Through experience, we have found that where property rights are all in the hands of one person (tyranny), there are gross violations of Right #1. Therefore, it is prudential to extend property rights broadly to secure Right #1. See how this works? However, in your case, if you declare a "right" to property, then either you limit it at some point or you allow absuridities, such as allowing someone to set up an anthrax production facility on their own property without government interference.
Similarly, I believe you have no "right" to own a firearm. However, it is impossible for a government to extend protection to all people in a society at all times; in fact, to try would result in tyranny and gross abuses of Right #1. So my system would more or less demand firarms ownership because--you have a right not to be arbitrarily killed and government cannot secure that right at all places at all times. Thus, prudentially, private firearms ownership would be extended to everyone. In your construction, declaring a "right" to bear arms would mean, at its logical conclusion, that I have a right to own a Huey gunship. Under my construction, Huey gunship ownership would not be prudential and thus that privilege (note: not right) would not be extended.
Free speech: no one has a right to free speech in my system. However, since under my system all people must be equal before the law, if there are no free speech privileges, then no one can speak, which is ridiculous. So, those privileges are extended. Under my construction, speech can be extended to things that enhance public order (criticism of government, business, peaceful demonstrations), but not things that interfere with the public order (pornography, S&M clubs, "freedom of expression" in the form of prostitution, etc.).
You see, the libertarian idea that there are a panopoly of "rights" is ridiculous. There is only one right, that every human being from the beginning of time until the end of time can agree on: the right not to be arbitrarily killed. Every "right" (I call them privileges) except this one can be limited without tyranny being the result. If you start limiting the 'right not to be arbitrarily killed', then ipso facto you have tyranny.
The system is simple; it is not, however, simplistic or 'adolescent'. It is quite adult.
I have never read anything about privileges in OUR CONSTITUTION.
Very telling what you think of inalienable rights given by a Christian God as Our Founders refered to repeatedly.
STATES grant privileges to subjects as do Kings and Dictators.
CATO
Two stupidities in one sentence. First, it is manifestly not true that every human being has agreed that there is a right not to be killed (unless you're going to tell us that Hitler and Stalin, for example, were really space aliens).
Second, your "arbitrarily" weasel word is a painfully obvious attempt to wriggle out of difficulties (killing in self-defense, execution as punishment for a crime, etc). Sorry, but you don't get to do that -- or, if you do, then you must allow no less latitude to the rights of property, freedom of speech, etc. Since these other rights do not, in fact, require such weaselry to avoid contradiction (but instead require only equal regard for the rights of others), your position in arguing against them collapses.
A white southerner of a century ago would nod and say, "Yes, ma'am; keepin' the public ordah is exactly why we need to make sure the good ol' boys got shotguns so them Nigras don't git uppity" -- and your philosophy would leave you utterly without a counterargument.
1.You have the right to free speech as long as you are not dumb enough to use it.
2. You have the right not to be killed unless it is by a POLICEMAN OR AN ARISTOCRAT.
3. You have the right to food money as long as you don't mind a little intimidation, investigation and a little humiliation.
Are these some of your recognised rights of man?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeessssshhhhhh.
CATO
No one on FR should ignore your idiocy, as above.