Rights versus privileges

Hi all. Michael Badnarik, in his Constitution Class videos, does a good job of identifying the difference between a right and a privilege. His take his generally that a right is something intrinsic to all humans at birth and cannot be taken away. A privilege is temporary authority to act on or with another person's property and can be revoked by the giver.

Does any of this ring consonant with the Austrian School? If so, is there a book I can refer to for a paper I'm writing?

Thanks, much!

Daniel Waite:

Hi all. Michael Badnarik, in his Constitution Class videos, does a good job of identifying the difference between a right and a privilege. His take his generally that a right is something intrinsic to all humans at birth and cannot be taken away. A privilege is temporary authority to act on or with another person's property and can be revoked by the giver.

Does any of this ring consonant with the Austrian School? If so, is there a book I can refer to for a paper I'm writing?

Thanks, much!

As of late, I've been rethinking the approach of inherent rights regarding humans, as it seems that assuming this could lead one to translate it as inherent entitlements, & reality and/or nature quite clearly shows that no one is really entitled to anything.

I'm not knocking down human rights, the NAP, etc. but it's not a stretch to posit that perhaps the "legend" of the Constitution, the myth, or maybe more specifically, the perception of the Constitution as a "living document" throughout our culture since this countrie's inception, may have inadvertently bred an unconscious belief in American Entitlements. 

One look at the Generation Entitlement (or Generation Me, etc.) would show this to probably be a bad thing.  The Liberty that inspired the Constitution (& this country) was earned, it wasn't given; entitled liberty isn't really liberty at all, imo.

Nitroadict:

As of late, I've been rethinking the approach of inherent rights regarding humans, as it seems that assuming this could lead one to translate it as inherent entitlements, & reality and/or nature quite clearly shows that no one is really entitled to anything.

I firmly disagree. Our rights are in intangible and set. We do not attain more rights as we grow, though it's possible some of us may acquire more property with which to exercise existing rights. If someone feels entitled to something at some point, then they are sorely mistaken and were either mislead, misinformed or delusional.

I would be loathe to "rethink" the idea of inalienable rights due to the idiocy of any number of people who feel entitled to anything in this world.

Nitroadict:

The Liberty that inspired the Constitution (& this country) was earned, it wasn't given; entitled liberty isn't really liberty at all, imo.

I see what you're saying, but again, I feel that people are still born with liberty. Whether they choose to utilize and defend it is up to them. Just like someone may have a natural talent for, say, playing the piano, it's up to them whether to take advantage of it. NOT taking advantage doesn't mean they don't have it. Likewise for rights. At certain times (probably most times) you will have to work to be able to exercise your rights, but even if you don't, they are still there. Waiting.

Daniel Waite:

Nitroadict:

As of late, I've been rethinking the approach of inherent rights regarding humans, as it seems that assuming this could lead one to translate it as inherent entitlements, & reality and/or nature quite clearly shows that no one is really entitled to anything.

I firmly disagree. Our rights are in intangible and set. We do not attain more rights as we grow, though it's possible some of us may acquire more property with which to exercise existing rights. If someone feels entitled to something at some point, then they are sorely mistaken and were either mislead, misinformed or delusional.

I would be loathe to "rethink" the idea of inalienable rights due to the idiocy of any number of people who feel entitled to anything in this world.

Nitroadict:

The Liberty that inspired the Constitution (& this country) was earned, it wasn't given; entitled liberty isn't really liberty at all, imo.

I see what you're saying, but again, I feel that people are still born with liberty. Whether they choose to utilize and defend it is up to them. Just like someone may have a natural talent for, say, playing the piano, it's up to them whether to take advantage of it. NOT taking advantage doesn't mean they don't have it. Likewise for rights. At certain times (probably most times) you will have to work to be able to exercise your rights, but even if you don't, they are still there. Waiting.

First off, I said I've been rethinking the approach and my views; I have yet to solidify any change in my views (I largely view that the use of the NAP represents said inalienable rights in action of agreement via the NAP protocol, so we do not disagree too much, I don't think). 

If rights are intangible & set, this is all the more reason why Constitutionalism failed, as it the Constitution itself was only a silly piece of symbolic paper that represented a more tangible movement of liberty (versus the founding fathers previous home of Britain), although honestly, I'm surprised it managed to survive for as long as it did (until the 20th century, largely). 

Even from the beginning, however libertarian this country's roots may have been, we've never had total liberty, just more liberty than previously had.  I think we would've been better off under The Articles of Confederation, when I look at the future of this country / dictatorship. 

The first sign major sign of trouble was the Confederacy being unable to succeed peacefully (with slavery being taken advantage of as a red herring for war by altruistic statists who helped paved the way for continuing economic slavery we're experiencing now), & the subsequent whitewashing of Heir Lincoln's legacy. 

It doesn't surprise me then that currently, in the mainstream, "liberty" & "freedom" seem to be commonly held as the ability to have *some* influence in one's servitude (I suppose rationalized freedom, this could be called, where an example of a place, time, or people who viewed as "more oppressed", is commonly fell back upon to justify current conditions as "not being as bad", and "it could be worse").

I agree though that rights are waiting, & that the action of the individual, assuming the superposition of the individual's actions involve actual liberty & not degrees of relative liberty, allow the individual to attain them, however.

Nitroadict:

entitled liberty isn't really liberty at all, imo.

Its a good point.

People only have as much freedom as they choose to express.