4 ms·
Maybe you and I have different understandings of what a "right" is. I define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, and there are very few of these.
by kempbellt 7y ago
Maybe you and I have different understandings of what a "right" is. I define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, and there are very few of these. Your story, your thoughts, and your will, are all you have a right to - while you are alive.
Every other nicety in life is due to mutual respect, agreements and the ability to use force should those agreements be broken.
If I am using a restroom, I don't have a "right" to privacy. Tell that to a prisoner who has to take a shit in front of their cellmates... Even in comfort of your own home, someone could kick the door open. The fact that they don't kick in the door, is due to mutual respect for boundaries. This is what I would call a privilege, which has been mutually _agreed upon by_ and _granted to_ all parties involved.
Privileges make up our freedoms. They are the things that we fight for, and should continue to do so.
We should make an effort to not conflate the two, as it tends to blur the lines and give people a false understanding of what they have a right to intrinsically, vs what they must fight for.
- cmroanirgo 7y agoAlthough I agree with what you're saying, I always thought that a right was something the government gave us after taking it away in the first place, proving that a right is a political term, at least now days. I've always used intrinsic right as you suggest to describe what you mention, to differentiate the two. Because the problem lies in the political domain, it's not unexpected that these two ideas (intrinsic rights vs privilege) are deliberately conflated precisely to blur the boundary, making their agenda achievable: the control of people.