A coment first about why the left brands everything a "right".  Simply put it is the only part of the constitution they agree with - rights.  They themselves (the leaders) do not really beleive it.  But their base is kind of short on the intelligence level, and will buy anythign as long as some one in authority told them so.

A second comment - you do not have a "right" in thw work place not to be discriminated against.  It is the law, and a good one, but it is not a right.

As for the question - a right stands on its own.  It neither infringes on others nor burdens them with any tax (monitary or otherwise).  A privilege imposes on others.  It requires either the willing or unwilling participation of others in order to allow you the privilege.

My concept of "rights" is something that should apply to "everyone" not just a select group of people. I am curious why I don't get the same benefits Gov't employees do yet I have to pay for it? Where are "my rights" when it comes to these "collective bargainings"?

I am truly impressed how selfish our society has become when they fight for rights for specific groups of peoples but don't do the same for the entire population.

As I read this I thought back to when my daughter turned 15 and wanted to drive, drive, drive our car. 

I explained to her that driving the car was a privilege and a freedom but not a right.

...............

Ah yes. Exactly.But many of their so-called rights aren't rights at all.

For example, Liberals call abortion a "reproductive right"!!!! But how do you reproduce something by killing it?

Chuck, that would be called a socialist uprising if it were to occur (and probably the ultimate wet dream for some union big-wigs). But I do understand where your going with your comment. It's all me, me, me. If those chirping for their rights would only look a a history book and realize how many "rights" one gives up in a socialist utopia, they might be satisfied with what they can achieve on their own. How quickly they forget, and with so many living examples in Eastern Europe.

A right has to do with the state's purpose and course of its actual operation helping and protecting man through just laws.

A privilege is a special right, an advantage or favor granted for any reason.

I've argued this difference before my town council who enacted a so called "gay rights" ordinance. In other words they used their power to extend special "privileges" to select people based solely on their professed sexuality while taking away the rights and freedoms of others who disagree with that distinguished sexual behavior.

Our rights are clearly spelled out in the Federal and state constitutions. Those are the only rights we have. Everything else is laws, regulations, and assorted privileges.

Even F.D.R., that hero of the Left, was opposed to public sector unions and for good reason. While I don't especially care for private sector unions, I don't see anything basically wrong with organized private sector workers, but at no point should there be unionized government workers.

1. You're using statements by right-wing liars, racists and fear-mongers. Just like you.

2. Republicans are trying to destroy all institutions that vote Democratic.

Yes and yes, you point was?

1 - You like to throw around hate speech, but failed to make any salient points.

2 - Uh, the democrats are the ones that ran away.  All 33 were elected by ALL the people of the state.  So that means the democrats were the ones destroying the institutions of democracy.  but then you knew that.  Or else you lack any cognitive ability (but then talking bots do not need that do they?)

FWIW - FDR is no right wing liar.  And the only racists are liberals.  Fear-mongers?  Uh, how about the twitters that call for Palin to be killed - or the New York Congressman who wants to "get violent" (democrat).  Or the death threats against the Wisconsin senators (from democrats).  Yea, Liberals are racists and democrats are hate mongers.  Those 2 facts are indisputable.

What are you?

A "right" is something everyone has, a "privilege" is something only one or more individuals have.

A "positive right" is a right that creates requirements for others.

A "negative right" is a right that creates no requirements for others.

"Civil rights" are rights all citizens have (but not necessarily foreigners living in the country or elsewhere in the world). Civil rights are thus rights relative to one society but privileges relative to the universe.

Driving a car...

DRIVING a car is a negative right in a free society.

However, driving a CAR would be a positive right, because it would create the requirement for others to provide the car. (The act of driving as such is a negative right.)

Driving a car on streets paid for by tax payers is a privilege. Only those who proves capable of driving on those streets without endangering others who have a right to walk there (or a privilege to drive) should acquire this privilege.

There are certain positive rights.

An American citizen has the right to be defended against crime by the police, against foreign invaders by the military and against fire by fire brigades. Other citizens have a duty to provide these services. (Meaning that the state has a duty to hire people to do this.) Even if a citizen doesn't contribute at all (for example if he doesn't work and pays no taxes), these rights remain.

The first two are universal rights. All governments have the duty to provide these services. (Fire brigades should be provided by governments for efficiency but are not needed to define the government.)

Everyone has a positive right to be helped by others in life-threatening situations. If I observe an accident, I have to call an ambulance and do what I can to provide first aid. That right creates requirements for others, like me.

However, I would say that treatment above emergency care is privilege and must be paid for (or provided voluntarily by someone).

Leauki - your "positive" rights are not rights, they are privileges.  You pay for privileges, you do not have to pay for rights.  They are inherited at birth.

Also, driving a car is not a right. Not every one has it, nor do you have it at birth. same with health care.

You can think of it this way.  If your great ancestors had it, then it may be a right.  But if they did not have it, it is not a right.  Having a right does not necessarily mean exercising it.  You can be denied the exercise of the right by others through force (which has been the normal in history).

So health care is not a right.  It sure is helpful and is a nice privilege, but if it was a right, then every subsaharan African would be guaranteed it at birth, as would your ancestors.  Neither group has/had it.  In addition, a right cannot impose on others.  As you cannot force someone to do your bidding (that is slavery and the forced suppression of rights).

In a dirt poor society, everyone still has their rights.  But very few privileges.  As a society becomes more affluent, it can bestow privileges on its members, but they do not become rights because of tradition.  They remain privileges.

No, Doc, privileges and positive rights are two different things.

I have a right to drive a car. Which excuse would you have to stop me?

#1 - You do not have a license

#2 - You do not have insurance

#3 - you have violated the agreement to drive (you have DUIs or such)

The list is very long, but those are just a few that show it is not a right.

Which brings up another point.  Rights do not need agreements.  Privileges do.

I do not need a licence just to drive a car, only to drive a car on public roads. I bought a large farm and drive my car on my own road.

I do not need insurance to drive my car on my road.

No agreement was ever made between me and anyone about my driving on my farm.