[bryanrasmussen]

If I google privilege definition google tells me

'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group. "education is a right, not a privilege"'

Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege?

But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood as something you have been given. The American Constitution holds that rights are something that one possesses innately, although a cynic might wonder what the difference is I think a close reading leads to the understanding that when a right is taken away it is by nature wicked that such a thing should be done, whereas the removal of a privilege would not be automatically unjust.

Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.

on edit: sorry about the many typos, not going to fix though as I am dealing with pneumonia and near bed time.

[andrepd]

>Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.

A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with solid institutions which grant you this right. That's all there is to the initial comment, I don't see why such a fuss.

[bryanrasmussen]

Ok, well I put my kid to sleep and am still up so I guess I'll answer this.

I did not say that there was A priori, in a natural state, a right of free speech. I said what the American conception of rights is generally regarded as being - some support for my claims https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-ina... https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history - many other articles on same subject available and should be easy to find.

Aside from that one can easily determine that the authors of the bill of rights were quite clear in almost every instance not to "grant rights". For example in the first amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." most people say the First Amendment grants Freedom of Speech, but anyone with a decent grasp of the English language would have to say that it only makes it illegal to limit that freedom.

Now of course I am myself not quite happy with assuming inalienable rights to exist, it seems more reasonable in some ways to assume they were fought for or granted, that they came from somewhere and are not natural to humans. On the other hand I am at least as reluctant to assume a natural state and that I can know what rights, if any, might apply to that state.

So if you can expound on your knowledge of this natural state, please do so. I merely expounded on what the generally understood American conception of rights was, and did not presume to claim to know the truth of that conception.

[AcerbicZero]

Close, but not quite. In a state of nature (natural state) you absolutely have the right to free speech, among many other natural rights which are innate to you. You simply lack the guarantee of the ability to exercise that right when in a state of nature.

[bryanrasmussen]

In the absolute state of nature there is probably nothing to stop you exercising that right, unless you are eaten by a carnivore just as you open your mouth to declaim.

[lenkite]

The CCP is a very BIG carnivore.

[nx20592]

"rights" as defined by libertarians and anarchists who follow the non aggression principles, are assumed as axiomatic, or considered "self-evident" to them at least. It is a belief based on a form of trancendencent morality above the whims of flawed humans, but universally exist (somewhere) in the hearts of all humans. There is no proof of this of course, but many believe it.

[jessaustin]

Kindergarten and first grade might be rights, but if students don't graduate they learn that later levels are privileges?

[Volundr]

Education is a right to all, not a particular person or group, hence not a privilege.

[munk-a]

But specialized education and the extent of that education is a privilege. Not everyone has access to the same levels of education.

[dekhn]

Absolutely. For example, in the 4th grade, my group ("advanced" students) was allowed to test for a Gifted and Talented program (only the students in the "highest" level of classes could take the test).

The G&T program was basically training for grad school: indepdent study, project-based learning, access to computers and internet when they were rare, etc.

That training made a huge impact on my career (I am a post-scientist ML expert at a large internet company). I mentioned the program to some folks I went to school with and they pointed out this G&T program was not ever offered to them.

Interestingly, these kinds of systems end up being important for the long-term success of a country. but at the same time they tend to perpetuate privilege. Students who weren't in the highest level of classes weren't even given a chance to take the test