter what. The fact that some countries do not recognize life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as human rights (and very few recognize them for all people) doesn't change that at all.

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting take. smile

      1. TheGlassSpider profile image81
        TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's not just a take. It's the truth by definition. Rights are inherent; privileges are earned, purchased, or in some other way conferred upon a person. Simply because certain places attempt to block the rights of their people does not deny the existence of the right.

  10. Cagsil profile image58
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Thank you Mark. That was an interesting picture. lol lol

  11. Lita C. Malicdem profile image60
    Lita C. Malicdemposted 7 years ago

    "Rights" is the power that belongs to one person by law as embodied in the Constitution. Nobody can take his rights away from him. "Privilege" is an exceptional law given to a person in order for him to enjoy his rights. However, no can do as he pleases although he has both right and privilege.

    1. WriteAngled profile image92
      WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There are many, many different "constitutions" around the world, and many different laws. The "rights" and "privileges" offered by these will differ.

      1. Cagsil profile image58
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Which shouldn't be the case, but is the case. smile

      2. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You miss the point, government doesn`t bestow rights upon you, you are born with them! Government only denies you access to them, some more than others.

        1. profile image0
          lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I Love You.

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I love you too darlin! xOx

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There seems to be a theme of anti everything government in your posts.  How would you propose we live together without any restrictions save the laws against harming each other and stealing. 

          Can no none gain an unfair advantage of another if we just abide by the constitution and its amendments?

          Everyone has inalienable rights this is true but your distain for government intervention but for the constitution is a statement that nothing has changed since its' ratification and therefore strict adherence to it will solve all our recent problems.

          Your radical view on this subject is not something anyone with some common sense can support and is a waste of your time.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            After 234 years do you think we have enough laws to keep us in line? How many tax laws do we really need? How big and intrusive does government have to be before you say enough?

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I did not say that we need more but we do need to clean up what we have and discard the rest. Allowing large bottomless pocketed entities to gain privilege because of their ability to buy favor is not about fairly allowing rights and priveleges. It is about control and the more we allow them to take the less we receive.

              I don't know that any more laws are needed but maybe enforcing the ones we have in place could help. 

              Take the gun laws for example.  The idea that registering guns with the government will help keep at least a small percentage of criminals from gaining access to them.  Is it fair that law biding citizens have to register their guns even though criminals will get them elsewhere?  Not really but how else can you at least put some intervention in effect?  So your right to bare arms has a snag in it by putting a privelege in the forefront of criminals gaining easier access to a gun.  A more effective way to counter this is to make the criminal who has a gun or the person who commits a crime with one pay the biggest penalty and all of it that is allowable under the current laws.

              I don't think that new laws are as much of an answer as it is to work on making more effective and fairer ones.

          2. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Would we be better off without government? Who's to say?  You talk of unfair advantage over others, but what do we have now? Has government eliminated it, or has government actually made it worse as the "broker" of fairness? Name ONE problem that government has actually solved?

            Yes we need SOME government to administer common needs like fresh water and justice. Beyond that I have no use for government of any kind. Remember power corrupts and there is more than enough indisputable evidence of that.

            By the way, the constitution IS government. The problem is, since the time of Lincoln, it's been under attack, it's form twisted into something no longer recognizable, each new administration shifting more power towards a center... the exact opposite of the "government" established by the founders who sought to have power distributed among the people!

            There are those that consider that intent an old fashioned idea, that current times require new interpretation of the constitution. Those that advocate this are traitors, not only to this country, but to mankind!

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Can't argue with this.

            2. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You act as if the constitution is a silver bullet and guards against abuse and criminal behavior of the government if strictly adhered too.  There are many programs that provide needed services to it's people but as with any human endeavor are administered by flawed servants of the system. Even wining wars do not solve problems but we continue to fight them.  Should we stop defending ourselves because the problem won't be solved a good direction because the problem can't be solved?

              If you want to keep the constitution intact and strictly adhered too than we should still be able to keep slaves and not allow women to vote because in all their wisdom the fore fathers seemed to neglect this issue.  For that matter only landowners had a say in the very early times. No change you say.  Pretty short sighted and out of date if you ask me.

              If there is a supreme court that serves to interpret the constitution it should be one that does not have a particular political slant to its make up and there in you will have justice.  Strict legalese by scumbag lawyers is not who should be hearing the cases but judges that interpret the laws in the light that they were intended.  If you are looking for traitors you might begin there.

              1. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What a bunch of BS! Where in the constitution is there a right to keep slaves? No, it`s not a silver bullet that eliminates evil there will always be evil and more of it when you allow fewer men more power! As for your needed programs` well I challenge whether they`re needed or effective!

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well I see your opinions aren't predicated on your reading comprehension.  I did not say that the constitution had a provision "IN" it to hold slaves its' just not addressed at all.  They were exempt from it as was the right to vote by women.  These amendments that you so vehemently oppose were added to clarify and add to the way the country moved forward.

                  Your take on a few men that receive more power is so American in short sighted comprehension of the issues.  It is "our" responsibility to monitor these individuals and vote the correct leaders in place.  It is not wise to sumarily dismiss the concept because you don't want to participate in the system but merely defeat it on your misunderstood principles.

                  As I said and you obvoiusly did not read was that the programs have helped many and were not as effective as they could be.  The churches are not equipted to handle the need as Bush so elequently offered but to say that they are not needed is burying your head in the sand.

                  You seem to think we are all on an island and only rely upon each other in crisis.  It really is ashame you go off half cocked with your judgements and diatribes without listening or understanding anything that is not your own opinion.

                  1. profile image0
                    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No. The real shame and sadness here is that you and all the rest that think like you can`t open your mind and are stuck believing the lies fed to you by government hacks like Obama who never worked a day in his life in anything but a government job! Your idea of the perfect society is everybody working for one government that controls everything and dictates how we should all live... after all they know what`s bets for us and they only want us all to be equal!

                  2. SparklingJewel profile image66
                    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    you both have something right...and, the way the constitution was written left it open for that type of debate on similar issues, hence later amendments...that's the way it is suppose to work, isn't it?

            3. Pandoras Box profile image79
              Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting that you should say that. Thomas Jefferson believed that the constitution should in fact be readily amendable. He wrote that each generation should be able to rewrite the constitution to better fit their changing times and beliefs.

              I am unused to the accusation that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor to the country and mankind. Blind and over-zealous patriotism is a dangerous thing.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I forgot that it wasJefferson that made this statement.  I guess I thought it was Franklin.  Franklin did not have much of an opinion of democracy.

                The funny thing would be if one of them came back to the present what would he say after seeing we were still operating basicly under the same document over two hundred years later?

                Human nature is what it is and there are those that follow the rules and some that try to circumvent them.  Unfortunately in the last few years there are more and more that prefer the latter.  I wonder if we stay stagnent in our refusal to change the Constitution to meet societal regression we are giving in to the subversion rather than maintaining the principles.

              2. SparklingJewel profile image66
                SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                there is a difference between interpreting and amending the constitution...

              3. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Amended yes in accordance with the rules for doing so, interpreted and ignored no, Jefferson wasn`t in favor of  a government that did that! For example, congress was given the power to declare war, but in modern times presidents have assumed that power and congress has voluntarily relinquished that power... all well and good if it were done by constitutional amendment. Health care SS and medicare are other examples of the feds encroachment on the power of the states and the people.

        3. WriteAngled profile image92
          WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hence my use of " " around rights smile

  12. profile image0
    BSBabyposted 7 years ago

    HI, Follow me.
    Ashley B.

    Right-  You are intitled to.
    Priviledges-  can be granted to you

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There is NO SELF-promotion. On another note, you saying follow me...isn't going to get you followers.

      Write quality content, then the followers will come. smile

  13. Alessia Amnesia profile image60
    Alessia Amnesiaposted 7 years ago

    Rights are what you are entitled to.

    Privileges are things that can be taken away.

    1. WriteAngled profile image92
      WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Rights have been denied to many throughout history. In the past, to blacks in the USA and South Africa, for example.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image60
        Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That is still happening to Palestinians who have not been granted the right of return and plenty more

        1. WriteAngled profile image92
          WriteAngledposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And to a major part that is because of the fact that Israel hides behind the US when it implements its disgusting policies on the West Bank.

    2. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You can have your right taken away from you.

      How do you think the "Death Penalty" or "Capital Punishment" came about? It strips a person of their right to life. smile

      Just a thought. smile

      1. Alessia Amnesia profile image60
        Alessia Amnesiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, the death penalty and capital punishment wouldn't be an issue if people weren't constantly trying to violate the rights of others, now would they? smile

  14. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Give it a bit of time Tex, we are getting there smile

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Take off man, take a few with you too, in the end there will always be more coming than leaving.

  15. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 7 years ago

    I also find that there are a refreshing number of politically incorrect people around me, and it seems the numbers grow daily.

  16. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

    In light of the First Ammendment is "political correctness" a Right or a Privilege?

    1. TheGlassSpider profile image81
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's neither a right nor a privilege; it's just a way of looking concerned about people's overblown egos. In my personal opinion "political correctness" is a load of schlock. People are too involved with the potential derogatory meaning of a few buzzwords and completely ignore attempts at actual meaningful communication (even those whose communications are NOT offensive). People on the receiving end of communication attempts are also too involved in searching for potential slights from "buzz words" to be receptive to understanding.

      I think social pressure more than anything allows this to happen.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image60
        Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Political correctness is an aberration. Things and action are either Correct or Incorrect.

        Politics is NOT and should never BE part of that equation as long as we DO NOT accept censorship. Period. No matter how it came about is still an aberration that not even communist regimes ever thought about or impossed.

  17. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

    I am not happy to say it BUT America has two Very Different set of rules for rights and pivileges as well

  18. H.C Porter profile image84
    H.C Porterposted 7 years ago

    My understanding is rights are something you have just as everyone has in a particular society.
    Privileges are given-but can be taken away as well as earned

    You have the right to remain silent- if you can’t and say something that incriminates you, your privilege to freedom can now be revoked until you are fit to play well with others smile

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Did you try waterboarding? It gives much clarity about this right smile

      1. H.C Porter profile image84
        H.C Porterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile
        I plead the 5th

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          He-he, but you got the idea, right? smile

          1. H.C Porter profile image84
            H.C Porterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            yep big_smile yep big_smile

    2. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

      1. H.C Porter profile image84
        H.C Porterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Gotta learn to play nice and shut the h*ll up when you mess up.
        Have you ever actually listened to a cop speak. They have to ask permission to search you, to come inside your home, to ask you questions (if they dont have a warrant), you can always say-No, that's okay, I would rather you not.
        Of Course the warrant will be on the way shortly-but if you do bad, and gonna get caught...smoke a cigg or something-enjoy those last few moments of freedom...lol, lol, lol...
        Well that's my thought anyways, big_smile

  19. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    i invoke my 4th amendment right.

  20. Cagsil profile image58
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Hey H.C.Porter,

    I once had a cop stop me, and he didn't bother to ask me if he could ask me a question, he simply asked his question. My reply was No.

    If you're curious where I was or what I was doing at the time, I was in bar. The question: Did I know of if the bar paid out on the machines in the bar.

    I said No.

    His next question was.... Is that a No, because we've never been paid? Or You don't know the machine pays out?

    I said to him- I told you No. I have never seen anyone paid by the people who own the bar or work in the bar. Is that acceptable to you officer?

    He asked me if I was being a wise a$$, because of the way I said, what I said. I again, said - No.

    Then, he asked me how long I'd been coming to the bar? I asked him how was it relevant to his original questions about whether or not the bar pays out on the machine?

    He then proceded to tell me that he had the right to arrest me, because I wasn't be cooperative with him. I said, go right ahead, and I'll sue the Police Department for False arrest. smile

  21. Pandoras Box profile image79
    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago

    Rights are liberties we have that make us feel safe. Privileges are extra liberties we gain if we play the game right. Both can be revoked at any moment by the powers that be.

  22. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 7 years ago

    Rights cannot be revoked.

    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

    Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Cool. Now tell me, what cannot be revoked by your state? smile

    2. Pandoras Box profile image79
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Even rights guaranteed by the state can be effectively revoked. They hamper the ability to utilize them to the point where they may no longer be practiced.

      Take the right to vote, and a representative government. The US Supreme Court issued a decision less than a week ago which in effect means that in the foreseeable future voting may become irrelevant. Meanwhile, the public is so busy working to earn a living and trying to take care of the basic daily needs of their families that they don't even notice. When they do notice, a large majority of them will be lulled back into a feeling of safety by the minority party telling them it's all really just a victory for personal rights and freedom of speech.

      Our actual right to vote hasn't been taken away, it's just been hampered to a point where it really won't matter anymore. Whoever you vote for will be forced to serve the interests of corporate America if they wish to win and retain their office.

      The propaganda machine will keep feeding the public's fear of socialism, while the powers that be are sneaking fascism in unnoticed.

      But the public will still feel safe and free, because they will still maintain their freedom to "vote" in a "representative" government.

  23. H.C Porter profile image84
    H.C Porterposted 7 years ago

    In a perfect world that would be true. Unfortunately people revoke the rights of others to live-be happy- and to die all the time. The punishment is to revoke their writes to live outside of prison walls-to grow old with family and if you are in Texas, and you kill someone (and someone saw you do it) we will put you in the express lane to have your rights to life revoked...

  24. H.C Porter profile image84
    H.C Porterposted 7 years ago

    Cagsil,
    It is only wrong if you get caught...lol  big_smile big_smile

  25. Tom Cornett profile image55
    Tom Cornettposted 7 years ago

    Rights are for how much money you have....Privileges are for how much money you don't have.  smile

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ROFL Loving it Tom smile

      1. Tom Cornett profile image55
        Tom Cornettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It was one of my dad's old sayings...right before...pull you pants up and get a f***ing job!

  26. SOBF profile image80
    SOBFposted 7 years ago

    You have "NO RIGHTS" only priveleges. Life itself is a privilege. Anything that can be taken or given is a privilege. No man can create a natural right for it can be taken away, making it nothing more than a temporary privilege.

    Then again we do have one right - something than can never be taken away under any conditions "DEATH"

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad you think so. roll

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The illegality of suicide?
      and the imprisonment of anyone who attempts it or is feared to be contemplating it?

  27. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

    Rights and Privileges, while both can be taken or suspended by society at large, the former comes from assertion and the latter from compliance.

    1. Cagsil profile image58
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your input C.J.Wright. smile

    2. Pandoras Box profile image79
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very well put.

  28. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    For me a privilege is a gift and
    a right is a conditional rule

    i don't know if that made sense but i tried. hmm:

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It made perfect sense...
      even if I am not in agreement, I think a conditional rule is a conditional rule...

      a right is something no ones conditional rules have sway over.

      1. profile image0
        lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ah, makes sense. cool

  29. myownworld profile image80
    myownworldposted 7 years ago

    I know one thing...what we consider our 'rights' here are definitely considered  'privileges' in many poorer underdeveloped parts of the world....

  30. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    Rights are bestowed
    Privileges are granted

  31. Cagsil profile image58
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    So, 111 posts, and it shows many people differentiate rights and privileges, each differently, but some the same.

    Interesting revelation. smile

    Thank you everyone for posting replies. smile

  32. retellect profile image80
    retellectposted 7 years ago

    It all boils down to who is the richest and most powerful. They dictate the rules whether we like it or not smile

  33. theirishobserver. profile image60
    theirishobserver.posted 7 years ago

    It is a right to stroke it is a privalege to be stroked....

  34. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    You really don`t make any sense. If corporations were forced to manufacture in this country they would have to raise their prices and their sales would suffer leading to more job loss. Corporations were forced to move because they had to compete with foreign firms. The liberal left loves to demonize corporations and you have fell for their BS hook line and sinker! You said you own a business, so you tell me how do you determine what to charge for your goods or services? Do you include the cost of labor? Do you include the cost of taxes you have to pay? Materials? How much of those cost are a direct or indirect result of regulations? Do you pass them on or are you one of those business owners that insist on selling at a loss because you aren`t greedy?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are so short sighted.  What makes you think the corporations didn't cause the crisis?  Who do you think they got the foreign goods into the country so cheaply?  Bill Clinton as supported by the corporate dollar to enact NAFTA.  The biggest detriment to American jobs that had already taken a huge hit from illegal immigrant labor.  By doing away with traditional protection for American made product there was nothing in the way to prevent corporations to go overseas and hire their new slaves to produce the cheaper goods they wanted.

      The American worker was left out in the cold.  Why do you think Sam's Club is facing the layoffs and as of now Walmart is not?  Sam's club is exclusive to business owners and their workers.  But guess what there are fewer of them to sell too.

      Sure I have to sell at a profit but my competition is either buying cheaper made overseas products or illegal immigrant labor made product to undercut me all the time.  I am forced to make less to compete.  It is all a race to the bottom.  We have sold out our childrens future in allowing it.

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So you`re a protectionist. You want the government to step in and protect your profit from competition. You`re all for freedom as long as it`s your freedom. You`re all for helping put the shoes on the feet of the children of addicted single mothers as long as they live in America and buy them from you. Yeah, those evil corporations undercutting your profits...ok I see where you`re coming from now.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I guess in your pure world of capitalism I am.  The thing that you see is an afront to your freedom is the cause of our demise.  Let the marketplace rule is your motto.  That is all well and good as long as everyone has the same level playing field.  I don't want government to protect my profits but I do want to be able to compete based on where I live and who I support in the process.  If made to compete with a $0.65 per hour job in China to barely make it by in a $15.00 per hour country, who gets the advantage?  The only choice is to go out of business and get that Walmart job while they are still out there.  Oh I forgot they aren't hiring.  Capitalism wins again and let freedom ring.

          If you support NAFTA then I would suggest that you are more of a socialist than you think.  Spread the jobs around based on the profits and let the many profit at the cost of the few.  The trouble is that it will cost us all when your standard of living is reduced to another countries lower standard of living.

          Your denial of any problems associated with capitalism and its' direct link to constitutional freedom is skewed with a flaw to consider the individual and their ability to flourish in the new world order that will result from your inflexible views.

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you should get that job in Walmart, which by the way is hiring creating 56,000 jobs per month no thanks to the government. The jobs lost at Sams Club will be outsourced to another company. That was a business decision which mgt says will allow the company to focus on growing sales.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It is a direct result of government interference that Walmart is allowed to import unfettered by tariffs destroyed by NAFTA.  You really don't get how the American worker has been sold out do you. What's worse is you don't care as freedom is the key to our existence and freedom to destoy as well. 

              Did you miss the part about Sam's closing 10 stores with 1500 jobs?  The loss of another 9700. Those jobs won't come back even though no one can afford to live on the wages they provide and the government has to supply food stamps and minimal healthcare coverage due to Walmarts low wages. The ones rehired by the new management team will be lucky to get a chance at their old jobs but undoubtedly for less.  I guess with that freedom comes the freedom to get the government to pick up the tab for what they refuse to supply with corporate profits in peril if they do.

              Could you live on Walmart wages with the commitments you currently have?  Can your children?  If they live like the Chinese do maybe they can get an apartment on their own in a few years.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
            EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            People on this thread seem to be in two opposing camps: one camp blames government for our ills, while the other blames business/capitalism. 

            Nobody's pointed out that most of us as individuals are largely to blame, because we're the ones who have been buying stuff that's been produced in Chinese sweatshops.

            We in the West have all been seduced by the low prices in Walmart and its equivalents in other Western countries, without asking searching questions about *how* those prices came to be so low, and what the long-term consequences are (loss of domestic jobs and the "race to the bottom" that you describe).

            The paradox is that when it comes to tariffs on foreign imports, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.  If there are no tariffs, then people will carry on buying whatever's cheapest (because price is the biggest deciding factor for most of us).  If we do impose tariffs, then other countries will impose tariffs of their own, thus hurting exports and delaying any economic recovery.

            What I'm saying is that there is no solution to this problem, unless it's for all us consumers to realise where our own long-term interests truly lie and be more responsible in our buying habits.  That's something you can't legislate for (and if you tried, you'd end up with something akin to the Soviet Union under communism. Not good).

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I really do get what you are saying and the paradox you offer. 

              What has to be looked at when applying tariffs is if you are getting equal value on your return.  If we import very much from one country but can export very little to that country in exchange there is an imbalance that hurts one and helps the other.

              If the only thing you export to the other country in exchange is money then what have you accomplished?  You have in effect given over wealth for product that you can expect little but a cheaper product for.  As in the case of China the people are so poor you can expect them to buy little as their wages barely support them.  No market for us to exploit.  We have traded credit in lieu of cash and have instead not only lost some of our wealth but have gained a good deal of debt.  The other thing that we have lost are our jobs to them which results in our inability to buy these cheaper products.

              Tariffs are there to protect us from these things and while they may have a negative growth pattern for awhile, jobs can eventually be created to fill the void that was made by the negative return we have been getting trade wise.

              The capitalists don't care as they get rich and weather the storm on both fronts.  The short term gains with what is going on now and gains if manufacturing can be made either through tariff protection or driving wages down to a point equal to the Asian labor they already enjoy.

              Capitalists will always make a buck but making it at your expense is not good to promote a healthy economy.

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                For all you know, any jobs created would be cancelled out by jobs lost as a result of losses in exports.  Or put it another way, the new jobs might have been created anyway, regardless of the tariffs. 

                I tend to think of tariffs as an understandable but doomed attempt to "fix" a problem that might well fix itself more quickly without such intervention.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Anything is possible.  Some sources claim increases in jobs have reached as much a 1,500,000 while others claim losses of 440,000.  It is hard to tell but common sense and factory closings in record amounts indicate otherwise.

                  I currently sell a product that is made in China.  I tried everyway I could to have it made here in the US but the costs for tooling in the US were as much as 97% more than the tooling in China.  The cost of the product was six times as much as what the Chinese could produce.  My competition is not going to produce the product in the US so how can I?  Forget the project?  I have to play right along with everyone else to be competitive.  This is a runnaway train and nobody has an answer but to keep on going until we break.  Should I deny myself the payoff for a very expensive patent and years of work to bring it to market because it takes American jobs away.  Granted my product requires few employees to produce it but the damage is the money lost to American labor due to it.

                  Capitalism is an orphan that has no conscience where profit is to be made.

  35. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    I believe the core of the issue is the inability of the carnal mind to comprehend natural laws and adhere to them.

    Rights are inherent from natural laws.

    Privileges are "determining factors" (i.e.man made govts and the man made opinions) that can usurp or support rights.

    Defining universal natural laws is the core of the problem for some.

  36. Valerie F profile image59
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    A privilege can be withheld or taken away without violating anyone's rights. A right cannot be withheld or taken away without grave injustice.

 
working