As a dog whistle the crying out for 'FREEDOM' is quite effective. When used in such a manner you usually don't have to look very deep to find that someone is attempting to create boundaries/laws to limit a some groups rights, often even those who will be doing the fighting and dying to this 'FREEDOM' only they will never see it that way until its to late.
When you say rights, I'm left to wonder if you don't mean "entitlements" instead. You might want to say they're the same thing, but they're not when approached from the perspective of Natural Rights.
Where for the purpose of Natural Rights, an entitlement is "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment" due to (insert reason here).
For this purpose do you use 'privileges' and 'special treatment' as something that's applicable even when these 'privileges' and this 'special treatment' is given to everyone?
The quote of "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment" came from asking google to define the term. Further poking says that statement was a bit redundant. As it defines "privilege" as being "
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or
available only to a particular person or group."
But given the "available only to a particular person or group" which is how I would have defined it on my own, that renders the "given to everyone" option as n/a. If everyone has that privilege, it isn't a privilege.
Likewise, if everybody is "special," nobody is. So "special treatment granted to everyone" is either self-contradictory, or being applied in a very narrow and context sensitive way. Although in most of
those contexts, other kinds of selection criteria are in play such that the "granted to everyone" criteria is not met.
For example, a business may provide "special treatment" with regard to its customers when compared to comparable operations... But the barrier for receiving such treatment is the ability to be considered one of their customers in the first place.
Because that tends to be the opposite of what 'privileges' and 'special treatment' means in normal conversation. If ones says "every child has the right to an education", that's different than saying "the children of aristocrats have the right to an education". One would normally think that 'privileges' and 'special treatment' are about the latter sentence, not about the former.
Similarly if one says "Every accused person has the right to a trial by a jury of their peers" vs if one says "Every accused nobleman has the right to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers"
The latter is 'special treatment' and a 'privilege', on account of their birth, but applying the same words to the former, sounds a bit strange.
From a Natural Rights point of view, Public Education is an entitlement, and a jury trial(or justice system in general) would be an entitlement as well. "Natural
law"(not to be confused with Natural
Rights) only understands "might makes right," but "enlightened peoples" obviously make distinctions and compromises with regard to "Natural Law" which is where distinctions get made into what is considered a
right, and further establishes systems to protect those rights at the expense of standing in defiance of Natural Law.
In any case I've only rarely heard anyone try to declare formal education to be a right, although I guess I have seen people attempt to do so with regards to getting governments to pay for the college educations of various people(and often themselves/their children--and/or they work for one of the institutions which would benefit). Public education is a public good, up to a point, for a multitude of reasons. That society has enshrined it as such makes it an entitlement to which people have been granted the privilege of use, which gives them a "little R" right to said services, but doesn't make it a Right.
Jury Trials are a very grey area. Considering the Natural Right of freedom of association/assembly can create a defacto "jury"(but more likely to be an angry mob), the Natural Right of speech(likely to be abused by the people at the head of said mob), and the Natural Right to defend oneself(everybody involved). Something resembling a "trial by a jury of your peers" certainly did/does exist in nature.
However, the specific formalized system we have in place is unnatural in a number of ways and certainly for the better. But that does mean the specific implementation certainly is an entitlement derived from natural rights, but not a natural right of its own.
Healthcare is an entitlement, not a natural right.
"Government assistance" in basically anything is an entitlement, not a natural right.
If a person is being mugged in an alley, and cries for help from a passing policeman, is he seeking an 'entitlement' from the government?
Yes, he is. But I do find it odd that you'd think the policeman is the only person who might respond to the call for help.
They already have the natural right to defend themselves. They don't have a "natural right" to be defended
by others. Thankfully enlightened societies don't hold to "every man for themselves" on things like this, and it may not even be the police who intervene on their behalf.
