This conversation is closed.

What is the definition of having a "Right to drive" or other "Rights" as to opposed to having a "Privilege to drive" or other "Privileges"

This question came to me from a comment I made on the TED Talk "Google's Driverless Car". I argued that driving was not a right but a pivilege, but I noticed there were a few arguments against that thought. So it caused me to think a bit deeper on the differences between having a Right or having a Privilege. I found it impossible to truly define it in my mind. As the more I thought about it, I soon discovered my problem was, are there different definitions to this question depending what part of the world you come from or live in? As I have seen TED has an international base of people that enjoy these "Talks" and I thought I would pose this question to you all. So let the debate begin!! I look forward to your thoughts and comments on this. Thank You...

Closing Statement from Robert Sherry

First, Thank You all for your replies, you have all given some Great input!!

As for "Rights" I think John Frum gave the best reply (in my opinion) concerning rights. He seemed to understand the Spirit of my question, which wasn't just about "U.S. Driving Rights", but "Rights" in general and he also included the whole world. His answer is as follows.See Below

"Legal rights are one aspect of rights, but not the only one. Legal rights depend on which country one is a citizen of."

"Legality is based on morality.. in every country. What are moral rights based on? That's very debatable. I have my own ideas on what's moral, but I do not assume that everyone would share my views on that."

"If I were in Malaysia, Indonesia or some Arab country, I'd have no "right" to insult Allah or Mohammed. Left libertarians do not subscribe to the concept of property rights. Some countries, and the UN seem to believe in the "right" to water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water"

"The statement "this isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact" is empty without the context of time and place. For most of their history, blacks and women in the US did not have a "right" to vote. For quite a while, only landowners had that right."
"Legal rights are fickle. Moral rights are subjective"

Thank You to Pat Gilbert,This is his reply concernig "Privaliges" Below you will find exerpts from his various replies..

"Rights are generally intangible, privileges are tangible

"Rights are generally seen as natural law or providence. Of the two they are infinitely more important."

"A privilege would be as you state the privilege of driving, the privilege of unemployment benefits, the privilege of healthcare."

"At the end of the day privileges are what get abused by individuals, rights are what get abused by government."

Once again, I would like to Thank You all for some very enlightening responses!!
I have learned much from you all, and you have also given me much to consider!!! R.S.... ((:^)<(

  • thumb
    Jan 23 2013: Our rights are what we claim and can defend.

    As simple as that. We do not have ANY rights unless a) we claim them and b) we can defend them - in court, with arms, through democratic process or otherwise.

    If life is a basic "God-given" right, why do we have capital punishment?
    If voting were a basic "God-given" right, why children, inmates, and insane should not vote?
    If driving is a basic "God-given" right, claim it and defend it.

    No reasoning or physical evidence can prove that we have rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." - that's it. It's a matter of declaration and the ability to defend the rights.
    • Jan 24 2013: Arkady, Thank you for your insight. I will ask you to consider the following quotes in an earlier reply from John Frum which reads as follows--"Legal rights are one aspect of rights, but not the only one. Legal rights depend on which country one is a citizen of."

      Legality is based on morality... in every country. What are moral rights based on? That's very debatable. I have my own ideas on what's moral, but I do not assume that everyone would share my views on that."

      "If I were in Malaysia, Indonesia or some Arab country, I'd have no "right" to insult Allah or Mohammed. Left libertarians do not subscribe to the concept of property rights. Some countries, and the UN seem to believe in the "right" to water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water"

      "The statement "this isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact" is empty without the context of time and place. For most of their history, blacks and women in the US did not have a "right" to vote. For quite a while, only landowners had that right."

      "Legal rights are fickle. Moral rights are subjective."
      Arkady, Let me know what you think of John thoughts as any input is appreciated!!
      Thanks Again. R.S......
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2013: My definition of a right hinges on our will and ability to declare and defend a need or a wish. What rights we actually have depends on multitude of factors: Do we want it? If not, the right has no meaning. Now, what and why people want is a whole separate discussion.
        Can we get it? It is useless to claim a right to water in the middle of the Sahara desert. A right to drive had no meaning before automobiles and roads became common. So, physical, economical, and technological possibilities play a role in what we have the right to.
        Are we willing to go through the trouble of getting it and defending it from challenges and competing claims? We may think that we have a right to an 8-hour work day, but if we choose to work 10 hours, we waive it. Or, if we choose not to defend it risking our job, we also waive it.

        Re: "Legality is based on morality..." I'd say that laws are also based on economic and political interests, safety and security requirements, and many other factors.

        What morality is based on is, again, a whole separate discussion. I do not have a clear answer to this question. Some say, "God", some say "evolution" - whatever meaning people give to these things. I personally like Hume's empiricism as illustrated by Lincoln's quote "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion." I believe, morality is based on our feelings coming from experience. We feel pain from certain things, pleasure from others. Our feelings also can be caused by social experience. E.g. feeling of shame from being naked is a feeling we get from social reactions of others. Disgust with homosexuality is also a socially taught feeling. Homosexual intercourse is no more disgusting than heterosexual one. The reason every person and every society has a different idea of morality is because people and societies have different physical and social experiences.
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2013: I am not a moral relativist - I do not believe that we have to conform to the rules of society. Neither do I believe that there are any absolute or universal moral laws. I believe, we have to make and do make our own subjective moral rules based on our own physical, emotional, and social experience. It's great that everyone has their own understanding of morality. Everyone should. This is how morality evolves.

        As for your opening question regarding the difference between rights and privileges I believe it's a word play. Same thing can be called a right or a privilege, depending on the circumstances. My criterion is as I said: a right is what we are willing and able to claim and defend - for ourselves or for others. "Others" may include animals, fetuses, disabled people, or anything else we may wish.
    • Jan 25 2013: you explained it Perfectly . The right to do anything doesn't exist unless you or others like you are willing to defend them.
    • thumb
      Jan 25 2013: If life is a basic "God-given" right, why do we have capital punishment?
      (The argument for Capital punishment is that is only for those who deny other the right to life; others argue that society does not have the right to do so)rather or not society has the right to take away a God given right can be argued, but it is society and not God that is making the judgment.
      If voting were a basic "God-given" right, why children, inmates, and insane should not vote?
      (Voting is a society given right and not a god given right, and thus it is society that sets the limitations, not god)

      If driving is a basic "God-given" right, claim it and defend it.
      (Freedom is a God given right, and everyone does and the freedom to drive, BUT society says the right to drive on "public" roads is a right that must be earned.) What some call “privilege” I call a “earned society-right”

      So like any car driver "Google's Driverless Car" will also be required to earn the right to drive on public roads.
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2013: My point is that if "society", government, or a king (which simply means "people") can grant rights or take them away - including life, freedom, driving, or whatever else, there is no difference between rights and privileges. This is a word play that people use to justify their actions towards other people (e.g. government restricting our freedom to move around).

        Taxes, for example, is forceful taking of property from the owners. If we look at what taxes are, they are not different from armed robbery or racket. This is not, however, how most people look at taxes. There is all kinds of reasoning presenting paying taxes as "patriotic duty". American tax system is based on "voluntary compliance" - can you believe that? That's what IRS says, anyway. At the end of the day, it does not matter who says what about rights. What matters is what we can defend in court, with arms, through democracy or otherwise.

        Someone may claim that I do not have the right to live, but if I am willing and able to defend my life, it does not matter what other people say. On the other hand, if other people decide that I do not have the right to live and I cannot defend my life, it does not matter what rights I may claim - I will be dead.

        It's brutal, but seems to be true whether we like it or not. It's always easier to see things as they are, regardless of what we think they "should be" or what we may call them.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Rights are generally intangible, privileges are tangible

    Rights are generally seen as natural law or providence. Of the two they are infinitely more important
    • Jan 17 2013: Pat, Thank You for the reply.Could you please give some examples? Also you may want to take a look at my reply to Edward Long as I have expanded this question to be more inclusive of different populations. I look forward to any examples you can provide. Thanks for your time...
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: A human rights are things like the right to defend yourself, who but a cockamamie politician would think otherwise or the right to economic or other types of freedom, or the right to pursue your purpose and goals, or the right to free speech, and of course the the 10 in the bill of rights.

        A privilege would be as you state the privilege of driving, the privilege of unemployment benefits, the privilege of healthcare.

        At the end of the day privileges are what get abused by individuals rights are what get abused by government.
        • Jan 17 2013: Hi Pat, Thanks for the follow-up. I think where you say "At the end of the day privileges are what get abused by individuals rights are what get abused by government" also fits in well with Edwards follow-up to my reply to him (in my opinion) see above reply. I also posed this question to him. . (Getting a bit off topic (though I think it's related ) I recently read (Though not sure of the exact number), that the US was in 10th place concerning freedoms. I thought we were number one, which now makes me feel a bit ignorant. Do you know anyother places that rate higher on this "list"?) Pat, any input from you would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks. R.S....
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: The thing about freedom is you have to have a purpose, freedom to do what? You can't say ok you are now free. There also has to be a purpose. Look at Castro he freed the Cubans to do what? I guess to be taken care of.

        Everyone has a purpose in them the freedom is to pursue that purpose. So the main freedom is measured by economics. It is not readily apparent when taxes and inflation fetter away the freedom but when you get older (which is why Edward is so wise (8^(l) ) you see how much your standard of living has dropped.

        This index that I value shows the U.S. is #10 in freedom and dropping:

        http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates
        • Jan 19 2013: Thank You Pat, I found the site that the link you provided very helpfull. It was easy easy to understand and had alot of info. Thanks Again!! R.S...
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2013: You are welcome.
  • Jan 28 2013: As "up" and "down" only make sense in the context of a place with gravity, "rights" and "privileges" only seem to me to make sense in the context of a society.

    I think of a "right" as a societal benefit that one has by default.
    A "privilege" is a benefit that one does not have by default.

    But then there's often disagreement about what benefits we have by default.
    • Jan 28 2013: Thanks John, You have given one of the most concise respones so far. Clear, to the point and includes all populations, not just the US.There were of course others that gave great replies, but yours was (as I said) the most concise. Thank You for your input!! R.S...
  • Jan 29 2013: who creates privileges or rights? in regards to the driving license everyone has the right to travel, you dont need to be bestowed with that right but in this deceptive legal system you have to claim your rights because ignorance of your rights means you cant claim them which kind of makes them privileges. this why you will find all driving related offences like driving without insurance, speeding, or parking all basically victim less crimes come under statutes which are completely different from common law which is not to cause, harm loss or injury. if you look on your driving laws which will be acts you will see the definition of a driver is actually a person who is operating commercially on the roads, where as if you are traveling in your conveyance then these acts dont apply to you.
  • Jan 29 2013: If something is a right then it cannot place any obligation on anyone else other than noninterference with that right. For example, you have the right to life. The only obligation that places on others is not to kill or enslave you. It doesn't require that they feed you. Also, you don't have a right to a free education. Though the education may be free to you it would impose the requirement on someone else to provide the resources necessary. That doesn't mean that someone can't freely choose to provide your education. It only means that they do not have the responsibility to do so. If it were any other way then you would be interfering with that other person's right to life by forcefully appropriating at least part of it for your own uses. That is slavery.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2013: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.

    A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

    I don't know if this makes it clear.

    I wish you well. Bob.
    • Jan 23 2013: Robert, Thanks for the reply, I think there are some that have responed to this post that would argue with your statement " a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth" Can you give some examples of this? Also try to think of not only in the U.S. but in other nations as well.I think this should bring some interesting responses from the other TEDsters that are following this "Question"! It will also giving me a better understanding of your reply. Any and all input is appreciated!! Thanks Again. R.S...
  • Jan 22 2013: Hi Robert,
    What an excellent topic for thought. I think pretty much everything is a privilege, including being alive. In law, you may talk of rights to this or that, but for me, only in the context of a contract, which is constructed.
    Take the example of a well-known organisation that bangs on about 'rights' to own personal weapons of mass destruction, like automatic firearms. Surely this is only a 'privilege' and construct, and one that should be easily removed in a sensible society, as others' privilege to life would take a precedent. Well, i think that makes sense anyway.
  • Jan 22 2013: it's a very good question. i think a right is something that cannot be taken away by another (however we can invalidate our right by our own actions, eg if we commit a crime we no longer have the right to freedom), whereas a privilege is something that must be granted - a right is a baseline from where we can descend, and a privilege is being allowed to rise above a baseline.

    as for driving, we don't have the right to drive, but we do have the right to drive under certain conditions, ie that we are not underaged, not impaired (eg by alcohol), have undertaken sufficient training (ie hold a driver's license), are able to drive competently (ie that license has not been revoked due to incident), and abide by the previously decided rules of the road. once we meet those criteria nobody can prevent us from driving, therefore it is a right. a privilege to drive would be something like a friend allowing you to take their new car for a spin, or police officers being allowed to exceed the speed limit in pursuit of a criminal.
  • Jan 22 2013: Mr. Sherry,
    Would you consider rights as privileges granted by higher authority? As Edward Long says, rights can be taken away! By higher authority. A difficult reality to escape is the fact someone, some entity, or authority grants a provision for someone to proceed or to hold something, i.e. office, material goods, authority, et al. Parents are the first authority a child recognizes. Would a parent allow a child to demand without approval? Maybe some would; it seems wise ones would not, but authority is a reality regardless.

    The effects of rights may depend on the quality of authority. Is the US Constitution a better authority than a brutal dictatorship? Judgement is a reality here too.

    When considering rights a person may wish to look "upward" and discern who or what is there. With this in mind, how would your question change, if at all? Does one's definition of rights change upon realizing one cannot change a situation?

    Offered, as if at a friendly coffee shop chat session!
    • Jan 23 2013: Thank You Mark, You have certainly given me something additional to consider. The short answer to would I change the title would be, yes! I would change my question to give a better and deeper understanding on what the question was trying to convey. Next time I post a question, I will take into consideration what is the deeper meaning to my question that I am looking for an answer to. I did try (to a certain extent) to convey this in my "Question" but found that you can only use so many charecters when assigning a title to a "Question". One question I have for you is, What do you mean by the term "Look Upward"? I can make an assumption, but I try to never do that. I look forward to your reply. Thanks for your input as I always look forward to anyone that can encourage me to see "The Whole Picture" .
      Thanks for the Coffee Chat, :) R.S...
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: I see a lot of personal opinions expressed in the comments, while your question is very easily answered with legal fact. Rights are strictly delineated by law, everything else is a privilege. In the United States, the law recognizes the rights set out in the Constitution, and six others. Those are contraception, abortion, marriage, procreation, private education, and family relations, remembered by the mnemonic CAMPER. Everything else is a privilege. This isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact.
    • Jan 22 2013: Legal rights are one aspect of rights, but not the only one. Legal rights depend on which country one is a citizen of.

      Legality is based on morality... in every country. What are moral rights based on? That's very debatable. I have my own ideas on what's moral, but I do not assume that everyone would share my views on that.

      If I were in Malaysia, Indonesia or some Arab country, I'd have no "right" to insult Allah or Mohammed. Left libertarians do not subscribe to the concept of property rights. Some countries, and the UN seem to believe in the "right" to water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water

      The statement "this isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact" is empty without the context of time and place. For most of their history, blacks and women in the US did not have a "right" to vote. For quite a while, only landowners had that right.

      Legal rights are fickle. Moral rights are subjective.
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2013: I believe the original post, both in text and in spirit, was in regards to legal rights. Rights are strictly defined by law, and only change when the law changes.
      • Jan 23 2013: Thank You John, You are one of the few that seem to understand what the "Text and Spirit" (per Lawren) of my post was meant to convey. Of course there are others,and as this post continues to receive more replies the "Spirit" of my post seems to be becoming more understood. I really enjoyed that you included other nations and their ideas of Rights and Privileges. Your statement "Legal rights are fickle. Moral rights are subjective" seems (to me) to cut right to the heart of the question.. Thanks again for your post. R.S...
  • Jan 19 2013: Liberty, is the compromise on total freedom. Which is your right only go as far as interfering in my rights. So with liberty comes responsibility, you have to be responsible with your actions and to know if your effecting someone else. A 7 year old does not have that sense of reponsiblity.

    By the way, you can say that your going to kill someone. I hear it all the time, but if there is some action behind it, then you are interfering with someone else's rights.
    You are also not forbidden to yell fire in a crowded theater, if no one gets hurt and no one panics, your fine. But even if someone gets hurt and everyone panics, but there really was a fire, I'm sure your fine as well.
    • Jan 19 2013: Thank You Michael, The term Liberty didn't even cross my mind during this conversation. This may be due to that in my mind "Liberty" is an encompassing word that includes Rights, Privileges and Freedom. Feel free to correct me if you feel i'm wrong, and please feel free to explain why. Thanks for your input!! R.S..
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Jan 18 2013: If I have a "right" to drive a car even though I am blind, I put the lives of others in extreme danger. If I drive-while-drunk, I put the lives of others in extreme danger. If I drive without first learning how to drive (in a safe way), I am puttiing the lives of others in extreme danger. that isn't fair.

    If driving is a privilege reserved for the qualified, then our worlds are much safer.
    • Jan 19 2013: Thank You for the reply, Please take a look at the other parts of this converstion, as it becomes much more in-depth then just the "Right to Drive" issue. Which my original question was trying to pose to the TED community,but I couldn't put all those aspects in the title,as there was not enough room for me to do so. Appreciate any input. Thanks Again!! R.S...
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Jan 20 2013: Perhaps I would then say that YOUR rights end where MY rights begin.

        You also have a right to pollute the air so long as you do not pollute the air "I" breathe. You have a right to be willfully ignorant as long as you do not use the law to impose your ignorant views on others. (This is presently legal but I consider it unethical).

        It all boils down to our ability to live together as a civilized society and know the difference between a "want" and a "need".

        There are some who think that armies are a need. I believe that they are want and that they are a threat to my existence. Because of my belief, armies are a violation against me. You might disagree, or you might use the force of law to require me to violate my religious principles in order to pay tax dollars to support your religious (ethical) beliefs. That's a violation against me.

        Your rights end where mine begin - in an ideal world. In the world that we now live in, there are no rules that cannot be bought.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Most rights still have an aspect of privilege. For instance I have the right to freedom, but there's an unspoken caveat that I must conduct myself well with my fellow man. I have the right to drive a car, but there's an unspoken caveat that I must not drive recklessly.
    • Jan 17 2013: Greg, Thanks for the reply, I see you did take my question a bit further to include the Social aspect (which I was hoping this would leed to) But I think most of the replies so far seem to be concentrating on a small population of the US. Here is my reply to Edward Long in his response to my question. (Thank You Edward for the reply, Lets take this a step further. ( I just used diving in the US since thats what started this). How about other Rights of other people living in the U.S or those living outside the U.S, and lets add a few more ingredeints to the mixture,Male vs Female, Gay vs Straight, Elderly vs Young . Do you think that all rights can be taken away, that none are permanent? In other words, do you feel that there any "Rights" that we are all born with that cannot be taken away?) Thanks Greg, and I look forward to your further thoughts on this...
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: No, I probably don't think there are any rights that can't be taken away. Every right comes with the condition, either spoken or unspoken, that you use it fairly and properly. You have a right to life, but if you kill someone, then you lose your right to life. (This doesn't mean I believe in the death penalty, as it seems that occasionally innocent people are executed.)
    • Jan 17 2013: Greg, you don't need permission to use a right. Do you need permission to speak or write, to practice your religion, etc...
      Since we don't have total freedom, we are suppose to haveLiberty. Liberty is that you can do whatever, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. Other words, your rights can't stop someone else from using their rights and vise versa.
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: Well, using some of your rights could be extremely dangerous. Yes, you have a right to drive, but if you let a seven-year-old kid drive it could be extremely dangerous. Thus you have a right to drive but you have to get the proper training first.

        Even with speaking or writing, you have the right as long as you don't say something too out of line. You can't say you're going to kill someone or you will get in trouble. So you don't have a perfect right.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2013: Every able-bodied, legally qualified citizen of the US has the right to take all required driver's qualification tests. Upon passing those tests they have a right to pay the necessary fees to be issued a driver's license. That license can be suspended, or revoked for various illegal actions. You may be thinking a right is not subject to testing and qualification. That is not so. Driving is a right, but it is not a permanent right. It can be lost.
    • Jan 17 2013: Thank You Edward for the reply, Lets take this a step further. ( I just used diving in the US since thats what started this). How about other Rights of other people living in the U.S or those living outside the U.S, and lets add a few more ingredeints to the mixture,Male vs Female, Gay vs Straight, Elderly vs Young . Do you think that all rights can be taken away, that none are permanent? In other words, do you feel that there any "Rights" that we are all born with that cannot be taken away? I look forward to your thoughts. Thank You!!
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: The inalienable rights of every American citizen can be lost temporarily, or permanently, as a result of certain criminal acts. The right to life can be lost if sentenced to death for a capital crime. The right to liberty can be lost if sentenced to imprisonment, or probation for a crime. The right to the pursuit of happiness will be lost along with either of the other two. Place of residence, gender, age, or lawful alternate sexual behavior cannot be the basis for loss of rights for any US citizen. In a governed social construct there cannot be permanent rights. All rights and/or privileges are dependent upon lawful conduct. I cannot, however, refute the idea that no one can take away a person's right to die. Perhaps that is the one permanent right/privilege.
        • Jan 17 2013: Edward,Thank You for the follow up, The part of your thought that struck me the most was " In a governed social construct there cannot be permanent rights". Great explaination, although due to my ever curious nature I can't help but wonder if there are exceptions to this rule. Getting a bit off topic (though I think it's related is) I recently read (Though not sure of the exact number), that the US was in 10th place concerning freedoms. I thought we were number one, which now makes me feel a bit ignorant. Do you know anyother places that rate higher on this "list"? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks again for your contributions to my original question on Rights vs Privileges. R.S...
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2013: As I said Robert, in a social environment the natural occurrence of Death is the only event/right that cannot be controlled by law. As to the comparative freedom of the US to other nations, I see that as a non-quantifiable characteristic of a nation. An Anarchist will tell you that freedom is the absence of government imposed regulation, while the Socialist will claim it is the abundance of government control which brings freedom. Kristopherson said freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose (-Me and Bobby McGee). Eric Hoffer, the philosopher, said, "The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do."
        • Jan 19 2013: Thank You Edward, All your replies have given me many things to consider. In laymens terms what I feel you are explaining to me is, that Social freedoms, Rights and Privileges are determined by the governments (or the people that have control over a population) and they will dictate what those Rights, Freedoms and Privileges are and who gets them and also how much of each they will get depending on the individuals standing in that population(i.e. wealth,education,ancestry, religion etc..).To be clear,I am not just focusing on the U.S. and what is practiced here, but all the different societies (large and small) in world.Do you agree with that, or am I missing something deeper? Thanks Again! R.S...
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2013: I can only speak based on my experience in the US. If a person is unable, or unwilling to take a driver's test that person has no legal right to drive. That does not make driving a right based on "wealth, education, ancestry, or religion" as you say. One does not need to be a wealthy, educated, anglo-Saxon Protestant to drive legally in the US. As I said in my first comment, "Every able-bodied, legally qualified citizen of the US has the right to take all required driver's qualification tests. Upon passing those tests they have a right to pay the necessary fees to be issued a driver's license." You are wrongly implying elitism, or prejudice in the right to drive.
        • Jan 19 2013: Thanks Edward, I should have never used the example of driving in the Title, but the video that started this and the comments written about that video concerned driving, and the Title of any question posed can only be so many characters long, therefore the title of my question could not convey all I wished it could.. I agree with your original statement concerning driving "Rights"! But at this point in the discussion, I had thought we had moved beyond drivings "Rights vs Privileges" and to looking at "Rights vs Privileges" on a more all inclusive social level,and to not only include the US but also all other populations of the world. Sorry if I was not clear on that in my earlier replies to you. Thank You for the follow-up. R.S...
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: All right sir, if not the right to drive, to which right are you implying that a person's "wealth,education,ancestry, religion etc." apply?