Really desperate spin, chuckles. You should practice more. Resident aliens are not lesser people, in the same manner that citizens of Russia are not lesser people because they can't vote in the US without becoming citizens. But they can become citizens and thereby vote.

I know you're not an idiot and this shouldn't have to be spelled out for you. Got any more straws to grasp?

Your statement was "You specifically said that if they don't have military or civil service, they shouldn't be a citizen. Maybe in your world that isn't considering them a lesser person."

So, are you amending that? Can you provide a list of instances where a person who isn't a citizen is still a normal person and not a lesser person in your eyes? I'm curious where you draw the line. Which people are lesser people to you?

_________________

That's a much better attempt; Twisting my condemnation of treating people as lesser as if I viewed them as lesser myself.

Stripping a person of citizenship because they don't meet some arbitrary employment history test is wrong.

Those should be the bare minimums of investing (those are investments) in ones country for citizenship but some claim citizenship on less. Granted, some privileges of citizenship may be lost to those who don't satisfy these.

I find the military vs. civilian discussion boring compared to the initial thread topic.

As events progress the more disturbing and interesting things have become in Iran. I admire the strength the protesters have displayed and believe they deserve our moral support. I don't think our gov't should offer much of an opinion on the issue, however, because that is only ammunition against the protests.

Work strikes would be effective but there are other very effective forms of protest and strikes hurt employees most imo. Assuming work strikes can be endured by the employees, I imagine additional forms of protest would serve the cause even more.

From what I've seen, it appears the progressive movement in Iran seems fairly well organized in their protests.

So if you don't view non-citizens as lesser people, why would you assume that others would?

Actually, what we've said is that you'd earn citizenship, not that anyone would be stripped of it.

I realize you're completely invested in your end of the argument, so there's no way in hell you're going to concede any points, but here's mine: I find it strange that we allow people who have made no contribution of time and effort to this nation to vote or to run for office. I think that requiring anyone who wishes to take part in the election process to actually have served our country is not only acceptable, but it also makes more sense than enfranchising everyone who happens to have been born on our soil.

Now, one might argue that they pay their taxes, and so that earns them the right to vote. Quite the contrary, it earns them the right to public services, roads, etc. that their taxes go to support. We require non-citizen residents who work in the U.S. to pay their taxes, so the argument further falls apart. If you argue that paying your taxes is enough reason to have franchise in this country, then you'd have to argue that green card holders should be able to vote as well as long as they're paying taxes.

I'm not saying we should mandate military service. I'm not even saying we should mandate Federal service. After all, many people live out happy lives without ever voting or running for national office. There's no reason to make it a requirement. But if you want a say in how the country is run, what better way to prove that you care about the country than to contribute to it with actual service? You don't have to be a soldier. Be a postman. Or a clerk. Or one of the many thousands of different occupations a public servant can have. 2 years. Then go on to the rest of your life knowing that you've not only served your nation, but you've proven with that service that you care about the nation and its progress and not just yourself.

_________________

I'm sorry, but it just sounds like you want to dictate to others what rights they get based on your own arbitrary value of how 'American' they are. The sheer audacity that you think you know where to set that particular bar staggers me.

It's preferable to being shot or beaten by the militias. The crackdowns are what could drive them to it. Something like that would swell their numbers because I imagine there are many who are not taking to the streets for fear of reprisal.

Awesome! I'm finishing my third year of public service. I must be an uber citizen now! I should get to vote twice.

True but what's to keep the militias from coming to your home for striking?

Wow, Tyral.

I don't neccessarily want to side with Bz here, but I have to say that you are being amazingly "spinny", stubborn, blind, trying too hard, whatever on this topic.

But on the subject, am I a super citizen because I've done so much work in "civil service" jobs (Gogo Library!!) or do only "cool" or "macho" jobs count toward my CP (Citizen Points)?

I don't know about voting twice, but three years worth of CP's (Citizen Points) have to be good for something! Maybe you have enough accrued to get an "Honorary Real Man" card or maybe a lapel pin that reads, "I'm a Citizen!"

Mine gets me free beer.

And I was the first to engage in it! Go me.

_________________

lol, don't deny it.

The whole bit about you wanting to withhold citizenship and then being called out on wanting to make people "second-class" and you coming back with, "Oh, so mexicans are second class? Asshole." bit was golden.

All this nonsense, but no real arguments against it. And in your case Fribur, yes, citizenship for teachers is a given.

How about us government librarians, helping children read?

But really, where do you draw the line between, "This job is citizen-worthy." and "This job is just a job, you greedy fuck."? ...Sounds a lot like you're just making it up as you go along.

Of course we are. It's not policy yet, and it would take a lot of "making it up as we go along" until it became policy.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Ok, how about:

Making it up as you go along with no real rhyme, reason or rationale. Pretty much just playing some self-gratifying "civil service" game where (citizens = yourJob + jobsYouThinkAreCool) and not much else.

Pretty much any government job would qualify. But we'd have to make changes to the way we hire and pay government workers. There would be a rank system (such as the one already in place for government employees) and pay would go off of that. Teachers, librarians, and others who require a degree would come in higher on the pay scale. The first two years would be a relatively low pay (since most people would leave service after those two years) but after that it would scale up to match the civilian job market.

Anyone who hadn't earned citizenship would be a resident, the only privileges they wouldn't have would be voting or holding public office at the federal level. We'd do away with the ridiculous requirements for birth entirely. Borders would become merely a means to determine jurisdiction for the application of laws, not nationality.

Honestly, I got the general idea of this from Heinlein, and he makes a very compelling argument for it. It's unfortunate that so many people immediately get offended by the idea and don't judge it on the actual merits. And it's surprising to me that it would be immediately assumed that those in favor of such an idea are somehow elitist or something. Quite the opposite, I think everyone should have the opportunity to serve and to earn the right to have a say in this nation. Naturalization would follow the same process, as anyone willing to work for the country could become a citizen.

_________________

For example, if Fribur is auto-citizen'ed based on being a teacher, how about the other workers at the school?

Is the janitor citizen-worthy? How about the lunch lady? Administrators? What about the guys that built the damn place? Or are they just sweaty manual laborers?

How about the people that work at the company where the school books are printed? Are they citizens based on helping kids, too? Or are they in the "just making money" category? Isn't everyone "making money"?



Why? On what logic? Is a government trash picker-upper more worthy than any other sort of laborer?



What sense does it make, though, to have your voting rights depend on what sort of job you can get? How do we expect there to be job openings and room for EVERYONE to get one in government jobs or other jobs you deem as acceptable?

Why does working at a desk in government make you more worthy than someone working at a desk anywhere else? (It's not like it's any different for 99% of jobs.)

What are all the "exceptions" and how do you justify those, too? Teachers and whatnot? Where does the line get drawn there? Or are you just going to start cherry picking who gets a vote and who doesn't?

What about people who can't find a government job but work for decades in other productive jobs? Should they be paying full taxes without any representation in the system? "Taxation without representation"? How will that work?



I do judge it on the actual merits. And it sounds cool for a fictional novel, not a real working society.



It doesn't just sound "elitist". It just sounds silly, logistically near-impossible, has too much of the system based on opinion, and most likely to be entirely unfair to a large segment of the population.

The military is always willing to accept you for a short term of service. That's the easy answer.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

You'd have to drastically alter the recruiting standards for the military, then. Otherwise, you'd have to make exceptions for a lot of people not physically or mentally capable of military service.

Not to mention drastically expand the focus of the military itself. It would be foolishly ineffecient, I'm sure, to just suddenly take out an enormous percentage of the work force out of "circulation" and dump them into the military without giving them all something to do that actually supports the economy and isn't just, "I'm in the military!" sitting around in a base somewhere.

^ continued

And at that point you're just defeating the purpose of the entire thing and just doing it for the sake of doing it, really.

Bov. FINALLY someone at least commenting somewhat rationally (for you at least). So, Fribur wouldn't be "auto-citizened". Your service would assigned to you and fill whatever need is required, based on aptitude, interest, etc. In Fribur's case, he's becoming a teacher, his year of civil service would possibly be an internship or TA role. Do you see the connection there? Service is basically filling a governmental role, state or federal for a set period. After which you're discharged from service, and free to vote, go to school (which in my opinion should be fully covered), etc.

Now, you bring up an excellent point. Taxation without representation. Definitely something to mull over. In truth, this entire "citizenship" view really isn't something that fits alongside the Constitution. In fact, I really didn't think it something to be truly considered for anything beyond discussion - I just think it's a damned good idea. Step past the whole "omgtoocoolelitist" shit for a bit and consider the advantages. That's basically all I'm asking, whether you agree or not. Your questions are good for the most part, but your rhetoric makes you look like a kneejerk insecure fucktard. And if that's coming from me, you might want to take that criticism seriously ;P

Personally, if something like this were to be done, I'd say that just being born and paying taxes entitles you to the most basic of citizen's rights, like voting. But if you want MORE (Financial assistance of some sort, etc) then you have to chip in via volunteer work or something.

As I've already pointed out, there hundreds of thousands of people who work in the U.S. every year, pay taxes, and have no right to vote. The difference with what we're discussing is that everyone would have an opportunity to earn that right.

And as Elessar said, your service occupation would be assigned to you based on your qualifications. So it's not like what most of you are used to: you don't find a job in the paper and apply, and that job may or may not qualify you for your 2 years. Rather, you'd show up to an entrance processing station where you'd submit your education and employment history and perhaps take a test, and you'd be offered jobs based on that. Sign a 2-year minimum contract, do your service, and either stay in and make it a career or move on to the civilian world, having proven that you were willing to work on behalf of the nation in a tangible manner.

Instead of having a republic, we'd become a meritocracy, with people willing to serve their nation getting a say in how the nation is run.

_________________

This is an interesting proposition. I think people would find a lot more common ground with this proposal as opposed to mandatory service.

Admittedly I haven't read every piece of this back and forth regarding citizenry yet, but my primary problem with it is with the ability to practice dissent. One of the greatest parts of our government is that we actually allow people to openly practice freedom of expression to the *point* of hateful speech about the country itself. That's serious freedom. Mandatory service may compromise the ability for someone to practice dissent on a level where they are not truly free to not participate in anything to help the country whose practices they may not agree with. True dissent requires this. Even with something like taxes a person could *choose* to not buy or own anything of worth and have little to no income to get out of paying.

I'd just like to point out that I'm not against getting people to be more involved and contributing the the well being of the country. Since this is more a hypothetical now than anything else, I'd like to know who would be the one to say that this is or is not a job which qualifies for "citizen points." (I know citizen points is not what we're really talking about, but it's gets the idea across.)

It was brought up earlier, but I don't think answered:
Teacher would be a yes, but what about the janitor of the school? Principal's secretary? Security guard?
Military applies, but what about the guy who builds the tank? Or the body armor? Or the bullets?
What about farmers?

On another note: What if you go and submit your education and you are not qualified for any job? Disabled? Will people with serious mental or physical disabilities be faced with the prospect of never being a citizen? When issues such as stem cell research possibly being able to help them, is it right that they don't have a voice (ie vote) because they are unable to contribute in a manner which others deemed required to have that voice?

And when only the "real Americans" can vote, how long before they vote for further division between themselves and "mere residents"? We just saw the majority take marriage away from the gays in California. How many rights can we strip from the people who obviously hate their country? We already took voting away from them. Why not take education away as well? We don't even have to go that far. We could just send most of the monies to citizen communities.

As an incentive for people to become citizens, we could give tax breaks to companies who hire citizens. Soon all companies will favor hiring citizens over residents. If you want to get a good job, you should really think about becoming a citizen.

(Yes I know some of this is far fetched, but then, far fetched has a habit of happening in this country.)

Well, that'd be one way to end DADT.

_________________

I think you're still misunderstanding how it would work. You don't pick the jobs that qualify. Rather, you appoint people to jobs that the government needs filled. Just because there's a secretary position working for the government doesn't mean all secretaries qualify. Just the ones working for the government. Farmers? No. They aren't federal employees. Post office workers? Yes. Military? Yes. Federal police and employees of those police? Yes. There are literally thousands of jobs that would qualify.

[quote0What if you go and submit your education and you are not qualified for any job? Disabled? Will people with serious mental or physical disabilities be faced with the prospect of never being a citizen? When issues such as stem cell research possibly being able to help them, is it right that they don't have a voice (ie vote) because they are unable to contribute in a manner which others deemed required to have that voice?[/quote]
Those that are physically disabled might get a pass, assuming there were NO jobs they were qualified for (someone like Stephen Hawking would, I'm sure, be found a place to work for a couple of years). Everyone is qualified for something, even if it's just menial labor.

_________________

You still aren't explaining why this would be good for anything other than for the sake of doing it, nor do you present any reason why a government job is more worthy than any other job for contributing to society.

I actually already did explain it. Since I'm getting tired of repeating myself, I recommend you go back and read everything I've written again.

_________________

I don't think you explained it well enough, honestly. I don't see how "working for the government" for a brief period of time in any way makes a person more qualified to vote.

When he was 16, one of my neighbors went to work in a textiles factory. He was there almost 30 years when it shut down and he was laid off. He got a job at the McDonalds part time while looking for permanent work. 12 years later he's still there, only he's the manager. He's got 2 kids that he put through college, and is looking to retire. He goes to church, and he never struck me as one of those evangelical types. He even seems to enjoy running the Bingo once a month. He's been a productive member of society, in my opinion, but according to what you say here, apparently that's not good enough and he doesn't deserve the right to vote.

I understand he would have been assigned a government job that he could have worked at for a few years to earn the right to vote, but all that really means is what he has done is not good enough. And, for some inexplicable reason, that kind of offends me.

See, you're taking a past example and applying it to theoretical future. You continue to make the assumption that with this discussion we're saying folks are lesser people, when that's not even true (nor relevant). His citizenship would've been earned PRIOR to all of this hard work. Take the same hard working ethic and place him in the inner city (or dying small town). This individual may not have had the same opportunities as your neighbor. This program would help offer marketable skills.



Well no shit huh? Inexplicable is probably the best word I could use for just about everything you've brought up in this thread because you're too busy being offended.

The past or the theoretical future is irrelevant. In your ideal world, if he had done the same thing he's unworthy. You want to create a world where someone who works hard like him is insufficient.

A program that offers marketable skills like you suggest is praiseworthy. Penalizing people who would rather choose an alternative path by revoking their ability to vote is not.

Public service has its merits but in no way should determine our rights or official status in society. This country has enough xenophobia without further classifying people. We really should instead emphasize our similarities and common goals. I don't even believe public service for everyone would be the best way to serve our nation. Perhaps if the federal government takes over more and varied companies that could happen but not as it stands. I believe in volunteering ones time and energy for the common good but the current form our capitalism takes makes that infeasible for the vast majority of people. Without a current working model of the kind of service being suggested on the scale of a society as large as the U.S. it is difficult to imagine it working positively if pursued.

See, you're looking at it as a penalty, because you think that anyone born in this country should be able to vote at the age of 18. I don't. Clearly Elessar doesn't either. Nor did our Founding Fathers, by the way. It was obvious in their written statements and in the records of their meetings that they felt an individual had to be a productive, contributing member of society to be able to vote. Land and business owners, tradesmen, etc. were the people they intended to enfranchise.

Obviously, there were some mistakes made. Not allowing women or minorities to vote were problems we've since rectified. But we've taken it beyond that and given a vote to any asshole regardless of intelligence, education, productiveness, or willingness to support and serve the nation they're trying to help run.

Conversely, I'd be okay with the system Mark Twain describes in his essay entitled "The Curious Republic of Gondour." Give extra votes to those who have completed certain levels of education, are military veterans, employ people, etc. Obviously changes would need to be made to accommodate modern society, but the idea is nearly as appealing to me as the meritocracy described by Heinlein.

_________________

Yeah, I got that. I still don't understand how you can't see that not thinking someone should be able to vote isn't considering them of lesser worth or whatever. Meritocracy is, by definition, stratisfying people by their worth (merit). Meritocracy is also largely a utopian ideal, much like communism, in that it will never work out in the manner proponents believe it will. Singapore is such a place. I'm just going to resort to a quick wiki reference here:


Anyway from what I can see, you are in favor of mandatory public service. I call it and am against involuntary servitude. We apparently have considerably different perspectives.

And, the founding fathers made mistakes. They knew they would. That's why we have amendments.

Ugh. It's like running face first into a brick wall. Singapore is absolutely the WORST example you can provide as that's NOT what we're discussing here. You're losing yourself in the extremes on EVERY topic that it's almost pointless talking to you.

That said, I'm seriously tired of looking at your annoying fucking profile image already that I'm just gonna call it a thread as I should've 2 pages ago. I never thought I'd be in a position to hope I'd be fencing with Fribur instead

Hey, you have to look at the extremes when your talking about restricting freedoms, in my opinion. Funny that you mention Fribs. I was thinking your stance similar to how he defended pacifism way back when.

Wow, you both managed to insult me at the same time from opposite sides of the argument. Good work!



I can't believe you said this Tyral and are comfortable with it. This is what you want? A government so powerful it gets to tell everyone in the country exactly what they are allowed to do for a year or two of their life?

This reminded me of a book called "The Giver," heh.

I'm actually for exactly what Elessar and Tyral are talking about too. And regarding your ...well frankly it was chestbeating about the Bingo guy 'AND IS HE NOT WORTHY?!'...was he born here? Because it's not a merits test currently. His 'worth' doesn't mean diddly shit. Was he born here?

They are also not talking about citizen v. non-citizen. Felons are citizens, they simply do not have the right to vote in some states (even after serving their prison time). They lose some rights...in some states.

What they are talking about is that the right to vote wouldn't be granted based upon accident of birth. One would have to earn it, and anyone could. Anyone willing to do so, would be allowed to do so. Someone's in a coma, they can't express their will. Someone is missing their arms and legs, they're blind and deaf...but want to do so? They would be accomidated.

It's not a bad idea, having people invest in the right to vote. Other places have gone other routes; such as Australia making voting mandatory. You HAVE to vote there.

Voter apathy would be quite a bit less if people choose whether or not they want a say in the government based on service. So why service? Are military people, and people who join state service 'better' people? No. And in fact Starship Troopers (the book where Heinlein goes into great detail about his opinions on this, though he also did so in many non-fictional essays and speeches) that very question is addressed; military people are NOT better people.

They've simply proven an interest in the welfare of the state. They earned it, and anything earned is valued.

Versus accident of birth, which disenfranchises your very example, if he didn't have the lucky accident of being born here. If he wasn't born here, then he must QUALIFY for citizenship, and many of the measures of that aren't based upon merit either, but also accidents of fortune; is he from a country we have quotas on? Is he fleeing some unjust regieme and fears for his life? The list can go on.

The current system fucks over your example far more than anything proposed in THIS system.

_________________

Yes, he was born right here in Tennessee.

I guess I was in the wrong. I thought this country was supposed to stand for equality of all it's people, not just those who prove it to whoever makes the rules.

How so? We have restrictions on voting now...so do those restrictions mean that everyone isn't equal currently?

I have worked since I was 13 years old, as in...got a paycheck and filed taxes (I'm not counting various monies earned babysitting...I'm talking actual jobs ). I PAID FUCKING TAXES...and yet for five years I was taxed without representation! I paid, but I had no say.

My mother in law is from Australia. She came here in the 1950s, and for the next forty years paid taxes and was a legal resident alien. She had no right to vote. She paid taxes, gave birth to a child who was granted immediate citizenship based upon his birth...but she didn't have quite a few rights...and we're just talking here about the right to vote, not the numerous other rights and responsibilities that come along with citizenship.

So your argument fails on lack of merit. There's none of this mythical equality that you're beating your chest about. And I already addressed your previous example and how *that* fails, unless he's a citizen by accident of birth, your recitation of his merits mean diddly shit IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

And given that you seem so concerned with his merits, you'd think you'd be interested in a merit system that doesn't deny anyone anything, merely requires they choose to earn it.

_________________

The idea of a "right to vote" is silly.

Voting, much like driving, is a privilege that can, has been, and should be taken away from certain people. You do not get "given" privileges - you earn them.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

But if it's a priviledge, then it can be taken away. What if someone in power decides that voting should only be given to people who earn over $50k a year, or even worse, only to people who are of a certain race? What if someone decides only registered Democrats get to vote in the next election?

I do not want to be in the business of deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't.

If someone decides to take away the privilege in masse from people who have earned that privilege, I expect the populace to stand up and do something about it.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Civil rights laws already take care of that scenario. A more apt question would be what if some people are unable to access the means to earn their vote. If a person, for instance, had to assume responsibility for their family at a young age they may not have opportunity to earn a vote until much later in life.

I'm not sure if such exceptions really negate the merit of the system. People need to be personally invested for a government of the people to function. Politicians are so far removed from the, largely disinterested, public it's almost farcical.

Ok, first I am with you on the working teen taxation/voting thing. I think if a person is mature enough to hold a job that the government will tax their earnings, they are also mature enough to vote.

As for your mother in law, is there some reason she didn't become naturalized? A legal alien resident is not allowed to vote, but after a certain amount of time (5 years, 3 if married to a citizen IIRC) she should have been able to become a naturalized citizen and thus able to vote.

ummm, if I am not mistaken this "privilege" can be taken away if you have a felony.


That what we need a bunch more uniformed people voting. here would be the teens under there current tax laws that you would give the privilege to vote.
No One Claims You as a Dependent
If someone else can't claim you as a dependent, you must file a tax return if any of the following apply.
Your filing status is Single and you're either of the following:
* younger than 65 with gross income of $8,950 or more
Someone Else Claims You as a Dependent
If someone else can claim you as a dependent, you must file a return if you have any of the following:
* unearned income more than $900
* earned income more than $5,450
* gross income more than the larger of $900 or earned income (up to $5,150) plus $300

I am sorry, but voting in the US has gone from a privilege to a right, and that my friends is wrong.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

The constitution demands that representatives are chosen and senators elected by "the People" of the United States of America. Calling voting a privilege because it can be taken away by a felony is absurd. For example:

2nd Amendment:


A right which is revoked for felons. By your logic, then, owning a firearm is only a privilege.

Your explanations have revolved around "Helping society" when your ideas on what people should do don't help society any more than a person working a normal job.



Yes, but you still haven't explained why working a desk job at City Hall or running a machine at the landfill is any more of a contribution to society than working those same jobs somewhere else.

You keep talking about, "Willing to help society" and such, but it doesn't. Me working a job at City Hall and me working a job at the business next door is pretty much the same contribution to society.

And yes, the founding fathers thought you had to be a "Productive, contributing member of society"....which is what you are when you obey the law, pay your taxes, and generally work toward being a good cog in the machine that is society.



Now if you wanted to talk about something like...16-18 year olds being required to do some sort of community service before they got their voting registration or something, then yes, that would make sense. But this weird idea that you have about government jobs somehow being special is just silly.

It's both a right and a privilege. You're trying to draw a line separating the two when there's no real difference. No right is ever absolute. Quite the opposite, rights are often lost on a whim or technicality. Laws change. People change. Situations will arise that conspire to prevent you from exercising one right or another.

You also appear to think of rights as moral entitlements rather than legal entitlements. While there are moral rights, we're not discussing those. We're discussing legal rights (hence you quoting the Constitution). When you talk about legal rights, you have to operate under the assumption that those rights can change. They are not absolute.

_________________

Or hell, just require that someone HAVE a job period. Even that would make more sense.

Actually, I have.

Since you're too lazy to go back and read, why don't you try this exercise: come up with 2-3 tangible ways this would benefit the nation. I know you probably won't, but at least you'll be thinking about it.

_________________

See, you keep doing this. Either deflecting questions about the benefits of it all or making condescending remarks about just not getting it.

Or just making general comments like, "It'll help the nation!"

If you can't do a better job elaborating on the pros and cons of your own stance, why should the rest of us take it as a wonderful thing?

The founding fathers didn't give two shits about being a "productive, contributing member of society", they only concerned themselves with white, male land owners who didn't have any debt. I'm comfortable assuming that everyone can tell the difference between the two groups. But why does anyone care what they thought anyway? It's not like they have an opinion on the state of the nation today.

I've done that. You apparently skimmed over a few posts and now you're insisting I rewrite what I've already plainly stated. Fuck you. Go back and read it and stop being a lazy ass.

_________________

No, you didn't. All you've done is chant about how "It will help!" and "People will have to contribute!" and other sound-biteish things that don't say a darn thing.

When you can explain why a secretary in City Hall is better than a secretary next door, then maybe people will listen.

Mostly false.

A right is an entitlement. There is an expectation that a right exists unless some other situation specifically revokes such expectations. For example, the right to privacy. We have an expectation of privacy in our homes, but a court order can specifically revoke such a right.

A privilege is a special perogative granted to an individual. There is no expectation that such a privilege exists until some situation specifically grants us this privilege. For example, you do not have the right to drive a car down the highway. After obtaining a driver's license, you obtain this privilege.