Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, john.vampatella@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
MZ wrote:
I was with you until this final paragraph. How do your two paragraphs
that precede it cause you to arrive at the conclusion that it's a
"privelege granted by the state"?

I'm not sure where the disconnect is for you. To me, it's a pretty
seamless train of thought. If the government has the "right" (haha) to
punish someone for doing something, then you may only safely (i.e.,
without fear of punishment) perform that act if the government grants
you permission. That's pretty self-evident reasoning.

I don't believe it to be a true statement, and that's probably where the discrepancy lies. "If the government has the right to punish someone for doing something..." You finished that statement with the government granting you permission to do it. That's like saying they've given you permission to take a crap because they don't punish you for it. No, I believe there's punishment for things and then the absence of punishment for things. Just because there's no punishment does not mean that it's a privelege. In the movies you hear a bully say "You're lucky I don't knock your teeth out." Has he thus given the person the "privelege" of keeping his teeth?

The government can either
infringe upon those rights or not infringe upon those rights. There's no
third option, unless you believe that government can bestow rights upon
people -- this attributes supernatural status to the government which I
remind you is merely a collection of people.

I don't think everything is automatically a "right" that the government
can infringe upon or not infringe upon. Do you have the "right" to
kill another person, and the government is simply infringing upon that
right?

I didn't say that everything is a right. I said that there are rights (if you go for that sort of thing). What they are is, of course, a topic of debate. But if they exist, it's not because of the grace of government. They're either there, or they're not. In short, government does not grant rights. They may recognize rights. They may protect rights. They may even infringe upon rights. But they don't grant rights.

By what authority does a collection of people have in order
to do something like that? Indeed, a society can "look the other way"
about certain things (ie. not punish an action), but that doesn't mean
you've suddenly sprouted that right.

I agree. But I don't think a "right" is the same thing as a
"privilege". Apparently you disagree. Ok.

I don't think it's the same thing either. In fact, I don't think the two are necessarily related. I got the impression that you did, based on your "it's not a right, it's a privelege" stance. It seems like you think that all actions and behavior must be one or the other.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why I oppose seatbelt and helmet laws
    ... If the government has the "right" to ... punish someone for doing something, then you may only safely (i.e., ... infringe upon those rights or not infringe upon those rights. ... But the state can grant privileges. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • OT Excerpt from "Unequal protection...Re: OT Corporate History
    ... The Bill of Rights ... But it was very much a part of his thinking during the time when the Bill of Rights was born. ... Thus, while Madison saw the rise of corporate power and its dangers during and after his presidency, the issues weren't obvious to him when he was helping write the United States Constitution decades earlier. ... Shortly after George Washington became the first President of the United States in 1789, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed that the federal government incorporate a national bank and assume state debts left over from the Revolutionary War. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... I see, so I should just give up my rights now without a fight, and then ... Another empty tactic of gun control, ... project a willingness to support more restrictive gun control. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: ot:ot:ot flag burning amendment
    ... >>>Militia is necessary for the security of a free state, ... presupposes the independent existence of rights, ... have no existence before government grants them. ... beliefs, philosophy, etc. as does mine, of course. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
    ... RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER ... > generally, for individual rights. ... > "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)