Privilege

Happy Monday FRians! Hope everyone had a nice weekend. This fine Monday morning we have a piece written by Stephen. Thank you so much, as always.

    I have written before concerning the proper definition of the word “right” as opposed to the often confusing ways it has been used in the past as well as how it is currently intentionally misused for political purposes of undermining the founding concepts of the Bill of Rights by trying to introduce a concept of positive and negative as adjectives describing completely different concepts under the label of a right.

    Of course, the left means by “positive right” entitlement rather than an individual right to be free from government interference, or prohibition of limitation of the state, the traditional concept of a right which they label a “negative right”.

    It is never that simple because most people are not philosophical and employ language loosely expressing desires rather than ideals.  Officials and nobility have often used the words right or privilege when they really meant to express the idea of an ownership interest, license, or permission because there is not really a single word to represent the idea of an ownership interest.

    The words license or permit or permission are often what the people of old meant when they referred to a right or privilege, and people continue to confuse the language with a variety of words rather than clear and concise definitions.

    Historically the use of the word right was often used interchangeably with privilege to mean an ownership or grant of interest such as a “right of way” or a “right of interest in the income from such property” or the “privilege of grazing their sheep upon that land” and so forth.  But such language applied to property interests was never used synonymously when rights or privileges were discussed in other legal contexts such as criminal law or political discourse.

    The legal mind of yore focused upon phrases and concepts rather than single words having universal meaning every time they were used.  Meanings of the very same words were often defined by the context rather than the actual words themselves.  This contextual subtlety has been completely abandoned by modern speakers creating confusion where centuries ago expressing such concepts would have been derided as complete stupidity.

    No one would be such a fool as to think that the mere use of a word in one context would mean that the same word used in a different context would necessarily have the same meaning.  Employing a phrase so out of context was the sign of an uneducated mind and such dullards ought to remain silent in matters of public discourse.  In modern times those slow witted dullards have degrees and think themselves educated sophisticates.

    Often this is done by people who intentionally want to keep things vague and unclear so that they can argue for the political policies or judicial decisions they want while keeping the option to argue just the opposite when that becomes more convenient for them.  Sophists who rely on their own powers of persuasion for personal advantage.

    Which touches upon the concept of “privilege” and how that is misused and manipulated in meaning by the left to further their own political advantage or to undermine the arguments of their opponents by either destabilizing the meaning of the words or using the words for emotional reactions skirting the notion of reasoned argument altogether.

    So what acually is privilege?  Let’s look on the internet for a definition.

    Webster Dictionary definition:  “privilege: noun: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative”  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

    American Heritage definition:  “privilege: noun: a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. synonym: right.”  https://www.wordnik.com/words/privilege

    Okay.  Never mind.  That was a bad idea.

    Notice that the definition people are using is that a privilege is a right, that these words are synonymous.  This is a serious problem for two reasons.  Such a definition demeans and denigrates the concept of rights.  It also misleadingly defines the actual meaning of privilege.

    The definition of “a special advantage, immunity, permission, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste” works perfectly well simply omitting the word right or the false equivalency claiming that the words are synonyms.  It fails when claiming that the two words are in any manner the same.

    Put this definition in the context of modern leftist politics invoking phrases like “white privilege” or “male privilege” or similar foolishness.  The word privilege is used invariably as a derogation and insult.  It is a way of completely dismissing the opinions or logic of anyone withing that group based solely upon their race or gender.

    I have to congratulate the leftists on being completely racist and sexists openly against the majority of people while convincing their minions that they are morally superior in their racism, sexism, and heterophobia through the use of the word privilege as an insult.  Just how successfully does one have to corrupt an educational system to accomplish this feat?

    Is it any wonder that students on college campuses are so dismissive of the idea of rights such as freedom of speech, religious liberty, to keep and bear arms, or to be secure in ones own person and property?  After all, aren’t those just privileges granted to people by the government, and as such don’t those exist mostly to benefit those white, straight, Christian men?

    One problem with defining that privilege equates to a right is that privileges are expressly created by the state, privileges are not innate.  Thus your “rights” are merely granted by the state and can be taken away by the government when they are deemed to be inconvenient.

    Moreover if those “rights” only exist to favor the white male superiority, then such “rights” are problematic to everyone else, a tool of their imagined oppression.  To create a more “equal” society, they naturally want to strip away those privileges, a.k.a. rights, granted to certain classes, and will feel justified in doing so.

    The right of free speech becomes translated in their minds to a privilege to utter “hate speech” and should not be allowed.  Your security in your property becomes a sign of your “white privilege” justifying to them the idea of terrorizing people in their homes to denounce their privileged status.

    The solution to people being privileged is to take away those rights.  See now how problematic this fraudulent definition can become, particularly in the hands of the anti-intellectual?

    In a modern world where contextual definitions have been abandoned in favor of universal definitions, as a society we are going to have to insist upon more precise definitions of words and far more accurate phrasing of concepts. The concept that a property right has not the same meaning as a legal right, or that privilege in one context does not have the same meaning as the word privilege used in a different context is not only lost but being turned against the original meaning of past intellectuals.

    It gets worse when you realize that the modern political movements often use words like privilege without any real meaning at all, they don’t even know that flawed definition we have been discussing.  When asked themselves to define privilege they just get a dazed look, hem and stutter, and resort to saying that it just is and question how can you not see that.

    Definitions have been replaced largely with blind mantras of the political faithful.  Leftism has become an undefined religion of emotion without reason where your actually questioning what they mean by the words they are using just proves your status as a political heretic.

    While this makes for funny videos of people asking them to define what they mean by “white privilege” or to show examples of it actually existing, it really indicates that there is no discussing any concept with the leftist zealots, particularly if they have an audience.  Leftism is often best understood as a performance art.