BalderBoard

i do not like the name of

Kendell wrote:

Click to open my response. It was too big without a spoiler.

Like Aelyria stated, I think you're, Vinmark, still mixing the definitions of the words together. Rights, liberties, freedoms, and privileges all have similar but different definitions and should not be used interchangeably.

A right is an entitlement given to a person upon becoming a member of society. Rights can't be taken away no matter the circumstances. The rights of a person may differ from region to region as defined by their governments (difference between natural rights and positive rights) but a right is usually objective and when ingrained, it cannot be rescinded. The point of a right is to ensure that a person can receive freedoms and protections.

On the other hand, a freedom is the declaration of an unrestricted activity given by a government. This means that a freedom is bounded by written law and can be taken away if said law is vialated. This also means that freedoms are subjective and people can have a different perception of freedom depending on different factors.

The definition of a liberty is confusing because it is often used incorrectly (just look at Cornell University's definition, they even got it wrong) but the real definition depends on the whether it refers to a civil liberty or a liberty. This may sound like I'm being nitpicky but it matters. The word liberty basically means freedom and can be used interchangeably, however, civil liberty is more broader. The definition of civil liberties are the guarantees of a government or nation of certain protections ingrained in law. This means that civil liberties can refer to both freedoms and rights but it depends on the country.

Lastly are privileges. Privileges are a certain freedom given to a certain population. Basically, privileges are a form of freedom and by definition can be used interchangeably with the word "freedom" but it shouldn't becuase it degrades the meaning of the word.

Now for both of your statements. I do agree with you Aelyria that there are some freedoms that are essential but I generally question why they are called freedoms instead of rights if they are essential and should not be rescinded. However, your second statement is contradictory. You state that liberty is the same as freedom but that they are not earned. Since liberties are freedoms, by definition they can be granted or taken away through any declared means by any legal authority. That is the definition of freedom and it doesn't matter who has the authority or how they got for that is another question for another day.

To Vinmark, your statements are contentious to say the least. On the issue of right to weapons, I generally agree with you. I believe that people should be able to gain access to a weapon either for recreation or for protection. The issues that I have with the right are the types of weapons and how they gain access to one. I don't believe that people should own a military grade weapon. There is no need for any civilian to own any form of that fire power under any circumstances. A hand gun or shotgun is sufficient for both recreation and defensive purposes. I also believe that it should be relatively difficult to gain access to a weapon. It is a deadly object that has a high potential of killing people. It should only be owned by people who will respect and handle the weapon properly. It should also be said that no minor should be able to handle a weapon in public, without adult supervision, and training.

To the matter of the right to revolution and the freedom of owning a car, I disagree. There is an idea, at least in America, that the people have a right to overthrow their government if they feel that the government is oppressive. First off, that notion is from the Declaration of Independence which is not legally binding and you will be arrested for seditious or subversive actions. Secondly, I don't classify the right to revolution as a right but rather a duty. No government or national entity should or will ever allow their populace to rebel. That is contradictory to what a government is and degrades the power of government to do their job. Lastly, I agree that owning a car should not be a right, however, it can be argued just like how you can argue that weapon ownership shouldn't be a right. If a country is extremely safe and hunting is illegal, then there is no point in owning a weapon. Contrastly, if you live in a deadzone where services like food outlets and hospitals are too far away for you to walk, then a car or mototransport is imperative to one's survival and not allowing said person to have one can be argued that you are depriving them of their natural right to life.

All of this to say that what should and shouldn't be considered a right or freedom all depends on your point of view, the circumstance of your living, and society as a collective body.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These things can exist wholly apart from whether there is a government. Governments are formed (as the Declaration of Independence goes on to say) in order to secure these rights. It is not that a government graciously bestows these rights and may rescind them at its leisure; it is that the government is graciously bestowed the authority to protect these rights, and the governed my rescind that authority, though in general the governed do not do so, both for purely rational reasons ("Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;") and for emotional ones ("and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.")

Freedom and liberty are in general fluid. We do not speak of the "liberty of speech," but rather freedom of speech, and yet that freedom is one secured in law by governments. Indeed, most "liberties" as you define it, protected categories of behavior secured by laws or constitutions, are called "freedom of X" ("freedom of religion," "freedom of assembly," etc.) or "rights" ("right to a speedy and fair trial," "right to remain silent," etc.) Similarly, the UN does not have a declaration on human liberties, but on human rights, which (like the Declaration of Independence) claims to come in some sense before the laws of nations.

"Privilege," on the other hand, does have a clear distinction from these other things. That has an implication of something special, out of the ordinary, above what is common to all. Phrases like "the rights and privileges of X" crop up in legal discourse, implying some amount of difference, despite being related. The US Constitution, for example, is seen to force every state to treat both native and temporary/migrant citizens fully equally, giving them both the same rights and the same privileges, e.g., no special tax breaks just because you actually live in the state vs someone who commutes across state lines for work.

where you country is both super corrupt but super law- abiding and inclusive

Aelyria wrote:

Law-abiding applies to the everyday person. Corruption applies to government officials.

A nation where the government is extremely corrupt but the people are law-abiding would look like a dystopian bureaucracy: you have to bribe your way through endless layers of pencil-pushing officials just to get a business license or legal representation or whatever, but most folks just live quiet lives working legitimately and keeping their noses clean. In fact, lawbreakers might even be drawn to positions of authority, where they can grift and extort freely, without fear of government reprisal. Corrupt police departments, for example, which abuse their powers and shield their officers from justified investigation into their abuses, would be an example of a corrupt government branch whether or not the people overall are obeying the laws.

I don't see how inclusiveness is relevant to either side though. Being inclusive in NS just means you treat people equally, neither giving nor denying special favor based on category (ethnicity, nationality, gender, creed, orientation, occupation, age, etc.)

the idea of corrupt cop asking a guy if he can beat him to which the repy is "yeah sure im doing anything important right now" is funny though.
its like that tike 2 guys broke in an fbi building by asking the employees to hold open a door for them.

Odin wrote:

Interesting discussion.

What's the benefit to heavily arming the populace? If the goal is to — based on the philosophy of John Locke — enable the population to overthrow the government if it fails to preserve life, liberty, and property, doesn't a large modern military and modern propaganda nullify this ability? Furthermore, many European countries have comparably few weapons in the populace, its people have no problem pressuring the government with protest.

If the goal is self-defense, I'd point to the lower crime rates in less weaponized populations.

Edit: I'm definitely with Scalia on making constitutional amendments easier to pass.

As I'm an American, I'll say foremost that I don't condone much of what my nations military has done in recent history. Though on the point of a large and advanced military, it's meant to allow maximum efficiency in defense(often of our interests). However.. it could affect a potential rebellion if the US government were to become Tyrannical. But we should look at the US history to see why a rebellion could still hold its own. Back in the 17-18th centuries, Britain was a major world power, far more logistically capable than the Colonials were. But the Colonials built up their arms, many only had hunting grade muskets, and yet through their vigilance and strategies, succeeded over the British. In modern times, a rebellion in the US would have a similar situation. Many citizens only own hunting grade bolt actions, maybe some lever action and semi automatic rifles. However, things are different now too. A citizen can own a assault type rifle(though these are practically all semi auto only), and we now have modern shotguns, automatic pistols, revolvers, and sumbachine guns (also usually only in semi auto). Some others before voiced how they believe that no citizen should have the need to own a fully automatic weapon. I disagree for a few reasons. But the one which pertains to this topic is that yes a rebellion against tyranny can be done with simple arms, be it melee such as spears, swords, bayonets, knives, and farming equipment like hoes and pitchforks, axes, or in modern times machetes, saws and crowbars, as well bows, and simpler firearms.. but having fully automatic firearms would assist in bridging the disparity of the ground forces. Let's take into account that a modern government's military has things like grenades, fully automatic weapons, high explosive arms like missile launchers and grenade launchers. So could a force armed with these simpler arms as previously mentioned be able to combat a force with such arms(not mentioning the advanced vehicles they could call into their side like helicopters, APCs and tanks).. yes. But it would be difficult, and they would only have a few advantages. The first being size, there's be more citizens than active military and reserve. However, they'd probably have to train vigilantly, for even in the US, many citizens don't bare arms at all, or only know how to use a basic pistol. If we tried to form modern militias(some already exist mind you), they'd have to be properly trained in many modern tactics. And what if a militia encountered a armored vehicle, let's say an APC. Well at minimum they'd probably have 30mm of armor to contend with. No contemporary bullet would pierce this, not even the powerful 14.5x114mm Soviet round. To even approach it, you'd need 20mm rounds. But this still wouldn't be enough, you'd need explosives, or some effective way to immobilize the vehicle. If you have lower power rounds, they'd have to go for the treads of exhaust/engine regions of the vehicle. Perhaps use molotov cocktails. But to actually damage the vehicle encroaching on your militia, you'd need explosives arms. Bazookas, Panzerfaust, RPG-7s, or IEDs and similar kit. Otherwise.. you'd be at best routed, at worst decimated as a fighting force on a one-one fight. So in short, does a modern large and advanced military make militias and general civilian armament null? No. But it does pose a obstacle, one which they'd need to be vigilant against.

Aelyria wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These things can exist wholly apart from whether there is a government. Governments are formed (as the Declaration of Independence goes on to say) in order to secure these rights. It is not that a government graciously bestows these rights and may rescind them at its leisure; it is that the government is graciously bestowed the authority to protect these rights, and the governed my rescind that authority, though in general the governed do not do so, both for purely rational reasons ("Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;") and for emotional ones ("and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.")

Freedom and liberty are in general fluid. We do not speak of the "liberty of speech," but rather freedom of speech, and yet that freedom is one secured in law by governments. Indeed, most "liberties" as you define it, protected categories of behavior secured by laws or constitutions, are called "freedom of X" ("freedom of religion," "freedom of assembly," etc.) or "rights" ("right to a speedy and fair trial," "right to remain silent," etc.) Similarly, the UN does not have a declaration on human liberties, but on human rights, which (like the Declaration of Independence) claims to come in some sense before the laws of nations.

"Privilege," on the other hand, does have a clear distinction from these other things. That has an implication of something special, out of the ordinary, above what is common to all. Phrases like "the rights and privileges of X" crop up in legal discourse, implying some amount of difference, despite being related. The US Constitution, for example, is seen to force every state to treat both native and temporary/migrant citizens fully equally, giving them both the same rights and the same privileges, e.g., no special tax breaks just because you actually live in the state vs someone who commutes across state lines for work.

As stated by my definition of rights, there exist two types of rights: natural rights and unnatural rights. Natural rights are rights that are ingrained in society and thus only society, as a collective body, can rescind them. Some natural rights are right to life, right to well-being, and right to safety. These rights tend to be vague of which I will explain later. Unnatural, positive, or legal rights are rights bestowed upon someone by a legal system. This type of rights can be rescinded but generally, when a right is bestowed, it is not. The Declaration of Independence talks about natural and unnatural rights but blurs the line between the two. Many of the rights that Jefferson and the colonists advocated for were unnatural rights not given to them by Parliament and the Crown. This included your opening quote from the first line of the Right of Man section. The right of life is the only natural right in that sentence. The rest are unnatural rights, freedoms, and duties. However, Parliament and the Crown did still violate some of their natural rights and so in that sense the colonists did have a responsibility to rebel.

On the topic of freedom and rights, it is good to look at the U.S. Constitution to see their differences. Many people get freedoms and rights mixed up because of the wording of the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. For instance, the first amendment establishes the freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceful assembly, and petitions to the government. However, these freedoms aren't just freedoms, more importantly they are rights as declared by the name of the document of which they are established: the Bill of Rights. What the Bill of Rights displays is that (1) within every natural right are unnatural rights, and within every unnatural right are freedoms, (2) a freedom can be established as an unnatural right, and (3) only rights given (unnatural rights) can be established as freedoms or rescinded. The first of these declarations is important to understanding political theory. Natural rights are vague because they are means to appease all walks of society. On the other hand, unnatural rights and freedoms are more specific but the decision of implementation is relegated to respective regions and governing bodies of which they have the "right" to declare or rescind whenever they feel like it.

Totenkozia wrote:

Wtf are yall taking about?

It started with the conversation between Aelyria and Self harm of the right to protest in contrast with safety. Now Aelyria and I are having a conversation of the philosophy and political theory of rights and freedoms of government and society while Odin and Vinmark kritarchy are having a conversation of whether weapon ownership should be a right, freedom, or illegal and whether the ownership of weapons should entail military grade weapons.

Kendell wrote:

It started with the conversation between Aelyria and Self harm of the right to protest in contrast with safety. Now Aelyria and I are having a conversation of the philosophy and political theory of rights and freedoms of government and society while Odin and Vinmark kritarchy are having a conversation of whether weapon ownership should be a right, freedom, or illegal and whether the ownership of weapons should entail military grade weapons.

Whats the tldr difference between right and freedom.
Gun safety classes and training classes as kids to help introduce them to guns.
More guns =more cool

Civitas nubibus wrote:

Ok cool so how would you classifly gun rights/laws ??

I'm not sure what you mean by classifying gun rights and laws. The point of Odin's and Vinmark's discussion is whether the ownership of weapons should be classified as a right or as a freedom. Basically, should the ownership of weapons, specifically guns, be controlled or should they be allowed in full. The former would make weapon ownership a freedom and the latter would make it a right. However, if you want a definition I guess I would define it as how Wikipedia defines it, "the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.".

Personally, I agree with Odin on the execution but not the concept. Conceptually, as I stated earlier, I believe that people should be able to gain access to a weapon either for recreational purposes or for protection. However, for the execution, I think that a weapon should be relatively difficult to obtain and that no civilian should be able to obtain a military grade weapon. Vinmark's remarks on the reason for weapon ownership to be a right is quite specific but doesn't solve the problem. If the reason why you should own a gun is because your nation could collapse or the military has the ability to attempt a coup, then the problem isn't the lack of guns that the populace has but that the government was poorly designed or executed.

The reason why modernized and "civilized" nations don't have military coups is because of stability. You know what decreases stability, WEAPONS! Low gun control and high gun ownership have been shown to increase the homicide rate, crime rate, violence, anger, and anxiety in a nation. So what you're basically stating is that since your nation is unstable you're going to give the populace weapons which will create more instability which will make you give more guns and so on and so forth. It doesn't make sense. It is a vicious cycle that only leads to more death and misery.

Odin wrote:

Did you mean to write something?

He did write something but he put it in my quote accidentally.

Odin wrote:

I don’t think Great Britain has as much of an advantage as you think. Their military probably had 40k-50k men spread across the entire Empire. Defeating the Americans would require moving those troops across the sea, blocking the entire American coast to prevent supplies from entering from France, and somehow defeating millions of free colonists. It was an upset victory, but most of these guerrilla wars are.

As for the United States military, people underplay how capable it really is. It would not occur like Vietnam or Afghanistan because they’d be on homeland soil.

However, the US’s soldiers are also citizens. If the citizens wanted to revolt, the military would likely join them, much like the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. This would be much less bloody and is realistic.

As a former Communist, I understand the Russian revolts well. But overall it is a good point. I don't think it'd be like Vietnam or Afghanistan because those were quite specific in terms of conditions and period in which they occured. However, the US is quite large, and has many unique subcultures within it. From the South, to Appalachia and the Plains to name afew. So I think militias would handle things differently, more so if say.. a second Civil War happened.

Odin wrote:

You make me sound so smart, when I'm just struggling to keep up. :P

Aw, don't sell yourself short.

Kendell wrote:

Difficult to give the TLDR but here goes nothing. First, there are two different types of rights: natural rights and unnatural rights. In comparing natural rights, unnatural rights, and freedoms, you have to view them as a hierarchical system. It is easier to start from the bottom. So on the bottom you have freedoms. A freedom is the declaration of an unrestricted activity given by a government. Basically, you can do anything you want that is within the law. If you violate that law you can have that freedom taken away.

Next you have unnatural rights. They are basically freedoms, in that they are given and taken away by governments, but generally a government won't take away your unnatural right even if you violate it. Violating an unnatural right is also worse than violating a freedom. Lastly are natural rights. They are granted to you at birth and no government or person can take them away from you. What this means is that (1) within every natural right are unnatural rights and within every unnatural right are freedoms and (2) a freedom can be established as an unnatural right and an unnatural right can be established as a freedom or taken away.

Is this your own informal categorization, or are you intending to rely on the meanings as used in political philosophy? Because this account of "unnatural rights" does not actually seem to square with the literature on the subject. (That is, just because something is an "unnatural" right, does not mean it is not a required right; it may be an optional thing, or it may be morally requisite for reasons unrelated to the inherent characteristics—i.e., not based on the "nature"—of the right-holder in question.)

Civitas nubibus wrote:

Whats the tldr difference between right and freedom.
Gun safety classes and training classes as kids to help introduce them to guns.
More guns =more cool

If I may give my competing answer:
"Rights" are moral/legal claims that should be respected, or else a penalty be suffered by the party that disrespects them.
"Freedoms" are a specific type of rights, which protect the claimant from certain kinds of restrictions.

So the right to a speedy and fair trial is not a "freedom," because it has nothing to do with preventing restrictions on those who have it, but it is still a "right," because it demands a specific kind of action taken (by the government, in this case) toward whoever it applies to. Whereas "free speech" is a freedom, because it is specifically a right which forbids the government from restricting speech, except in certain limited circumstances (e.g. defamation or endangering public safety).