[INTroJect]

I am having trouble discerning the difference and would like to see some discussion and examples of this.

[coffeeforme]

My political philosophy professor once told me that a liberty was a type of right, aka a 'liberty right,' and that such rights were basically freedoms. He also said there were four types of rights in total:

-Liberty right - this provides no reason not to do something... a freedom to do something, if you will. Example: I have a liberty right to brush my teeth, or no reason not to brush my teeth.

-Claim right - this right belongs to person A, and it puts an obligation/duty/restriction on person B. Example: Person A has a claim right over the preservation of his/her bike, meaning person B has an obligation not to harm A's bike.

-Power right - it's a subtype of liberty right, I believe. One has the power right to give another person a liberty right. Example: A has the power right to let person B ride their bike, thereby giving B another liberty right.

-Immunity right - (I always get this one messed up) This is a subtype of claim right. It's the right not to have your liberty and claim rights altered/taken away, I believe. I don't know how one would put this into an example... Maybe B has the immunity right such that A cannot take away B's liberty rights if A does not have the adequate rights to do so?



Anyway, I'd say a liberty is a type of right whose content is the freedom to do X,Y or Z.
Hopefully this makes sense!

[Abgrund]

As Marx asked: "Freedom? Freedom with respect to whom?"

In practice, "rights" are only the embodiment of power over other people. The "right" to "freedom of the press" requires that the government be willing to allow you to use it and also to use force against any who would stop you. It also requires that you have the means to acquire a press - a "right" without the means of action is not a right at all.

Only might makes rights. The font of power (e.g. a government) may arrogate "rights" to itself, or it may grant "rights", but since these latter are utterly dependent on the consent of the powerholder can they really be called "rights"?

In a strictly legal sense, "rights" means "whatever the powerholder has promised"; for example, "I have the right to a trial" means "I hope the government will hassle you if you lock me up without a trial." But can such promises, utterly dependent on the whim of the powerholder, really be called "rights"?

In a broader political or psychosocial sense, "rights" can be used to denote "powers that we think we should have" (but don't). To say that people have the right to healthcare, for example, really means "I wish I could compel society to provide free healthcare". But should ungranted wishes be called "rights"?

In a philosophical sense, rights per se cannot be otherwise defined. What rights can a person have, other than what is enforced or what someone thinks should be enforced?

[Also Lark]

Liberty and freedom exist, rights are an invention, an abstraction, which have done a lot of harm.

[INTroJect]

Anything beyond a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is harmful?

Right to education? How is that harmful?

[Logan1033]

i think my deffinition is too brief to truely cover all possible variations of meaning in right, liberty, and freedom but...

a right is something that is yours without having to be given.

a liberty is given to you by someone else.

and freedom is your ability to act on your rights or liberties.

just a quick thought, created in about 2 mins so please point out any logical inconsistancies.

[Yardy]

	Originally Posted by Logan1033 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i think my deffinition is too brief to truely cover all possible variations of meaning in right, liberty, and freedom but... a right is something that is yours without having to be given. a liberty is given to you by someone else. and freedom is your ability to act on your rights or liberties. just a quick thought, created in about 2 mins so please point out any logical inconsistancies.

Logan's the best answer thus far.

Rights are (by theory) not given, but are implied, and can't be taken away. A liberty is granted and can be taken away. Freedom is also what Logan said, and it is affected by everyone/everything, this is why it's defined seperately.