Definition 3 is:

"any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies"

I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance. (And I qualify it in this way because "the right to drive" doesn't seem extreme at first glance, but could in fact result in the destruction of technological civilization if enough people claim it, so whether or not driving is "extreme" depends on your perspective.)

'I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance.'

Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong (you could have false premises and a true conclusion - that makes a bad argument but the conclusion can still correct). Often times the people claiming natural rights (or really any of their rights) just don't know the proper reasoning and instead resort to claiming something gave them that right - nature, God, government, etc.

It would be hard to fully explore any argument without getting to the point of someone's subjective reasoning that something is good or bad as perspective can come into play (good for me vs bad for you, why is society more important than individuals, etc).

I don't dispute that, but 1) you used the word "privilege" rather than "right" which really changes the tenor of the claim. "Driving is a privilege, not a right" implies that the "privilege" can be revoked while the (putative) right could not. And 2) my claim was about the justification that people offer for their claimed rights, not the rights themselves.

> Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong

I didn't say it was. Just because someone is an extremist doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. The problem with extremism is not that it always leads to wrong conclusions or even to bad outcomes. The problem is that it makes it a lot harder to correct errors.

This is particularly relevant in the case of climate change. When the Taliban chops people's heads off it produces an immediate visceral reaction in most people, which helps motivate them to act. Our collective decisions to keep driving today don't have the same effect on our psyches, even if a lot more people are going to end up dead in the future as a result.

"2) my claim was about the justification that people offer for their claimed rights, not the rights themselves."

The definition that you provided says nothing about justification being a part of something being extreme.

"Our collective decisions to keep driving today don't have the same effect on our psyches"

That's because driving is not extreme. It's considered a moderate position and people accept compromises on it. Even the people that say it's a right accept some level of restrictions such as traffic laws, at least from a standpoint of not wanting to be punished.

Simply wanting the freedom to move about by driving is not an extreme position.

There is a compromise position - accepting that driving a car is right, but also accepting that everyone must pay for its externalities, w.r.t. CO_2 by uniform revenue-neutral carbon tax, like any other fossil CO_2 emission.

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is an approach proposed by many economists, but governments are hesitant to use that and instead go with selective bans and subsidies.

Sure, but what most people mean when they say they have a "right" to something is that they are entitled to that thing without strings attached.

Also, there are factual disagreements about what the externalities of driving actually are. For example, should you have to pay for the people who suffer respiratory illnesses because of vehicle emissions? The cost of accidents? By what mechanism should these costs be assessed and payment made? How should the costs be distributed? If I drive 5000 miles a year should I pay the same as someone who drives 10,000? And how exactly do you assess the cost of moving the needle on an existential threat by a teeny tiny bit?

And just look at people's reaction to the recent increases in the cost of gas! They are indignant, outraged, because they think that they are entitled to cheap gas. It's their right.

"Pay for the externalities" is a fine principle, but very hard to put into practice.

>I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies

I (and pretty sure a sizeable portion of HN) want precisely zero on-device CSAM scanning and encryption backdoors. I'm not willing to compromise on this (eg. "okay we'll backdoor encryption but only for terrorists"). Does that make me an extremist? Based on your definition it certainly sounds like it.

That depends on the justification that you offer. If your justification is (say) that you have a God-given right to sexually exploit children with impunity, then yes, I'd say that qualifies you as an extremist. If your justification is that CSAM scanning does more harm than good, and you can back that up with actual facts, then no.

It's easy to call pedophiles "extremists", but what if my argument is

"I have a God-given right to not have my on-device data searched"?

Justification isn't really part of the position, it's how you arrived at it.