The Difference(s) Between Freedom, Rights, and Entitlement

kennyskitchen (72) in palnet • 5 years ago (edited)

View this post on Hive: The Difference(s) Between Freedom, Rights, and Entitlement

5 years ago by kennyskitchen (72)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

vieira (63) · 5 years ago

Inner freedom is what we call "liberty" and is a virtue, therefore, not everyone has it. Rights are really licenses, they are permits that the State gives you to do something. And the last definition you give under the name of "Entitlement" is just one way in which the State redistributes wealth by taking away some to license others.

However, without freedom and liberty, no society can stand by itself. Even in socialism the main members of the government fully enjoy their freedom, but not their liberty.

Excellent post. Greetings!

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

Inner freedom is what we call "liberty" and is a virtue, therefore, not everyone has it.

Hmm, that's a very interesting point, not something I've heard before, but I like it. It fits perfectly with what the observed phenomenon of people actively pushing for more government over themselves, thus less freedom.

It seems like Liberty then, like any other virtue is something that can be practiced and built up, and for which someone's childhood will be a big decider in the level to which they have it.

And the last definition you give under the name of "Entitlement" is just one way in which the State redistributes wealth by taking away some to license others.

Ya, I don't really see any use/positive meaning for "entitlement," unless we're specifically talking about contract, and what two parties have agreed that each is "entitled" to. Other than that, it's either a state euphemism, or simply a negative character trait.

However, without freedom and liberty, no society can stand by itself. Even in socialism the main members of the government fully enjoy their freedom, but not their liberty.

So very true! Certainly, in places where the people have seemed to give up their struggle against the state, the whole thing seems to suffer, including the state. This reminds me of a video from James Corbett that I watched recently.

Thanks for dropping in, looking forward to future conversations!

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

truthabides (57) · 5 years ago

The founding fathers recognized the relationship between any government and its citizens is at best ADVERSARIAL: individual Rights (freedoms) are inversely proportional to government power. The more power the government has, the less Rights you have. Government can't grow in size or power except at the cost of our individual Rights and freedom. The founding fathers also realized that all governments seek to expand their powers and are therefore driven to diminish their citizen's Rights. Hence, the Constitution was written to both limit government and maximize our individual Rights.
https://www.truthabides.com/adversarial/

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

Yep, absolutely! One of the questions I've started asking folks who fall in the "constitutionalist" range of things (and sometimes just folks in general) is about where rights come from (according to the Declaration), and who they must be protected from (according to the amendments).

Most don't realize that the wording is quite explicitly that we have the rights, and they must be protected from government, which will attempt to violate those rights.

Have you dug into the shady nature of the constitution itself, its replacing the Articles of Confederation, and all the screwiness that went along with it?

$0.00

[-]

truthabides (57) · 5 years ago

Have you dug into the shady nature of the constitution itself, its replacing the Articles of Confederation, and all the screwiness that went along with it?

If I have, I no longer can pull the file. I was a constitutionalist on my way to becoming an anarchist. If we could just get gov to follow the constitution, everything will work out.

Rights don't actually exist. What we call rights are simply moral concepts based on the prevailing views of the day.

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."
~ Ayn Rand

The Constitution, the supreme law of the land.. When Iraq was putting together a new Constitution, Jay Leno said, "Why don't we give them ours, it's served us well for over 200 years and we don't appear to be using it anymore."

"Government does not operate under the rule of law, it operates under the rule of force." ~ Schaeffer Cox, political prisoner

$0.00

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

Here's a real quick breakdown my friend Etienne did: https://www.scribd.com/document/385774868/Understanding-Our-Slavery-The-Shady-History-of-the-Constitution

There's a guy we met at Libertopia a year or two ago who wrote an entire, fat book just on how the constitution itself was a scam pulled over on the people, and how most of the folks who wrote the declaration were against it or left out of the conversation completely.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

truthabides (57) · 5 years ago

Thank you for that. It was a good read, liked his sarcasm too. In this day and age, a parent's responsibility must include correcting public school indoctrination.
The school doesn't care, the teachers don't care. They get a paycheck and when money and morals collide, too often it's the morals that take the hit.

$0.00

[-]

bubke (60) · 5 years ago

i missed that resteem for which i am happy. It is always painful to loose something you took for granted because of frequency and duration but it is extremely sad to not look thankfully back to it and go into the dramatic entitlement role. Thumbs up for how you handled this!

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

Ya, I wish I had missed it honestly. It was literally the first thing I saw when I turned on my phone that day, and I spent a huge portion of my day responding to the allegations & claims being made.

What's the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished"? I obviously don't actually feel like that, and even this situation has actually brought more support & empathy from folks, by I'd be lying if I said there wasn't part of me that gets the urge to just shut the whole thing down when this sort of thing happens.

Having been on steem for almost 4 years now and riding the waves from my posts making $200+ each to making no more than $3 each for months on end, and lots of places in between, I have always (ok, not always, but for the most part) found it easy to just keep plugging along, knowing that the reason I'm doing this is because I like researching, sharing my thoughts & experiences, having a creative outlet, the money is just a bonus. Really, the best part of the money is the fact that I've been able to give SO much away to so many people through this project.

Thanks for your comment and support!

$0.00

[-]

bubke (60) · 5 years ago

Ha, "no good deed goes unpunished", seriously never heard that one :-)

I remember a saying of Osho "Don't be a good doer" which took me a long time to understand.

Anyway, much love brother,we all know better. Keep shining, keep giving, Steem is rainbow, "the more that i give, the more i got to give" :-)

$0.00

[-]

mondoshawan (62) · 5 years ago (edited)

To me it looks like someone swallowed to many red pills...

$0.00

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

Haha! That is an interesting thing to have as your blog's subtitle isn't it?

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

mondoshawan (62) · 5 years ago

Yeah, for sure it is... The dose makes the poison (Paracelsus) :smirk:

$0.00

[-]

mondoshawan (62) · 5 years ago

Thanks to have followed for a brief moment, sad to see you leave so soon.

$0.00

[-]

haikubot (54) · 5 years ago

Thanks to have followed
For a brief moment, sad to
See you leave so soon.

^{- mondoshawan}

^{^{I'm a bot. I detect haiku.}}

$0.00

[-]

kennyskitchen (72) · 5 years ago

I'm back :-) Been doing a lot of movement on 3 accounts at a time all weekend, and got my wires crossed a couple times.

$0.00

[-]

krishool (66) · 5 years ago

This comes down to definitions. Originally rights (known as liberties) are defined in the negative, meaning they are to defend you from what others may do to your liberty, person and your property. They are not a claim to be made on other people’s freedoms, labor, or property (positive rights).
The founders of the United States of America created a radical idea called Liberty. It dictates that every individual has innate inalienable rights and this was embedded within the U.S constitution. These rights were proclaimed to be self-evident, in other words, they were clearly obvious to the people at the time but seem to have been lost by the masses in the quagmire of present-day identity politics. These rights are not determined by the people but endowed to them by their creator. Governments are instituted among men for one purpose according to the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT to protect people, however, to protect their individual human rights. If the government abuses it’s powers and becomes tyrannical, it is the duty of the people to overthrow the government.
Human rights have recently become an arbitrary list of demands you can keep adding to in order to get what you want from society. It would be great if we all had these things and treated each other with politeness and mutual respect, however, liberty is objective and does not work within the confines of our imagination, nor does it include positive rights unless you change its definition.
Liberty is aptly defined by Thomas Jefferson as "Unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson.
You are not entitled to the product of someone’s labor (i.e education or healthcare) nor can you violate someone’s freedom in order to ensure a level of safety that you deem to be appropriate.

$0.00

[-]

tonysayers33 (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

Reveal Comment