Thread: Rights vs Privileges

So what I am wondering is what everyone thinks about this: Do you think/feel that your country gives you certain rights that are applicable regardless of the time/situation? Or are they just privileges that the country can give you when its convenient, but take them away when they get in its way? An example of what I'm trying to say is habius corpus, which the U.S didn't allow its prisoners in Gitmo, but is said to be a right.



I personally feel they are privileges that are slowly being taken away, regardless of the country you live in, unless your country didn't have any to begin with, then you probably have other problems.

I think that no matter what country you live in certain rights should stay as rights and there should be a fine line between rights and privileges. It is up to the country you live in to decide what those should be and it has the right to take away privileges if needs be.

I definitely think every country should have an established set of rights similar to America's bill of rights. In Australia all the states except one do not have a bill of rights which leads to misinterpretations of legislation leading to exploitation of citizens. The government should be bound to a set of rights for it's citizens that cannot be changed, even with events such as 9/11. However, I do believe there should be a way to review archaic rights such as America's "right to bear arms", such as a public opinion vote or something similar. I don't think they should be able to be changed on the whim of the current administration though.

With the love the americains have for their guns, the right to bear arms probably wont be changed in our lifetimes. And atleast you can legally own bear paws

i think we also have the right to arm bears

In America and in other places too usually people's right are infringed upon from time to time especially during times of war. During WWII the Japanese were rounded up and put into camps, during the war of 1812 if you spoke out against the war you would have been arrested. America's message of freedom and democracy can be a sham. As in the case of Gitmo is a little ironic that america would preach justice yet say that people in Gitmo dont get rights. Terrorists in Gitmo arent granted to the right of habeus corpus because Gitmo is in Cuba and isnt subjected to US law. Obama does seem to be changing this though. Thats what he is doing by bringing KSM to New York to stand trial for his crimes.

i dont think that everyone should have the right to bear arms, this is a highly abused right and is the reason that america have the most gun crime, a good movie to see is bowling for columbine by Michael Moore that targets this obsession that americans have. however, i believe that as a people are becoming much more open minded and are starting to take advantage of the rights they have, and are starting to fight for the rights that they should have

wait kevodgg, you want to arm bears? Even tho that would be awesome, I dont see it ending well for humans

There are just so many sides to this debate...

To touch on your comment about the folks held in Gitmo - these people are not US citizens. They are enemy combatants that are not subject to the same rights that a US citizen would have.

That said, I personally do not agree with them being held without charges. If a person is detained, they should at the very *least* be able to use the judicial system of the country that is detaining them and not be subject to some non-existent system that allows them to be held forever without charges or even evidence of wrong-doing.

On the other hand, if such a law was passed that forced us to treat them the same as US citizens at the expense of US taxpayer dollars, we may just end up" persuading" some other country with a more lenient judicial system to detain them. Also, it's been my impression that the folks in Gitmo are actually treated even better than the average prisoner in a US jail, and arguably better than many US citizens (for example the folks that have no health care).

Assuming you are speaking of the United States, the United States was founded upon the principles of their Constitution, the freedom of speech, religion, expression and these rights are innate rights prescribed to each American citizen from their birth to their death. In general, each American citizen have the right of opportunity to truly express themselves in the greatest manner. However that was in the 1800s, where at the time, communities continued to gather to establish the laws (representatives from the states), and there was an open conflict between the Federalists and the non-Federalists. It is through such struggle that democracy and a transparency between the existing power, the people and the opposition could be balanced, simply saying power could never be overused for exploitation. That was a period when authority was more or less dissipated to everyone, however looking at America now, obvious the different classes are much different. The class polarization of ruling class, the bourgeois and the proletarian class creates class conflict with the ruling class doing to all their means to maintain power. In this struggle, rights are implicitly taken away in the guise for the protection of the people.
"Those who are willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both" Franklin
there are no doubts that such distribution of power eventually leads to the assumption that rights are abrogated.
In summary, through the course of class struggle, the ruling class must implicitly abrogate rights to maintain authority over the lower classes.