zombieslayer
13 years ago



I'd like you to know ... no one gave me my thoughts, I thought of those on my own. It's things I think about it. I'm not afraid of a guy who's bigger/stronger than me, I'm more likely to be afraid of the guy who's crazy and unpredictable.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Understood about the thoughts. Thought overlap happens. Heck, I often have the same thoughts from everyone from Michael Moore to Michael Savage.

Now as for crazy and unpredictable, I'm scared of them too. Thus is why I want to be armed at all times. Being armed gives me a better chance at surviving or at least making sure my wife and son survive.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
zombieslayer
13 years ago

What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege."

For me, a right is something that exists by virtum,o9-0e of being a human being. I have a right to believe as I will, no matter how loony my particular beliefs might be. I have a right to call someone a loony, even if they are as smart as Einstein and as wise as Solomon.

A privilege is something that I don't have unless someone else gives it to me. My neighbor gives it to me, perhaps: My neighbor invites me into his house for dinner. That's a privilege, my neighbor's to grant and take away as he wills. Or maybe it's granted by the govenment. Most people would consider a license to practice law or medicine or hair styling is a "privilege" granted by the state.

Your "title" in your real estate is a privilege: almost all "private property" titles are there because of a grant from King or state. And yes, that title is a revocable privilege: the state can take it back. (thanks to the law of eminent domain, only for a "public purpose" and only with compensation.)

On the other hand, it's not clear, at least to me, whether those "public purpose" and "only with compensation" requirements constitute "right" or "privilege".

Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot.

All that people can do with respect to another's right is stop or limit its exercise. But if the right exists, stopping or limiting its exercise will be an immoral act unless a separate and superseding right is found and unless it is demonstrated that the method protects that separate and superseding right.

Power can infringe a right; it cannot by itself make the infringement moral.

So Shawn's point about "right or privilege" is the real issue here. (His conclusion is wrong, IMO, but he's definitely got the question right.)

Why should air travel be thought a right, rather than a privilege?

My answer is in too steps. First, because "being able to move and travel about" is a right. And second, because "other travel options" are not equivalent.

Why is being able to move and travel about so important? It allows escape from bad situations and allows movement toward better ones. It allows us to associate with who we want to associate with. It allows us to act upon our preferences and our values. You can't pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" unless you are able to move about.

Why are other travel options not equivalent? To be blunt, they're more expensive. Not necessarily in the sense of money, but in the sense of "what must be sacrificed" to do so. I don't need a plane to go to Portugal or to Denver. I can get to either place physically in other ways. But only if I make a lot bigger sacrifices -- Portugal's going to take more time and money to get there by car/ship/train; Denver's going to take more time and dealing with other drivers and getting lost on the highway and dealing with car breakdowns, etc.

If I had no right to travel and move about, none of these "extra costs" would be relevant. But if I do have that general right to travel, they are. Because now those differential costs are being imposed by a restriction on a right. And so the burden has shifted: those wishing to limit my right to travel must explain why they are justified in doing so.

If they don't, then they may still have the power to restrict and shape my choices. But they have no moral authority for doing so.

They have no more moral authority than those who used their power to treat people as serfs. If moving and travelling about is a privilege, then only allowing the serf off the manorial lands under very limited conditions, or not allowing them off at all, then the lord of the manor had moral authority for the practice of serfdom. But if moving and travelling about is a basic right of human beings, then serfdom was morally without authority.

"Wade" wrote:



+1.

Brilliant. Yes, traveling is a Right, not a privilege.

I HAVE to travel. I don't have a choice. I fly from city to city and want to be able to defend myself as I am a good guy and I'm sick of being treated like a criminal in my own country.

If you make me drive from here to Denver, I will be fired. I won't make it on time and will miss two days of work each way. As far as I'm concerned, the TSA only manages to disarm the good guys. And make the lines much, much longer. They're useless and a waste of tax money and as I've said before, I don't like being touched by strangers, unless they're Victoria's Secret models.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. πŸ‡ΉπŸ‡Ή πŸ‡²πŸ‡² πŸ‡¦πŸ‡·
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Wow, flying is a right? You're a citizen, not the king. That's one helluva high horse you're riding there. Yes, I am laughing while typing this. I just can't believe the audacity in such thoughts.

It's people who hold that similar thought about driving that are the worst drivers. This road is my RIGHT to drive because I paid taxes. No, poop you, it's not your road, its not your right, its a privilege and should be appreciated as such.

I don't remember reading anything about flying in the Bill of Rights, then again, there weren't enough pictures in it to keep my attention.

You don't HAVE to travel. You can find new employment that doesn't require travel. You chose your career.

I want to drive a Lamborghini Diablo SV. There are several professions I'm qualified for that I could satisfy that want. I chose to be a software programmer and father instead.



I'm not a fan of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration team and especially less a fan with it being funded from tax payers money. I think they should lighten up and be funded by each airline. Although, then flights would cost more. I think they provide a false sense of security to some degree.

There has to be some security measures taken prior to boarding a plane. We all absorb the cost via taxes or those of us who fly absorb higher flight costs.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago



I'd like you to know ... no one gave me my thoughts, I thought of those on my own. It's things I think about it. I'm not afraid of a guy who's bigger/stronger than me, I'm more likely to be afraid of the guy who's crazy and unpredictable.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Understood about the thoughts. Thought overlap happens. Heck, I often have the same thoughts from everyone from Michael Moore to Michael Savage.

Now as for crazy and unpredictable, I'm scared of them too. Thus is why I want to be armed at all times. Being armed gives me a better chance at surviving or at least making sure my wife and son survive.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



IF we were allowed to carry a knife to a specified length on board a plane, I'd be fine with that. It'd be up to each person to learn how to handle themselves with a knife to defend themselves. Don't take the time to learn and lose a knife fight, that's your fault for not preparing.

Everyone should take preparation on how to defend ones self, in my opinion.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago

Wow, flying is a right? You're a citizen, not the king. That's one helluva high horse you're riding there. Yes, I am laughing while typing this. I just can't believe the audacity in such thoughts.

It's people who hold that similar thought about driving that are the worst drivers. This road is my RIGHT to drive because I paid taxes. No, poop you, it's not your road, its not your right, its a privilege and should be appreciated as such.

I don't remember reading anything about flying in the Bill of Rights, then again, there weren't enough pictures in it to keep my attention.

You don't HAVE to travel. You can find new employment that doesn't require travel. You chose your career.

I want to drive a Lamborghini Diablo SV. There are several professions I'm qualified for that I could satisfy that want. I chose to be a software programmer and father instead.



I'm not a fan of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration team and especially less a fan with it being funded from tax payers money. I think they should lighten up and be funded by each airline. Although, then flights would cost more. I think they provide a false sense of security to some degree.

There has to be some security measures taken prior to boarding a plane. We all absorb the cost via taxes or those of us who fly absorb higher flight costs.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Sigh.

You missed the point. Travel is the right. Given that travel ia a right, the burden of proof is on the king who would say a particular exercise of that right can be limited.

The problem with your analogy to rotten drivers is that said rotten drivers directly interfere with others being able to travel. The existence of "my" right" doesn't give me moral authority for interfering with another right that also exists.

Indeed, the most usual way of gaining moral authority for infringing on right A is by finding some other right B that trumps it.

So, for example, one might argue (I wouldn't, but clearly many others here would) that one person's "right to feel safe while travelling" trumps another person's "right to travel freely". But the argument must be made.

Were travel merely a privilege, however, there would be no need to find a reason for saying no to a particular kind of travel. All that is required is the grantor of the privilege ("the king" in your metaphor) saying no.

If using a road is a "privilege" only, who is the grantor of the privilege. If the answer is "the owner of the road (i.e. the "king" or "state" in most cases), then what is the basis for the owner's authority?

Another argument (which doesn't go to the rights/privilege question): If we stay with a auto-on-road analogy, the comparison is not who can operate a car on the road and when. It's who can ride as a passenger in a car on the road and when. Banning texting while driving (which Iowa just did) is different than banning texting while being a passenger. Isn't it?

I have no problem with lots of restrictions that have been placed on my rights. I don't mind people saying the right to use the roads doesn't extend to being able to drive at speeds of 150 or under the influence of a fifth of bourbon. I don't mind parking tickets, or street lights, or stop signs. (Though I do think an awful lot of four way stops in my neck of the woods ought to be replaced with street lights.)

But I am really bothered by the "it's a privilege" argument. I don't believe "kings" (or their modern successor, "elected officials" acting on the majority's will) have moral authority for granting privilege anywhere near as often as people seem willing to accept.

"You don't have to travel." That is exactly the argument used to justify serfdom. Its not about "having to"; its about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I may not have to travel. I don't have to speak. I don't have to worship God. I don't have to assemble. I don't have to have a gun. But I still have those rights.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
13 years ago
Yeah.. ZS said that traveling is a right.. not flying.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Sigh.

You missed the point. Travel is the right. Given that travel ia a right, the burden of proof is on the king who would say a particular exercise of that right can be limited.

"Wade" wrote:



Yeah, I'm the one missing the point, sure.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
13 years ago
Were we EVER truely "free?"
The government takes a HUGE part of our income. Takes a big part when we buy anything.
Yes, we have MORE "freedom" then alot of countries. But we arn't "free" if you ask me.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
13 years ago
I would argue you are free to fly if you wish to.. buy your own plane, learn how to fly it and obey the laws of the FAA. Then set your own rules to board the freaking plane..

But traveling commercially it is a privilege at best.. the only right you have it the ownership of the rights to the seat for the flight.

You are flying in their aircraft, at their time, for their set level of compensation.

Under a free society, I will concede that it is your right to be able to fairly purchase that seat equally, but buying that seat doesn't not constitute a right to do as you please.

Their flight, their license to operate.. their rules to promote safety.

That does not define a right.

Side note.. I find it humorous that it is a right to be able to fly, but some of the same people argued that equally obtainable health care is not a right.. talk about losing touch with reality.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Under a free society, I will concede that it is your right to be able to fairly purchase that seat equally, but buying that seat doesn't not constitute a right to do as you please.

"pack93z" wrote:



That's how I feel.
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (7h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (14h) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (15h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? πŸ₯Ί I think that means you missed more than half of them 😒
    dfosterf (19h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (21h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (21h) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (21h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (21h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (21h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (21h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead πŸ€ͺ
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (22h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (22h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (22h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
    beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    19h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright Β© 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comβ„’. All Rights Reserved.