as a noun:
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people
as a noun:
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way
What are some rights and privileges that the U.S. citizen enjoys that are not available or enjoyed elsewhere in the world?
Some argue that a right is a natural reality for the human being, regardless of the government that surrounds that human being in history's time, and regardless if that government acknowledges such rights or not.
This is where the idea of sovereignty comes into the conversation for some people.
Some people argue that their natural rights have been stripped by governments, rendering the 'people' as subjects (please read definition at link) and the state as the replacement of the sovereign (monarchy).
This has been the case in many jurisdictions the world over, mostly by force (look at the countless wars since written history began).
The conversation into legalese land can become quite confusing, for example the legal definition of person (read this person, this person, and this person) and the definition of people (or this people) can seemingly be worlds apart.
Some have also argued that the idea of rights is a direct result of God having sovereignty over all of creation, and that God's highest creation (people) is granted full freedom and also full responsibilities and obligations to properly manage creation.
As to how one free person deals with another free person, is what has been discussed for quite some time in the more civilized parts of the world.
Looking closely at the United States and how people move about within the United States, let's take a look at traveling.
There exists an issue among some people in the U.S. regarding the status and difference between a right and a privilege when it comes to traveling in one's own car.
The argument is; what used to be a right (or simply acceptable and never being questioned as either lawful or unlawful) was somehow and in some manner turned into a privilege...or a lesser degree of freedom that is now explained and written in law by government.
Sometimes the definitions of some words (as illustrated between the two words above) seem to be interchangeable or very similar, maybe very different.
How can you have a 'right to travel' when you need a 'license to drive'?
What is a driver?
When you travel to work in your own car, are you actually a 'driver' or participating in the legal definition of 'driving'?
Shouldn't there be a 'driver's license' for the conducting of business, and then nothing or a simple competence qualification to manage a car on the road?
This is the aim of the class 'C' driver's license, which also doubles as a qualifier to be an employed taxi cab driver (business activity on the road; driving).
But somehow the two activities (freely traveling vs driving for business) seem to have have been merged, and such a binding contract (please read) when you sign your name to that driver's license has entangled otherwise an otherwise free people who are going about their lives when not doing any sort of business on the road.
The argument is that 'driving' is a commercial activity, done for business, and thus this activity is not only subject to tax, it is subject to legal restrictions and sanctions...and why not?
The government is employed to protect the business activities of the people, and thus a tribute is justly derived for such protections...against theft, piracy, the breaking of contracts, etc..
Is this where the traveling is also subject to taxation through a license and also car registration?
The continued argument in favor of a right over the privilege, is that traveling shouldn't be restricted to walking or using public transportation (in the modern sense).
There was a time a private carriage (whether powered or pulled by a horse) had no lien (or tax, license, registration free, etc.) attached to it.
Somehow, these items previously seen as property of private peoples now is subject to government regulations.
If one of the people enjoy exclusive rights over their private property, how then can the state take possession of one's private property?
How can exclusive rights be revoked if they are exclusive?
Where did the consent to release the property (or one's exclusive rights over it) occur?
The pitfall being that when your car registration expires, you lose the privilege to travel in your private carriage on public roads.
The question then is: who has the highest position, or holds exclusive rights, the state or the people?
I think you know the answer.
For example, if your property (car) is impounded for whatever reason (tickets, expired registration, temporarily abandoned on the road due to accident, stolen, etc.), why and how, after 30 days, can your property be sold at auction?
Many people simply use their cars to get from home, to work, or one place to another, and not as a tool for business (if going to work is one's business, or that of the employer).
If the idea that the public is the government, and the public paid for the roads via taxation through the government, how can the public be restricted from traveling upon the public roads without first registering their private property?
How did the government get into a first-position lien holding exclusive rights over the people?
Looking closely at the term “registration”, the first five letters are “regis” (read that definition at the link).
Some have looked into words according to their compound nature, the etymology or development of such words as they pertain to the subject matter (in this case law and legalese), and what those words initially meant and how such meaning have or have not changed today, despite popular concepts of their meanings or opinion of their change.
A resource to read through regarding how legal systems developed.
One can see how easily the war of words, their definitions and their understanding, can become a mysterious web for some, even for those who claim to be barristers, esquires, judges and jurists.
When did the idea of registration or license come into existence...in the United States?
To gauge what the rationale was back then is difficult.
To know what the arguments for and against such legislation is also very difficult.
It's about asking: can we tell the good rules / laws / codes from the bad ones in the past or even Today?
If your car is ever towed away for whatever reason, how did the state engage that car owner to do business with a tow yard, now compelling (or perhaps coerce) the car owner to ransom their property from tow yard in order to satisfy the demands of the state?
The word collusion comes to mind.
Does the average person even know how to deal with what seems like an expiration of rights when dealing with persons working behind legal entities (the window clerk at the tow yard, or the window clerk at the department of motor vehicles, who are simply people occupying a rank and file position and are most likely ignorant of the points in this blog article)?
There are questions that are difficult to ask and answer in a court of law, let alone in the virtual forums of the internet.
It's a rabbit hole that can be confusing, contentious and conspiratorial, but by reason and logic it is clear to see why for some thinkers, they would like to first question rather than immediately submit to things which on their face seem wrong.
When these things are considered wrong despite the arguments for them being right, what is right when people don't understand (or have understanding about) the difference between a right and a privilege?
It seems the general public are at an intelligent disadvantage regarding the law-filled world they reside in.