Rights and Privileges

Rights are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary: "...'something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle." So, a right is something you can do without asking for permission. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities inherent within them; for example, the right to bear arms does not abrogate one from the responsibility of allowing no harm to come to innocent people through indiscriminate use of those arms.

The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this question is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.

Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.

Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government own the property, proven thus by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.