What is the difference between a right and a privilege? Please elaborate.?
454103
Common misunderstanding, but laudable that you are asking, because it is theonly way we can become self-governed again. \n\nThe U.S. Constitution only grants one right. The fist 10 Amendments, added twelve years later, are called "The Bill of Rights," and are probably what you're thinking of.\n\nA "right" is something granted by law, something you can take to court and win. A privilege, can be taken away at any time at the whim of those few in power.\n\nLike someone in the military has almost no rights. But they have lots of privileges. An underage child has no rights, but has privileges. \n\nThe one test to find out if you have a right, e.g., the case of a child, is to find out if this person or entity can sue or be sued. If not, then there are no rights. \n\nRead the Constitution on my web site listed below, then read the explanation of the Amendments. You'll find that the one main reason for the Constitution was to set up a Federal Gov't, and at the same time, limit their power. Their greatest fear was that the Fed would become more powerful than a State, and rule the States from afar and dictate their laws, and invade our states at will. But of course, that has happened anyway hasn't it, because nobody is policing the police (the Fed) or enforcing the Constitution.\n\nThey tried to weaken the Fed by breaking them up into 3 branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. If those three ever came together, we would have a totalitarian dictatorship, similar to a King ruling us dictating our every move. For examply, only Congress can pass new law, which represents each State. But the President (Executive) decrees new laws every day by executive order. The courts (Judicial Branch) interpret and change laws every day. So the inevitible has happened; all three branches are acting as one, and nobody seems to care.
192106
Freedom of the press and speech is a given right of the constitution.  We run into trouble when bureaucrats interpret the Constitution and begin to malign it beyond recognition.  \n\nThere are inalian rights which should never be precluded by the courts.
873817
I would argue it is neither of the last two choices you gave. \n\nEqual rights... far from true. Sure better than a lot of countries but take equal rights for women as an example, the USA is ranked 23 in the world concerning that.\n\nFreedom of Expression... the Republican party has converted our country into a country that now punished you for having a political opinion. IE, the Dixie Chics\n\nFreedom to make money... only if you are born into money or if you get lucky enough to have buddies or family loan you large amounts of money then can you become a grand success. IE, Gates and Michael Dell were both backed by rich uncles. A person that starts with nothing very RARELY makes it out of poverty. At most, they might get lucky enough to be on the bottom spectrum of middle class.
635061
"Deference" is a visible show of respect for someone or something.  "Difference" is the quality of something being different from some other thing.  In a tyranny, someone, or small group of someones, make decisions for the whole.  In a monarchy, the royal person is the "owner" of the place and gets to make the decisions--unless it's a "Constitutional Monarchy", where the monarch is limited by law in certain areas.  In a democratic republic, like the U. S. A., the country belongs to the ordinary citizens.  The governing bodies are simply the "hired hands" of the owners--put in place to do necessary work while the owners go about their own lives.  Those governing bodies should make laws which protect the people they work for, as well as make honest business easy to conduct.  "Freedom" means a person has the capacity to choose how he/she wants to live, what work he/she wants to do, whose lead to follow in various facets of life, etc.  Democracy is a system which lets people choose--who should be in their governing bodies, what theory of government seems best--"democracy" (in the ideal) supports "freedom".
296438
Equal just means that we have equal rights it doesn't mean that everyone is equal in other ways, everyone is different. We all have different wants and needs.
1002689
advantage:  money, special privileges\ndisadvantage: no privacy
832390
Nothing.  It's a right, but it's not mandatory.\n\nBut you really should vote.
1173210
Rights must be defended -- but intelligently;  although in some situations it may be wise to voluntarily refrain from exercising some rights for a time...\nFirst step is to think.  What is freedom?  Is it the freedom to do what you want, or the freedom to do what is right?  Which freedom(s) have you been able to exercise previously that you cannot exercise now?  Does the exercise of this right infringe in any way on anyone else's right(s)?\nSecond step is to determine the appropriate approach.  Do you air the issue in the public forum and make people aware that way, and possibly make people think you're a bit of a lunatic?  Or do you take the approach championed by Gandhi, M.L.King, Thorough, and others, which is to protest an unjust law by breaking it and accepting the consequences, thus demonstrating a mature respect for the rule of law.\nAgain, defend our rights, but do it wisely.
629611
According to the law, driving is a privilege, not a right.  They can basically put whatever restrictions they see fit.
876664
Ownership is a term that most of us take for granted in that if we buy, are given or inherit items, ownership generally follows. However, that the right of ownership is seldom an absolute right.\nIn general, it can be said that an owner's rights are often limited under both common law and statute to take account of the rights of others.\nCommon law remedies to questions of ownership are usually based upon possession and rights to possession. It is generally sufficient simply to prove a better right than the other party and not necessarily to prove absolute ownership. This has the consequence that issues relating to ownership are less likely to come before the courts.
1067949
EMPHATICALLY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Type lawyerdude into your search engine, he has numerous pages on exactly this type of question ,especially YOUR RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE ,TO DRIVE. The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot convert a right into a privilege.
1158579
You have just as much right to anything, you can even have your own club, news letter, if they can proclaim it you can, you have just as much right. check out this website, and there are some books on the rights of the student in school. You can do a whole lot more than you thought. I had my own newsletter and held meetings every morning, a prayer and bible reading meeting. In the open. This website also has books on the rights of teachers in the public schools, ... you'd be surprised.
1119747
rights are a benefit, duties are a burden.
1020627
Freedom is neither a right nor a privalege.  Freedom is an absolute.\n\nEvery living being has the freedom to do whatever it desires within the limits of its physical being.  One can do whatever they want,  The question is what are the consequences of acting freely?\n\nAs an extreme example one is free to murder if they choose to do so, however there are consequences of acting freely in this way.  There is no such thing as a restraint on our ability to think are act.  There are only consequences once those thoughts or action have occured.
163124
I suspect your question is rhetorical, and you know the answer is no.  Natural rights are what we have just for being human beings, such as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, AMONG THESE (not all of them) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\n\nPrivileges are just that; something which is granted by an authority and can be taken away by that authority.  Name one privilege the U.S. government has granted to all citizens?  The "right" to vote is actually a privilege, since it can be taken away by the government, and is if you are convicted of a felony, if you swear allegiance to another country, probably other reasons.
1115591
Nobody can have absolute rights and freedoms even in the most democratic society.  That's because people's rights and freedoms often conflict with each other, and you need to have respect for everyone's rights and freedoms equally.\n\nIf you are hungry and you have a right to eat, this doesn't mean that you can rob a food store and eat all you want because such action would violate another person's right to have private property.  And it's like that with all rights and freedoms.  \n\nYour rights and freedoms are not restricted as long as you don't interfere with other people's rights and freedoms.  But when there is a conflict between rights and freedoms of two or more individuals, then you need laws which specify what you can and cannot do.
407622
Wow! Are you American? That kind of thinking isn't allowed here. What do you think this is a free country? Seriously  states do make these decisions didn't you know prostitution is legal in Nevada? But i do agree the government takes too much control of peoples rights you would think what goes on between two consenting adults is there decision...but there are allot of issue more pressing where the government takes control of peoples rights. How about imminent domain?