Rights

[Skip]

Monopoly has a very specific economic meaning that does not apply to such things as political rights or voting rights.

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

That is the strict economic definition.
In common parlance, the word also refers to exclusive possession or control of anything; e.g. - to monopolize a conversation; thinks he has a monopoly on business savvy; there's no monopoly on beauty.
When a class, such as the aristocracy, has exclusive rights to land ownership, they have a monopoly, even though they are not an incorporated entity.
When landowners have the only voting right, that class holds a monopoly on political power.
Technically, these are oligopolies, but that word is not generally used.

[Nick_A]

Is the only way for one group to gain rights is for other groups to give up on theirs?

PhilX

No, it isn't a matter of giving up rights but accepting obligations one way or another. In a free society the acceptance of voluntary obligations is the norm. It is the human thing to do. In a dictatorship or in forms of statist slavery, obligations are required.

"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”

[Skip]

Rights and obligations in a "free" society are a matter of contract. Both parties acknowledge the other's rights and their own obligations. Both parties' rights and obligations are spelled out in the contract and they promise to keep their end of the bargain by signing. Taking an oath of citizenship is the signing of such a contract.
The citizen undertakes to abide by the law and the state undertakes to safeguard the citizen's rights. When you break the law, you've reneged on your contract and forfeit some specified rights, depending on what law you break. For armed robbery, for example, you still the right to a trial, but no longer the right to liberty. For drunk driving, you still have the right to liberty, but not to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.
Pretty straightforward, really.
The best part is: both rights and obligations are infinitely elastic. Any number can sign on without infringing on any other member's rights or taking over any other member's obligations. The state and its organs can grow to whatever size is required to accommodate contributing members.

[Nick_A]

Rights and obligations in a "free" society are a matter of contract. Both parties acknowledge the other's rights and their own obligations. Both parties' rights and obligations are spelled out in the contract and they promise to keep their end of the bargain by signing. Taking an oath of citizenship is the signing of such a contract.
The citizen undertakes to abide by the law and the state undertakes to safeguard the citizen's rights. When you break the law, you've reneged on your contract and forfeit some specified rights, depending on what law you break. For armed robbery, for example, you still the right to a trial, but no longer the right to liberty. For drunk driving, you still have the right to liberty, but not to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.
Pretty straightforward, really.
The best part is: both rights and obligations are infinitely elastic. Any number can sign on without infringing on any other member's rights or taking over any other member's obligations. The state and its organs can grow to whatever size is required to accommodate contributing members.

When voluntary obligations are the result of contract rather than conscience a dictator will be necessary to enforce the contract. When that happens the free society has devolved into a slave state sure to define who has rights and who has obligtions.

[-1-]

When voluntary obligations are the result of contract rather than conscience a dictator will be necessary to enforce the contract. When that happens the free society has devolved into a slave state sure to define who has rights and who has obligtions.

You mean the entire USA society, along with the rest of the free western world is a slave state? Because many, many, many contracts exist that are fulfilled by parties due to contractual obligations, rather than via forces of conscience.

I think law and order can be established without the overpowering oppression by a dictator. The two can be established by democratic rule as well.

[-1-]

PE is right --- it actually is a zero-sum game. When men had the right to vote and women didn't, then that meant male politicians did not have to worry about competing against female politicians. It also meant men did not have to worry about legislation that may have favored fair treatment of women. While men still had the right to vote, they could no longer treat women with impunity and get away with it. A similar event occurred when colored people could vote, and poor white men could vote, those who previously had a monopoly on voting saw a decline in their political power, that they now had to share with the Other.

You are committing the same fallacy as PE. You beautifully and eloquently describe how POWER is diminished. But the original claim was not that power was diminished, but that rights were diminished by giving the same rights to other people. I am not wrong, in saying that nobody has come up with an actual, historical example of how someone's, ANYONE's rights were reduced by giving the same rights to others.

You, SF, are committing the same Strawman fallacy. You are equating power to rights. They are not the same and I WONT DISCUSS WHY THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. But you make the same bloody unnecessary point as PE, by stating an argument I am not concerned with, and the OP's question is not concerned with.

Why do people on this board have so much difficulty with 1. reading the propositions and focussing on their meanings and 2. differentiating between nuanced concepts? You are philosophers. Man up, and act like them.

I am not disagreeing with your point, SF, and with PE's point. I am only saying that you two are talking about things that are not germane to the topic.

If you got lost again, I repeat:

THE TOPIC IS HOW RIGHTS ARE LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO OTHERS. THE TOPIC IS NOT HOW POWER IS LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHTS TO OTHERS.

Geesh.

[Skip]

A constitution is a document stating the principles and terms of an agreement whereby humans sign on to a mutual enterprise (nation, club, business venture, committee, sports team, charitable organization or whatever.)

The rights granted to the membership are such activities as they are able to exercise, within the law, that other members are forbidden to stop or restrain them from exercising. Thus, each member agrees to relinquish his own right to interfere with those of other members. Rights can be expanded or reduced, added or subtracted, re-defined and re-allocated through amendments to the constitution.

A privilege is the permission of the society for some members to exercise rights or reap rewards beyond those accorded to all. A privilege is granted by virtue of merit or social position. If a privilege is attached to a specific public function or office, it comes with special obligations, beyond those of the common membership. A prerogative is an optional privilege that a member may exercise in particular situations.
Both privileges and prerogatives may be cancelled due to the breaking of a law or contract, failure to fulfill the concomitant obligation, cessation of service in an office, or of the office itself, change of the law or statute, change of circumstances.

A power is the ability to exert uncommon force or suasion on other members. Power can be earned through exceptional duties and obligations, or vested by the membership in return for a specified service, or assumed through some supernatural agency which is held in reverence by the membership at large, or wrested by force of arms or purloined by wile and deceit. Powers can be rescinded for abuse, relinquished at will, laid down at retirement from office or stripped away by force through reform or revolution.

[henry quirk]

C'mon, folks, let's be honest here.

These 'rights' you're talkin' about are really 'privileges' (given by gov, potentally taken by gov).

The only real 'rights' are those an individual asserts and defends for himself (by hook, by crook, by fist, bomb, knife, and gun).

So: yeah, 'power' or 'might' does make 'right'.

[Philosophy Explorer]

C'mon, folks, let's be honest here.

These 'rights' you're talkin' about are really 'privileges' (given by gov, potentally taken by gov).

The only real 'rights' are those an individual asserts and defends for himself (by hook, by crook, by fist, bomb, knife, and gun).

So: yeah, 'power' or 'might' does make 'right'.

Who makes up government? Who votes them in? And we have the press to keep an eye on them. And district attorney to enforce the law. Etc. etc.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

The gov is nuthin' but folks who have 'privilege'.

Thing is: in the current scheme of things, gov 'privilege' trumps gov-extended 'privilege'.

'By the people, for the people' my saggy white ass.

#

Voting: as it stands this is just choosin' which dick you prefer in your bumhole...you'll note, you never get to vote 'no' to the dick (NOTA).

#

Press = propagandists (as it stands now)...don't trust any of these folks.

#

District Shysters: lawyers on steroids (uber-parasites).

#

Etcetera, etcetera...

[Skip]

A constitution, a book of laws, a bill of rights or a government are exactly as valid as the support of its signatories.
When any of the parties is allowed to break or bend or bruise or breach, besmirch or deface the principles in that contract with impunity, the contract ceases to be enforceable.

A government is either the institution of the governed, which operates for the benefit of all, by agreement,
or it is imposed upon the governed by an extraterrestrial agency, a conquering external enemy or an insurgent internal faction.
In any of those cases, a government may be effective or incompetent, corrupt or honest, inadequate or overweaning, frugal or profligate.

None of those variable conditions affect the definition of contracts, laws, rights, obligations, citizenship or constitution.

[jayjacobus]

A government is either the institution of the governed, which operates for the benefit of all, by agreement,
or it is imposed upon the governed by an extraterrestrial agency, a conquering external enemy or an insurgent internal faction.
In any of those cases, a government may be effective or incompetent, corrupt or honest, inadequate or overweaning, frugal or profligate.

None of those variable conditions affect the definition of contracts, laws, rights, obligations, citizenship or constitution.

By design the law in many cases is designed to protect a corporation. Is the law fair when it does? In a lot of cases it is fair but the court must determine when the corporation is using the law to defeat an individual and the individual should be granted an exception. Otherwise the corporporation can cheat the individual out of his rights.

[jayjacobus]

I've been to court 4 times (involuntary). Twice I agreed with the decision. Twice I didn't. Do the people of the US want a court that's wrong 50% of the time?

[Necromancer]

Crime is never entitled rights! Just saying!

[henry quirk]

"Do the people of the US want a court that's wrong 50% of the time?"

No, we just want a fair one.