zombieslayer
14 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. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
zombieslayer
14 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. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 years ago
Yeah.. ZS said that traveling is a right.. not flying.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (1h) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (1h) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (1h) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1h / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.