right vs benefit

[ygmir]

So,
I'm confused............(again, or, still).........

I see folks claiming this or that as a "right". But, I see many things as "benefit".

the whole "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (not attainment)" thing.......

I know there are many folks here, much wiser than I, that, can explain the difference.

it seems to me, "rights" are "natural".......
life; yeah,
liberty; well, depends on how you define that,
pursuit of happiness; well, yes, the "pursuit"


but,
it seems many think "benefits" are rights...........

roads, and, driving thereon
electricity
education
"protection", (police and military)

things may be necessary, and quite beneficial to a society, but, are they "rights"?


can anyone help me with this quandary?

[lambert13]

With things like roads, police, education utilities, etc. I feel that since we pay taxes for them they are a "right". To some degree. By taking some of my money for these and other purposes the government enters a contract of sorts to provide the services they are charging for.

The problem is that the government defines and decides the terms of service and can modify it whenever or however it damn well pleases.

[Fire_Moose]

i think both of yer guys' posts sum everything up fairly nicely....

[Ugly Dougly]

Ygmir, you are possibly using "benefit" when you mean "privilege".

[dr.placebo]

The term I favor is "conditioned expectation," but it does not have any rhetorical swagger to it.

Things are "rights" when you consider them to be somehow "natural" or (perversely) "earned." It is easier to believe that you have a right than a benefit.

Things are "benefits" when you think that the other person has not earned them. It is easier to remove a benefit than a right.

I'm being a bit cynical about terminology today.

[ygmir]

Ygmir, you are possibly using "benefit" when you mean "privilege".

yeah, I struggled between "right", "benefit", and, "entitlement".

Doc, for me, "right" doesn't go in the "earned" category. but I do agree, it's "natural" or maybe intrinsic.

I also don't see benefit the same, but, do understand what you say.
I see benefit as something you get, that is useful.

[can't sit still]

ygmir, GOV is great at abusing ALL of the above. You pay gas tax and you expect GOV to maintain the roads. GOV took that gas tax out of the highway fund and put it in the general fund. You have a right to expect GOV to do the job that you payed for. GOV took the money to buy votes.
I suppose that you have to break it down to rights that you have earned and rights that come with life. That doesn't cover much more than sunshine, gravity and air.

I think that the rest of "rights" can be classified as hopes or expectations. They can be removed by persons or groups. Entitlements are even more fuzzy. Your right to unemployment compensation is a lot more tenuous than your right to be safe in your own home. Force is everywhere and force can remove your rights. Mother nature and the cosmos can remove your rights.
Gravity, sunshine and air. The rest is dodgy

[Isotopia]

Fire Moose, your GIF is pretty interesting. From what I understand it has gone viral on the net with many viewers assuming that the African-American guy getting thrashed is getting his due for assaulting the older man.

What it doesn't show in your very abbreviated version is that the old man basically is riding a bus and badgering the younger black man by suggesting that he 'shine my shoes' to which - as one might imagine - the younger guy gets pretty irritated.

It's all a very interesting lesson on perception and how the art of editing can change perceptions of reality.

Watching the entire vid I find myself almost wishing the black guy had had a baseball bat to beat hell out of the racist who was just looking for someone to hit.

Back where I'm from we call such manipulation of images 'bullshit.'

BTW, I don't mean to suggest that you're responsible for the editing of the vid in question. The verion you link to is the very one that's gone viral on the net.

[Risky]

If mere comments justify assault your ass would have been kicked a long time ago, Iso.

[ibdave]

If mere comments justify assault your ass would have been kicked a long time ago, Iso.

[Ugly Dougly]

I see folks claiming this or that as a "right". But, I see many things as "benefit".

Specifically?

[Badger]

If mere comments justify assault your ass would have been kicked a long time ago, Iso.

No doubt. But you're elaborating on the obvious.

[ygmir]

I see folks claiming this or that as a "right". But, I see many things as "benefit".

Specifically?

as referenced in my original post........

[Trishntek]

Seems rights were pretty well defined in the U.S. Constitution. The major thing gone amok is the misunderstanding or ignorance of the citizens.

We fail as communities to be self reliant. We fail to keep our representatives accountable. We fail to understand that liberty is only one generation from loss. And due to The States feeding at the trough of a Centralized National Government for several generations, they have forfeited their rights to reign in the usurpation of power by that National Government which was originally only given very limited "rights" by The States.

Right to Life = to survive, procreate and interact with all that exists.
Right to Liberty = to have and make choices based upon personal goals and motives.
Right to Pursue Happiness = to succeed or fail in liberty and enjoy the consequences.

Rights are given by natural law, not governments. Animals born in the wild enjoy such rights. Whatever a government gives or provides, a government can take away. Privilege is purchased, earned or provided by the grace of others. Benefit is something shared within a community based upon community effort and mutual agreement. Welfare is providing goods and services to undeserving souls who cannot contribute as determined by the mutual agreement of the community.

[Simon of the Playa]

you have to EARN it, motherfuckers.

you have no rights.


deal with it.

[ygmir]

Seems rights were pretty well defined in the U.S. Constitution. The major thing gone amok is the misunderstanding or ignorance of the citizens.

We fail as communities to be self reliant. We fail to keep our representatives accountable. We fail to understand that liberty is only one generation from loss. And due to The States feeding at the trough of a Centralized National Government for several generations, they have forfeited their rights to reign in the usurpation of power by that National Government which was originally only given very limited "rights" by The States.

Right to Life = to survive, procreate and interact with all that exists.
Right to Liberty = to have and make choices based upon personal goals and motives.
Right to Pursue Happiness = to succeed or fail in liberty and enjoy the consequences.

Rights are given by natural law, not governments. Animals born in the wild enjoy such rights. Whatever a government gives or provides, a government can take away. Privilege is purchased, earned or provided by the grace of others. Benefit is something shared within a community based upon community effort and mutual agreement. Welfare is providing goods and services to undeserving souls who cannot contribute as determined by the mutual agreement of the community.

well said.

[lambert13]

Rights are given by natural law, not governments. Animals born in the wild enjoy such rights. Whatever a government gives or provides, a government can take away. Privilege is purchased, earned or provided by the grace of others. Benefit is something shared within a community based upon community effort and mutual agreement. Welfare is providing goods and services to undeserving souls who cannot contribute as determined by the mutual agreement of the community.

That sums it up very well

[Risky]

The Bill of Rights was actually a list of freedoms that the Government could not infringe upon, not a list of freedoms we are guaranteed.

The Bill of Rights specifically states it is not an enumeration, merely an outline of examples of the kinds of natural rights we retain.

The Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The intended concept was always More Freedom, Not Less.

[Trishntek]

Risky, that is absolutely correct. And yet today, in the information age, we see time and again where the Gubmint's insatiable hunger for information has brought about an unprecedented shrinkage of our rights. And for the sake of the lowest common denominator, we must wear helmets, seat belts, be told what to eat, drink and smoke.

Meanwhile, Senator Larkin publicly states they are bestowing the right of healthcare upon the people. Rights NEVER come from Gubmint.

[lambert13]

Risky, that is absolutely correct. And yet today, in the information age, we see time and again where the Gubmint's insatiable hunger for information has brought about an unprecedented shrinkage of our rights. And for the sake of the lowest common denominator, we must wear helmets, seat belts, be told what to eat, drink and smoke.

Meanwhile, Senator Larkin publicly states they are bestowing the right of healthcare upon the people. Rights NEVER come from Gubmint.

The one thing I would add is that erosion of freedoms is not solely due to government desire to control the masses. The lack of personal responsibility, blame anyone but yourself kind of attitude has fed the fire. Especially with how litigious we have become. Instead of people taking ownership and responsibility for their dumb ass mistakes they are quick to hire a lawyer to sue the shit out of someone. Once that happens enough the government is pressured to make laws to "protect" us from our own dumb ass mistakes.

[ygmir]

another good point, Lambert13, well said.

so many folks are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety (read "being taken care of").

[Isotopia]

Welfare is providing goods and services to undeserving souls who cannot contribute as determined by the mutual agreement of the community.

So social welfare in its most basic form and stripped of political ideology extends to children with debilitating diseases and ailments and mental deficiencies. Many adults are incapable of either working or robustly contributing to society in a measure equal or even approximating 'normal' citizens. Are they undeserving? Does the child (or adult) born without limbs, or has Down syndrome or born blind, etc. not deserve even a small measure of the society's largess in order to get along? Where does one draw the line here?

Trishntek's achingly simplistic condemnation of the have not's is as pathetically myopic and as his/her understanding of the natural world. Fortunately, not everyone's social or political astuteness is not as thoroughly stuck in the mire of shite ideas.

[Lord Of Ruin]

Risky, that is absolutely correct. And yet today, in the information age, we see time and again where the Gubmint's insatiable hunger for information has brought about an unprecedented shrinkage of our rights. And for the sake of the lowest common denominator, we must wear helmets, seat belts, be told what to eat, drink and smoke.

Meanwhile, Senator Larkin publicly states they are bestowing the right of healthcare upon the people. Rights NEVER come from Gubmint.

The problem with much of what you list is when YOUR choice becomes MY responsibility.

You say people are free to not wear helmets. But then when they don't have insurance and go to an emergency room, I pay for that.

And honestly, no one, contrary to public ignorance, is going to check someone's wallet for a card before rendering aid to such.

That is why a great many of those "freedoms are infringed."

As others have alluded to, bonehead taking no personal responsibility for their actions mucked it up for all of us.

As for the current right vs. benefit discussions consuming us today: Does everyone deserve an education as a right? Does everyone deserve healthcare as a right?

The answer has been asked and answered as a yes. We've provided for that already, again contrary to public perception. We educate children to age 18 on the public dime. We will render aid to those injured and sick.

Real question is: Are you entitled to the things that other are, if those others receive them as a consequence of their additional labor?

I.e. Do you deserve to go to college on the public dime, because other people have college degrees?

LoR

[ygmir]

I still see education and healthcare as a benefit.......the benefit of living where we do......and, for some, the benefit of others hard work/taxes....but, still, a benefit. Not so much deserved, as, available, or offered.

"We" may say something is a "right", when, really, we just feel it's a benefit all should be able to avail themselves of.
and, that may differ from an "oblitgation", ie: mandatory k-12 education.
still, not a right, but, if you're compelled, then, it's on the "public dime".

your last question is a good one.
I'd say no, you don't deserve to go to college, because someone else got a degree. I think it should be available, to those who can't afford it, and, only if they have the ability, or will, to make use of it. not like:

Athletes, going all the way through college, full ride scholarships, but, know nothing when they leave.
People going to college, just to collect some other sort of money, that they can only get if enrolled in school.
things like that.

As a society, it is in our best interest to educate all we can. But, not to waste money on those who will not make use of it anyway.

the helmet/seatbelt thing is a sticky wicket, for me, anyway.....
I totally agree, it's a persons "right" not to use them. But, I feel, if that choice is made, medical care, may be prioritized according to availability for others not suffering from the result of a free choice.
Sure, no ones going to look in the wallet of a down motorcyclist to see what they have, before treating for emergency. But, long term care and such, may well be denied, including other free services provided the public.
Seems spartan, I know, but, at a point, you rolls the dice, and, takes your chances.

so much of it comes to personal responsibility........if you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, well, you might die.
you might die anyway, though.
I see so many folks, that, run to the doctor, every time they get a scratch, or headache.......and, if it's "free", I bet that increases.......
and so, we all pay, for people that won't take care of themselves.

But, we can make a choice, as a society, to fund that, or any, benefit. I don't judge that choice, but, I don't call it a "right".

[Trishntek]

When someone is "undeserving" and unable to contribute to society, it then falls upon the community whether that individual will receive the gracious (unearned) gift of that community. NONE OF US DESERVE ANYTHING!

We begin to die immediately after we are born. All of us have abilities and resources to some degree. If we choose not to exercise those abilities and contribute those resources, that is our choice to make. But the consequences of that choice are directly related to the community's responsibility to you as an individual. It is granted that some individuals cannot survive without aid from the community. That individual does not deserve it. In fact, that individual should not expect it, demand it nor be comfortable receiving it.

The grace of the community provides for these individuals and that person should be nothing but GRATEFUL and HUMBLE. To demand such things as a "right" is utter nonsense.

As for the helmet and seat belt thing, that is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" thing. When we make choices which cause failure, we must be allowed to suffer those consequences. That is how society learns and grows. Mandating common sense simply caters to the lowest common denominator and treats us all like children. Do I ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No! Do I drive without a seatbelt? No! Do I run with scissors? No, and it is not mandated by law.

[theCryptofishist]

Didn't read past the first paragraph, Ygmir, but in the long term sociaty as a whole benefits when people have basic health care and have educations. We started nutricional programs after WWI pointed out to us that a lot of young men were unable to serve in the armed forces because they had been undernourished growing up. And not only do people with educations tend to have better jobs, but the money that they earn tends to flow through the community boosted opportunity for others.

Which, I guess is not pertinent to the discussion as far as I can understand its intend.

[ygmir]

Didn't read past the first paragraph, Ygmir, but in the long term sociaty as a whole benefits when people have basic health care and have educations. We started nutricional programs after WWI pointed out to us that a lot of young men were unable to serve in the armed forces because they had been undernourished growing up. And not only do people with educations tend to have better jobs, but the money that they earn tends to flow through the community boosted opportunity for others.

Which, I guess is not pertinent to the discussion as far as I can understand its intend.

I agree, Fishy.
I'm not judging, just wondering.........
Right vs benefit. I agree societally, healthcare, nutrition, education, etc.....are beneficial. I just don't see them as "rights", moreso, a "benefit" of living where we do, when we do. And, given, as possible.

[Oldguy]

Nobody ever gave me shit. They are my rights and my privaledges and I'm taking them, Dammit!

[dr.placebo]

I see so many folks, that, run to the doctor, every time they get a scratch, or headache.......and, if it's "free", I bet that increases.......
and so, we all pay, for people that won't take care of themselves.

But, we can make a choice, as a society, to fund that, or any, benefit. I don't judge that choice, but, I don't call it a "right".

Maybe health care is not a right, but treating it as a luxury is also not working for us. We pay so much more for so much worse care that it's hard for me to think highly of the US "health care" system.

Yes, people sometimes abuse going to the doctor for trivial things. The flip side is that many people delay preventive care when it costs too much, and thereby wind up in the emergency room. This escalates the cost. Having lost a friend to breast cancer because she delayed treatment due to cost considerations makes me a bit sensitive on this issue.

Why is this germane? Because when we get into terms like "right" and "privilege" and "earned" we tend to lose track of terms like "empathy."

Sorry about the soap box stance. I'm missing her today.

[ygmir]

Nobody ever gave me shit. They are my rights and my privaledges and I'm taking them, Dammit!

....................