3 ms·

I know the word gets a bad rap, but I feel entitlement is a better word. Driving is a privilege, you have to prove yourself worthy and it can be revoked relativ

I know the word gets a bad rap, but I feel entitlement is a better word. Driving is a privilege, you have to prove yourself worthy and it can be revoked relatively easily. Voting is (typically) a positive right - an entitlement, it’s guranteed to all citizens with no barrier to entry. Just existing as a citizen is enough (barring circumstances like felony conviction, though personally I’m against removing voting rights under any circumstance).

vokep 8y ago
The word 'right' can be redefined in context sure to make privileges considered as rights, but the typical and most useful meaning of the word is natural rights - that which you have the freedom to do at birth. Of course some rights clash with eachother, which is where some are naturally undone. It was mentioned elsewhere how the right to freedom (and therefore freedom to kill) conflicts with the right to live. The right to freedom gets restricted in that case because that kind of restriction is the most minimal possible reduction of rights, which still allows everyone to maintain their rights. Life>freedom means a reduced right to freedom, and we don't want to do freedom>life as that results in a complete reduction of rights for an innocent individual. So, rights aren't just absolute, they're a bit like the voronoi pattern created by intersecting circles. Privileges on the other hand don't even exist without other people usually. With cars, if one exists, you naturally have the right to get in one and drive it...until you're in a society with other cars. Then, it is difficult to exercise your right to drive a car without infringing on others, so much so that the right is entirely reduced and transformed into a privilege: you do not have the right to drive a car unless the state (societal structure) has confirmed you can do so safely.

vokep 8y ago

The word 'right' can be redefined in context sure to make privileges considered as rights, but the typical and most useful meaning of the word is natural rights - that which you have the freedom to do at birth. Of course some rights clash with eachother, which is where some are naturally undone. It was mentioned elsewhere how the right to freedom (and therefore freedom to kill) conflicts with the right to live. The right to freedom gets restricted in that case because that kind of restriction is the most minimal possible reduction of rights, which still allows everyone to maintain their rights. Life>freedom means a reduced right to freedom, and we don't want to do freedom>life as that results in a complete reduction of rights for an innocent individual. So, rights aren't just absolute, they're a bit like the voronoi pattern created by intersecting circles. Privileges on the other hand don't even exist without other people usually. With cars, if one exists, you naturally have the right to get in one and drive it...until you're in a society with other cars. Then, it is difficult to exercise your right to drive a car without infringing on others, so much so that the right is entirely reduced and transformed into a privilege: you do not have the right to drive a car unless the state (societal structure) has confirmed you can do so safely.