|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Individual Vs Collective Rights
#3850514 - 03/01/05 02:53 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
It seems to be a popular idea around here that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of groups or the collective. What I can't quite grasp is how the rights of one individual can be more important than the rights of a group when a group is made up of many individuals. Anyone care to shed some light on this?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3850857 - 03/01/05 05:50 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
i think its more about setting the precedent of a tyrranous majority. first one minority's rights are trampled upon, then when that is done, then another, etc. I believe we allow groups like skinhead nazis to organize protest marches not so much because we are concerened for their individual rights (since they clearly do not respect the rights of certain indviduals) but because to not respect any minority's rights is to set a dangerous precendent.
-------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Tao]
#3850858 - 03/01/05 05:51 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
This is along the lines of how J.S. Mill justified individual rights in On Liberty according to a Utilitarian value system.
-------------------- Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Tao]
#3850868 - 03/01/05 06:04 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i think its more about setting the precedent of a tyrranous majority.
I can fully appreciate that. But obviously a system can include safe guards against such things.
My problem with the premise is that it tends to exacerbate the state of hyper-individualism we see so much of in modern society where there is no real appreciation of the fact that we exist as a small part of a greater whole.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3850906 - 03/01/05 06:46 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It seems to be a popular idea around here that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of groups or the collective.
it's doesn't seem, it is.
Quote:
What I can't quite grasp is how the rights of one individual can be more important than the rights of a group
ask that question and relate it to the patriot act.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3850910 - 03/01/05 06:49 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
It's not so much that people around here recognize the rights of an individual supercede the "rights" of a group as it is they recognize groups don't possess rights. Individuals do.
What "rights" does one gain by joining a group? None. What rights does one lose by joining a group? None.
You as an individual either have the right to (for example) defend yourself against an attacker or you do not. Joining the Rotary Club or the Church of England does not negate your right to defend yourself.
You either have the right as an individual to rape women or you do not. Joining a Muslim "honor killing" gang does not grant you that right.
Phred
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Phred]
#3851017 - 03/01/05 07:56 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What "rights" does one gain by joining a group? None. What rights does one lose by joining a group? None.
Members of the group "police officers" have the right to arrest citizens Members of the group "UK Citizens" have the right to vote in UK elections, with some exceptions Members of the group "Aged over 18" have the right to drink alcohol in the UK
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851102 - 03/01/05 08:44 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Members of the group "police officers" have the right to arrest citizens Members of the group "UK Citizens" have the right to vote in UK elections, with some exceptions Members of the group "Aged over 18" have the right to drink alcohol in the UK
It is not mandatory and no rights are removed by not joining the police the UK Citizens (as far as I know) don't lose rights if they don't vote Those people over 18 don't have to drink alcohol, hence not be part of that group
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3851226 - 03/01/05 09:28 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Those people over 18 don't have to drink alcohol, hence not be part of that group
You misunderstand. The fact they are over 18 means they are a member of the group "people aged over 18". Whether they choose to excercise their right to drink they still gain it through their group membership.
Quote:
It is not mandatory and no rights are removed by not joining the police
Ok I suppose I was responding mainly to the first of Pinky's two statements i.e: "What "rights" does one gain by joining a group? None."
I think I have demonstrated that you can indeed gain rights by joining a group.
So the second statement which you have chosen to focus on is "What rights does one lose by joining a group? None."
Members of the group "Imprisoned criminals" lose the right to vote. Members of the group "Convicted Speeding drivers" lose the right to drive. Obviously if you extend the premise to more diverse communities the list become endless, for example:
Members of "ethnic group X" lose the right to Y in community Z Memebrs of "Gender X" lose the right to Y in community Z
etc.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851275 - 03/01/05 09:50 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
It would appear that what we have is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "Rights!"
Quote:
GazzBut said: Members of the group "police officers" have the right to arrest citizens
I do not know about the UK, but in the US all citizens have a right to arrest other citizens that are in the commission of a crime. Police officers have a few privileges such as ticketing on misdemeanor charges and searching on behalf of the court.
Quote:
Members of the group "UK Citizens" have the right to vote in UK elections, with some exceptions
That would be a privilege of the citizen not a right.
Quote:
Members of the group "Aged over 18" have the right to drink alcohol in the UK
That would be a privilege as well.
A right is endowed by your creator, The right to free speech, the right to defend your self, the right to choose the religion that you believe is correct. A privilege is bestowed by the government and restricted to small select groups of people.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3851305 - 03/01/05 10:02 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
So, in your opinion, what are "rights" as opposed to privileges?
Edit:
Sorry see you had already answered that:
"A right is endowed by your creator, The right to free speech, the right to defend your self, the right to choose the religion that you believe is correct. A privilege is bestowed by the government and restricted to small select groups of people."
Firstly who is this "creator" who bestows these rights? If he is so powerful and these rights are inherent how come they are so easily overturned by mere mortals. i,e the right to free speech is not existent in many societies?
In fact the right to free speech is most certainly not bestowed by a creator it is bestowed by the government of the society in which you live.
We could go into the whole natural rights thing again but if you search the archives you will see it has been done to death. There are no natural rights bestowed by any creator that are consistent with all human beings...but im more than happy for you to prove that wrong!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (03/01/05 10:08 AM)
|
psilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental
Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3851306 - 03/01/05 10:02 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A right is endowed by your creator, The right to free speech, the right to defend your self, the right to choose the religion that you believe is correct. A privilege is bestowed by the government and restricted to small select groups of people.
Governments grant themselves and their agents the privilege of restricting your excerise of rights, by talking your life if necessary. They would say that they have the right to, because they represent the majority.
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: psilomonkey]
#3851336 - 03/01/05 10:11 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilomonkey said:
Quote:
A right is endowed by your creator, The right to free speech, the right to defend your self, the right to choose the religion that you believe is correct. A privilege is bestowed by the government and restricted to small select groups of people.
Governments grant themselves and their agents the privilege of restricting your exercise of rights, by talking your life if necessary. They would say that they have the right to, because they represent the majority.
Representing the majority is a democratic view of rights. This would be the belief that the rights are endowed by the majority and not by the creator. Many Americans have been taught that it is the government or the "Voters" that give them there rights. This is wrong! It is the creator that endows the rights and the government as well as the people are supposed to be banned from interfering with those rights.
In a representative republic (What the US is supposed to be) the government is restricted (by charter) from interfering with the exercise of endowed rights.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3851420 - 03/01/05 10:33 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In a representative republic (What the US is supposed to be) the government is restricted (by charter) from interfering with the exercise of endowed rights
Therefore, in reality, the rights are endowed by the charter, not by the creator.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851458 - 03/01/05 10:43 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You misunderstand. The fact they are over 18 means they are a member of the group "people aged over 18". Whether they choose to excercise their right to drink they still gain it through their group membership.
I agree with you that some groups offer some rights and exclude others (I tend to think this example of age is not the same as lets say some other governmental agency, group, assoc....etc.), however I believe that if someone decides not to be in any such group (and the age thing is something that can't be avoided) then rights should not be taken away. For example, the national ID card idea is for the betterment of the whole (in the government's eyes) however, if you choose not to go along with it you will not be able to do certain things.
Quote:
I think I have demonstrated that you can indeed gain rights by joining a group.
true, however I was referring to the fact that not joining a group should not exclude anyone from rights that they now enjoy.
Quote:
Members of the group "Imprisoned criminals" lose the right to vote.
I think you are losing the original message that you started this thread with. When I refer to individual rights before collective rights, I'm referencing the fact that individual rights should be respected before any group is formed. Taking away anyones individual rights to please any group is the beginning of a dictatorship. Lets take this forums favorite topic of drugs. Some believe it's their right to smoke pot because it's their body. However an overwhelming majority believes that that person should go to jail. I disagree, I believe it is up to the individual.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851520 - 03/01/05 10:55 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
In a representative republic (What the US is supposed to be) the government is restricted (by charter) from interfering with the exercise of endowed rights
Therefore, in reality, the rights are endowed by the charter, not by the creator.
No, The rights are endowed by the creator.
The charter just restricts the government from interfering with those rights.
Here is an example. The first amendment to the constitution of the United States
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This gives no rights! It only says that the government can not infringe on those rights.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3851573 - 03/01/05 11:07 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
So who is this creator and how does it bestow these rights? How can you prove to me these rights have actually been bestowed in reality and the whole thing is not just a concept that only exists in the minds of men?
Edit: added 'not'
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (03/01/05 11:14 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3851608 - 03/01/05 11:14 AM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
So what you are getting at is that in your opinion no group should be allowed to have the right to take away certain rights from any individual i.e the right to free speech, the right to live peacefully etc? Therefore individual rights in that sense trump group rights as these individual rights must be upheld as a pre-requisite to the bestowing of any group rights?
On that we agree.
However, I do not think that there are any inherent natural rights that apply to the individual simply through that person being born or created. To me "rights" are merely a mind construct that we use to create the rules of play that govern the way we interact with one another.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851807 - 03/01/05 12:05 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
On that we agree.
yes we do.
Quote:
However, I do not think that there are any inherent natural rights that apply to the individual simply through that person being born or created.
There are no such thing as natural rights. Rights are man made. Who determines what rights are applicable? If there are no rights then noone here should have a problem with the US killing arabs since they have no right to live.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3851852 - 03/01/05 12:13 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are no such thing as natural rights. Rights are man made. Who determines what rights are applicable? If there are no rights then noone here should have a problem with the US killing arabs since they have no right to live.
I agree rights are man made and see them as being normally applied on a personal level by each individual and on a collective level by the source of authority/law etc in any given society.
Really to be more accurate I think they could be given a different name...maybe shoulds?
i.e you should be able to live in peace etc etc.
Are we in complete agreement?!!!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851863 - 03/01/05 12:16 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
What I can't quite grasp is how the rights of one individual can be more important than the rights of a group when a group is made up of many individuals.
It is definately a very sticky and difficult subject. I cannot speak for all of the other individualists on this board, but I can speak for myself.
A person is their own independent individual with free will. A "group" is something that people voluntarily enter into and create. A group is an artificial construct. However, I am not saying that groups are not important. Groups are very important and can help give protection and identity to individuals. But, groups derive all of their power from the willing participation of the individuals that make it up. Therefore, the group's existence solely depends upon something more powerful than itself - human will. Human will resides in individuals.
Should human beings give up some of their will, self-interest, or freedom for the sake of their fellow Man? That is a good question. I can give you no moral justifications or proof that things should go one way or the other. I can however give my opinion which is based more upon instinct and desire than rational thought. I don't like the idea of subjugating my will to a collective. I don't like the thought of giving up my freedom. I don't like being told what to do. Maybe it is the irrational human in me that makes these feelings come out, but this is how I feel.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3851894 - 03/01/05 12:21 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Are we in complete agreement?!!!
fraid so...
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3852157 - 03/01/05 01:07 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
IMO, an individuals rights are important to the extent that they don't interfere with the collective. That is, that they should have every freedom available to them provided the aren't imposing/bringing the group down (which many are today, leaching off of social security when they are well capable of working). Herd mentality, help and protect all of those in the group provided they aren't bringing the group down... Help them as much as they want, but really you can only help someone to the extent that they want to be helped (which imo provides a fundamental implication for an individuals rights within a "collective").
Don't know if that made much sense to you
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3852226 - 03/01/05 01:24 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Individual rights are there to protect the individual from the collective. If the collective will of the majority is that an innocent man should be robbed of all his possessions and murdered, that man's individual rights supercede that collective decision.
--------------------
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Silversoul]
#3852253 - 03/01/05 01:30 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: Individual rights are there to protect the individual from the collective. If the collective will of the majority is that an innocent man should be robbed of all his possessions and murdered, that man's individual rights supercede that collective decision.
To a degree I agree with you. But, you also have to take into account that the entity is greater then the sum of the parts. In a way sure, an individual is important, but only to the degree that they are beneficial to not only themselves, but to others. Think in terms of the survival of a species, an individual isn't much to any degree surviving on it's own, and further can't effect much, whereas a group, can and will effect more. Dunno, maybe I'm thinking in regards to potential of the whole, rather then the one.
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
Quote:
IMO, an individuals rights are important to the extent that they don't interfere with the collective.
What's the collective? I think collective rights should never impede on individual rights, is this what you are saying?
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3852308 - 03/01/05 01:42 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
I believe in collective property rights when it comes to land, water, and air. No one person can own the air, and I believe the same should hold true for land and water(I've explained before how Georgism deals with land as common property). Other than that, I would say that all else belongs to the individual.
--------------------
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Innvertigo]
#3852351 - 03/01/05 01:55 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Innvertigo said:
Quote:
IMO, an individuals rights are important to the extent that they don't interfere with the collective.
What's the collective? I think collective rights should never impede on individual rights, is this what you are saying?
Not at all, a person's rights, individual rights should imo be based upon the individuals merit, first and foremost which would essentially allow them freedoms on the basis of their ability to demonstrate that they deserve them, e.g. you can't drive without a drivers licens, in order to possess one you need to know the rules of the road (how to function in that particular environment). If an individual can't demonstrate that they are able to operate within a particular environment and are thusly impacting the collective whole as a result, they should have their drivers license removed as they are a direct threat to he collective group. Yes, a bit abstract, but applicable to our situation.
Prove yourself capable in an environment, and you're able to be allotted that freedom, for instance some people can conduct themselves under high degrees of stress whereas others are incapable of doing so, and thusly shouldn't be granted the right to perform in the high stress "arena" in question. Which could include particular articles of the law including providing the freedom to consume various illicit substances provided the individual is fully aware of the impact it in question has on their health. But if they are capable of performing under such conditions, I see no problem present.
To denote that one shouldn't be allowed to consume such substances or other various things within the law (think fundamental restrictions, e.g. no killing, murdering, raping, stealing, are of course to be banned under such a designated system) without taking into account an individuals merit is foolish. To make such an action implies a direct ownership of an individuals body, which isn't nor shall it ever imo be imposed by any form of law. The law is to protect people who engage in the social contract, not to own their souls and tell them what's good for them or how to conduct themselves.
Think Celtic: "And Ye Harm none, do what ye will".
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
--------------------
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Silversoul]
#3852381 - 03/01/05 02:04 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
As should the ability to be able to conduct one's self in a manner that they are capable of doing. It should be a Privelage provided you are capable of "driving" so to speak. This is applicable to the extent that you don't harm other "drivers".
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3852459 - 03/01/05 02:20 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: So who is this creator and how does it bestow these rights? How can you prove to me these rights have actually been bestowed in reality and the whole thing is not just a concept that only exists in the minds of men?
Edit: added 'not'
And thus we reach the philosophical debate of where rights come from. Are you born with "Certain inalienable rights" or are they something that is made up and do not exist?
In my belief, there are inalienable natural rights. These natural human rights are based entirely upon the self evident truth that the individual owns oneself, that the individual is sovereign by reason of the free will and has the right to choose to do anything one wishes that doesn't deny other individuals the equal right to the same freedom. The recognition of the natural rights that come with being human, the rights of men, women and children proceed from individual sovereignty, they are not group rights, they are the rights of individuals to live according to their natural condition, as one chooses to define it without imposing that definition on others or denying others the right to define personal rights for themselves.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3852609 - 03/01/05 02:43 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said:
Quote:
GazzBut said: So who is this creator and how does it bestow these rights? How can you prove to me these rights have actually been bestowed in reality and the whole thing is not just a concept that only exists in the minds of men?
Edit: added 'not'
And thus we reach the philosophical debate of where rights come from. Are you born with "Certain inalienable rights" or are they something that is made up and do not exist?
In my belief, there are inalienable natural rights. These natural human rights are based entirely upon the self evident truth that the individual owns oneself, that the individual is sovereign by reason of the free will and has the right to choose to do anything one wishes that doesn't deny other individuals the equal right to the same freedom. The recognition of the natural rights that come with being human, the rights of men, women and children proceed from individual sovereignty, they are not group rights, they are the rights of individuals to live according to their natural condition, as one chooses to define it without imposing that definition on others or denying others the right to define personal rights for themselves.
Well, not be crass or anything, but that really is just a regurgatation imo. The state of affairs persay in context of that isn't, nor will it ever be fully applicable, unless you are willing to engage in some form of casual anarchy. Society needs constraints whether you realize it or not.
As far as rights go, their is most certainly not a degree of rights that are applicable, nor will they ever be fully applicable under any condition regarding the security and the state of affairs of a country. Like it or not, their will always be various denominations and access to certain rights that only some can and shall possess. The only issue at hand ultimately imo is to what degree and how do we assign them?
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3852837 - 03/01/05 03:21 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Now that I think about it, it's not even an issue of one's rights superceding the other. Neither the individual nor the collective has the right to steal, murder, or enslave. They each have certain property rights, and neither has the right to violate the rights of the other.
--------------------
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said: As far as rights go, their is most certainly not a degree of rights that are applicable, nor will they ever be fully applicable under any condition regarding the security and the state of affairs of a country. Like it or not, their will always be various denominations and access to certain rights that only some can and shall possess. The only issue at hand ultimately imo is to what degree and how do we assign them?
But there are always rights that can not be removed. Rights that no matter what society thinks or does, will remain natural rights.
Your right to your religious beliefs. No matter what the law says, no matter what society believes or attempts to enforce, you will have your religious beliefs. You may follow the laws and pray to the god that society tells you to, but your belief in a god or gods are yours and not dictated by society or community.
Your right to free speech is yours and yours alone. Laws may be passed that restrict that right but you can still say anything you want. It is your choice to follow societies rules and restrict your speech or to be true to your self and speak out about injustice.
You have a right to pursue happiness. Sure the government may restrict that right but it is yours and you decide if you want to follow those laws. Just to make a point, the government and society at large say that you can pursue happiness so long as the path to happiness does not involve mushrooms, marijuana, DMT, etc. Do you follow those laws? If not then you are exercising your right to pursue happiness even though the government and society say you can't.
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: GazzBut]
#3853127 - 03/01/05 04:16 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
When discussing rights, it would be nice if we could come to an general agreement upon what is meant by a right in the context of a particular discussion. It may help to look at rights under two broad categories. There are political rights and there are natural rights. A political right is just about any protection or privilege that a government says it is. Political rights may or may not include natural rights. Natural rights may or may not be political rights. Since political rights are basically whatever the whims of fashion of those exercising political power say they are, it is possible for individual rights to trump group rights or vise-versa or for neither to hold sway over the other.
As for natural rights, we shouldn't get hung up on the nomenclature of 'natural' when talking about them, it's a label... like driveway or parkway. Not all names should be taken as a literal indication of the meaning of a term. Not all people who talk about natural rights subscribe to the theory exactly as espoused by Locke stating that rights come from God. There are atheists and agnostics who understand the idea of natural rights and like to see them respected. My understanding of natural rights is that they IDENTIFY a state of human interaction, where one is free to do with himself as he sees fit as long as he does not interfere with another doing with himself as he sees fit. Following this line of reasoning, we can recognize that neither group rights nor individual rights hold a superior position to the other as everyone in a group has the same rights as any other individual. We can also identify natural rights and distinguish them from other 'rights' (politically created) which involve taking from one person to provide (or forcing them to provide) the 'right' to another person. For instance, I have a natural right to seek and obtain any medical care that I need or desire, but it is not a natural right to force someone else to provide for my medical care.
For Paradigm: when you understand the concept of natural rights, you can see that driving is indeed a right in the context of natural rights, not a privilege. Indeed, no license is required (at least in California - the last time I checked) to drive on private property. However, your right to drive does not extend to requiring me to let you drive on my property. Since the 'public roadways' are owned by governments, to drive on them is a privilege granted by the owner.
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
Edited by Prosgeopax (03/01/05 04:54 PM)
|
4bin
Sofa Gazer
Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 122
Loc: 46 & 2
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Prosgeopax]
#3853341 - 03/01/05 04:51 PM (19 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
individual/collective rights is a matter of hermeneutics.
You cannot cannot begin to determine the rights of the individual without looking at how those rights impact the collective. Likewise, you cannot determine the rights of the collective until you can appreciate how those rights will impact the individual.
To understand the subject, you need to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time. Only then will the issue begin to make sense. If any of you has studied eastern philosophy, try treating the question as a Sutra.
-------------------- I grow legal edibles only. Fresh Shiitake are the bee's knees - like, straight from the fridge.
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: 4bin]
#3854381 - 03/01/05 08:55 PM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
4bin said: individual/collective rights is a matter of hermeneutics.
I already gave a rather concise explanation.
Quote:
You cannot cannot begin to determine the rights of the individual without looking at how those rights impact the collective.
Yes you can, see previous post.
Quote:
Likewise, you cannot determine the rights of the collective until you can appreciate how those rights will impact the individual.
Why not? Collective political rights (favoritism towards people who fall into a particular classification or giving power to the state to benefit some at the expense of others) have been created numerous times by governments with little or no regard to how these types of rights impact the individual.
Quote:
To understand the subject, you need to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time.
A specious claim that does little to add clarity to the subject.
Quote:
If any of you has studied eastern philosophy...
Puhhhhlease... how about some straight talk? The 'baffle them with bullshit' tract of deferring to hermeneutics, Sutras and muddying the discussion with nonsense about 'two contradictory thoughts' is the stuff of pointy headed academics who use labyrinths of arcane verbiage to confuse in the hopes of impressing. If it's that difficult for you, try reading some western political philosophy, it will take you much further towards an understanding of such things.
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3855549 - 03/02/05 01:45 AM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said:
Quote:
Psychoactive1984 said: As far as rights go, their is most certainly not a degree of rights that are applicable, nor will they ever be fully applicable under any condition regarding the security and the state of affairs of a country. Like it or not, their will always be various denominations and access to certain rights that only some can and shall possess. The only issue at hand ultimately imo is to what degree and how do we assign them?
But there are always rights that can not be removed. Rights that no matter what society thinks or does, will remain natural rights.
Your right to your religious beliefs. No matter what the law says, no matter what society believes or attempts to enforce, you will have your religious beliefs. You may follow the laws and pray to the god that society tells you to, but your belief in a god or gods are yours and not dictated by society or community.
Your right to free speech is yours and yours alone. Laws may be passed that restrict that right but you can still say anything you want. It is your choice to follow societies rules and restrict your speech or to be true to your self and speak out about injustice.
You have a right to pursue happiness. Sure the government may restrict that right but it is yours and you decide if you want to follow those laws. Just to make a point, the government and society at large say that you can pursue happiness so long as the path to happiness does not involve mushrooms, marijuana, DMT, etc. Do you follow those laws? If not then you are exercising your right to pursue happiness even though the government and society say you can't.
Religious Belief: To the degree that it isn't harmful, and/or malicious in any context (Charles Manson anyone)? In other words those that are lead by the lunatic fringe of society, or those religions that advocate the decimation of certain classes/people/sects what have you, should not be tolerated, regardless of their presentation of a religion. Destructive beliefs create destructive societies, especially when implemented. Fascism, Nazism, and a host of others [Bad examples, but this really is a large generalization] (not necessarily religions themselves, but applicable nonetheless due to the fact that they have similar established tenants, which are destructive to society... say whatever the hell you wish, they should not be tolerated as they are openly inciting hatred regardless of any form of action associated with them).
Free Speech:
Right to pursue happiness:
To the degree that it doesn't cause harm. Well anyone can taut the fact that all men are/were created equal but this is ultimately not the case; in no way am I suggesting that they don't deserve the respect and consideration that is indeed alotted to humans, but ultimately, we are not all created equal. Example: By saying this, and applying this commonly used regurgatation your essentially suggesting that one who is mentally deficient should be alotted the right to drive a car, which by all standards is absolutly absurd is it not? To a degree we have inalienable rights, but also note that individual merit and accounting for an individuals behavior under such paramaters that are in fact under question should be tested/quantified first; then and only then should we suggest which rights they are alotted.
Basic freedoms should be applicable to all, regardless of intelect, performance, capability etc.. But would you suggest that any ol' person should be capable of working at a nuclear power plant running the reactor without the knowledge and mechanics of the equipment? Foolhardy to suggest imo, moral of the story is: Don't allow those the rights/privelages to operate something they don't know how to... special equipment so to speak is a right and not a privelage e.g. ethneogens among various others (Used that as an example due to this being the shroomery and all ).
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
|
It has become painfully obvious that you do not understand what a right is. Your response to my freedom of religious belief made little to no sense. There beliefs exist, some people hold them. They have that right. Whether these views are destructive to your view of society is irrelevant.
Your statement of " Well anyone can taut the fact that all men are/were created equal but this is ultimately not the case; in no way am I suggesting that they don't deserve the respect and consideration that is indeed allotted to humans, but ultimately, we are not all created equal." Only leads me to the conclusion that you believe that some people are above others giving them the ability to decided what is best for those who are of lesser stature.
This is again shown with your statement of "To a degree we have inalienable rights, but also note that individual merit and accounting for an individuals behavior under such parameters that are in fact under question should be tested/quantified first; then and only then should we suggest which rights they are allotted. " So I ask you a simple question, In your world who decides?
Your whole bit about working at a nuclear reactor is moot! It is a job, you do not have a right to a job! More power to you, if you can get one but, there is no right to have a job!
Edited by Cyber (03/02/05 06:49 AM)
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3856252 - 03/02/05 08:24 AM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A right is endowed by your creator, The right to free speech, the right to defend your self, the right to choose the religion that you believe is correct. A privilege is bestowed by the government and restricted to small select groups of people.
What, my Mum and Dad bestowed these rights on me?
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: psilomonkey]
#3856275 - 03/02/05 08:29 AM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Governments grant themselves and their agents the privilege of restricting your excerise of rights, by talking your life if necessary. They would say that they have the right to, because they represent the majority.
Tyranny of the majority in effect
- or at least tyranny of the government, that after being elected by a majority decides it will please itself without honouring its commitment to the voters as laid out in its manifesto.
- It's usually a pretty slim majority that gets these governments in in the first place. And usually this so called majority is not a majority in terms of the population as a whole.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3857065 - 03/02/05 11:50 AM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said: It has become painfully obvious that you do not understand what a right is. Your response to my freedom of religious belief made little to no sense. There beliefs exist, some people hold them. They have that right. Whether these views are destructive to your view of society is irrelevant.
Your statement of " Well anyone can taut the fact that all men are/were created equal but this is ultimately not the case; in no way am I suggesting that they don't deserve the respect and consideration that is indeed allotted to humans, but ultimately, we are not all created equal." Only leads me to the conclusion that you believe that some people are above others giving them the ability to decided what is best for those who are of lesser stature.
This is again shown with your statement of "To a degree we have inalienable rights, but also note that individual merit and accounting for an individuals behavior under such parameters that are in fact under question should be tested/quantified first; then and only then should we suggest which rights they are allotted. " So I ask you a simple question, In your world who decides?
Your whole bit about working at a nuclear reactor is moot! It is a job, you do not have a right to a job! More power to you, if you can get one but, there is no right to have a job!
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=right
Well, review the definition yourself.
Ermmm, right... Anyhow, my point is that rights should be consistant and given to the extent that one can have them. Sorry if that confused you, thought I made it clear, many a time over. Like it or not, some people are above others, sorry, we can stick to old regurgatations that aren't applicable to the real world as much as you want, but it isn't the reality of the world, more of an ideal.
As for your view of religion, you're more then entitled to it, but really, it isn't working in society at large today, and only intensifies group conflict... If you don't mind group warfare, and petty bickering, then that's ok. Sorry, doesn't make sense to willingly allow a catalyst into a society to that degree only to know that it ultimately will prove to be a detriment. E.G. do you go online and seek out a virus/worm/trojan willingly knowing that it will undoubtedly cause harm to your PC? Or do you attempt to prevent it to the degree possible?
As far as who decides what rights are allotted, it isn't any one person, but more so those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be alotted to an individual on the basis of their characteristics.... one size doesn't fit all. Like it or not, not everyone can think for themselves. Sorry, not trying to be an ass or anything, but how daft do you have to be... It is clear that not everyone is created equal. Like it or not, someone with congenital birth defects, and/or lifelong ailments most certainly wasn't created equally, doesn't mean that they should be denied basic freedoms, but to the degree that they are capable of operating under their established condition. Clear enough?
Wow, as for the last statement... Well, sure they aren't given the right to have a job, but under you're carefree do as you please anachrism, life will ultimately be filled with strife. Those that do have jobs aren't going to fare well especially since you believe that everyone is created equal i.e. they will not only be a danger to themselves, but additionally all those they work with, (Note: as for the jobs, don't take it literally, is more for a demonstration of what i believe). Face the facts, not everyone is created equal; I'm merely suggesting that an individual's rights should be consistant with their ability to utilize them, such that don't cause harm to others... If you want to do drugs, have at it, your body, I'm implying in no way that the government has any ownership of your personal conduct to the degree that it doesn't affect another. However, If you're doing drugs, and are not only a harm to yourself, but to others as well.. needless to say, you shouldn't be allowed the right to utilze them (abstract examples, don't read to deep... hope you caught the gist of what I'm saying). Idealism is only applicable to a certain degree in the real world, like it or not. Why not have a better form of governance concerning rights with a basis that lies on rational concepts instead of one based on flawed syllogisms?
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/02/05 01:30 PM)
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
|
Psychoactive1984,
I understand what you are saying but there are so many flaws in it I almost do not know where to start.
You are a socialist (Not stated to be mean just a statement of your ideals)
To believe that a group of people can decided what rights you should have has many problems. So many that I am just going to use one example. You said "As far as who decides what rights are allotted, it isn't any one person, but more so those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted to an individual on the basis of their characteristics."
So are you saying that the founding Fathers were right in only giving blacks a status of 1/3 of a person? Because "those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted to an individual on the basis of their characteristics." made that decision.
We treated them as second class citizens for 100's of years because of "those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted"
It is a dangerous road you travel my friend. A road that leads to a ruling class and a sub class with the ruling class deciding what is right and wrong.
|
4bin
Sofa Gazer
Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 122
Loc: 46 & 2
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Prosgeopax]
#3857823 - 03/02/05 03:05 PM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
I hate even responding to this, except that you were just so wrong in nearly everything you wrote. It seems like a borderline flame, as your response had no substance, only anger and bias. You didn't even bother to understand most of the issues that you found fault with (hermeneutics and sutras come to mind), and you dismissed the idea of holding contradictory thoughts in mind without even realizing that it is the only way to come to an informed position. I didn't even know that anyone could give argument with that...
Yes, I am an academic. But I guess all that "book learnin'" is beneath you.
...and I could do a line by line response to your various misunderstandings and "specious" word choices in a slightly more balanced manner than you did mine, but it wouldn't do any good.
"Common people talk about people. Average people talk about events. The intelligent discuss ideas." --*name that quote
Edited by 4bin (03/02/05 03:17 PM)
|
4bin
Sofa Gazer
Registered: 02/23/05
Posts: 122
Loc: 46 & 2
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3857847 - 03/02/05 03:10 PM (19 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said: It is a dangerous road you travel my friend. A road that leads to a ruling class and a sub class with the ruling class deciding what is right and wrong.
Hard to argue with you, except that I'm a little confused how this works out to a socialist position? I only ask to be enlightened.
-------------------- I grow legal edibles only. Fresh Shiitake are the bee's knees - like, straight from the fridge.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Individual Vs Collective Rights [Re: Cyber]
#3859752 - 03/02/05 08:52 PM (19 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said: Psychoactive1984,
I understand what you are saying but there are so many flaws in it I almost do not know where to start.
You are a socialist (Not stated to be mean just a statement of your ideals)
To believe that a group of people can decided what rights you should have has many problems. So many that I am just going to use one example. You said "As far as who decides what rights are allotted, it isn't any one person, but more so those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted to an individual on the basis of their characteristics."
So are you saying that the founding Fathers were right in only giving blacks a status of 1/3 of a person? Because "those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted to an individual on the basis of their characteristics." made that decision.
We treated them as second class citizens for 100's of years because of "those that can think ahead and denote what rights should and shouldn't be allotted"
It is a dangerous road you travel my friend. A road that leads to a ruling class and a sub class with the ruling class deciding what is right and wrong.
Ermmm, misconstrue all you wish, I said nothing to that effect. All basic freedoms of equality should be granted. I was suggesting "special rights" that are granted according to an individual's ability to utilize them ... e.g. driving in our current systems basis should be established on the ability of the persons ability to be afforded the right. I'm not saying that just because someone is born differently in terms of skill, physical strength or anything to that denomination they should be treated differently. Merely that people should be afforded "special rights/licensing" on the basis of their ability not to inflict harm to others..
Shit, go ahead harm yourself to whatever degree is necessary, I don't care, wasn't what I was getting across, only that restraints that require additional capacities of intellect/coordination and the like be given on the basis of merit, and not on assignment because your a Human. Like it or not, all people aren't born with the knowledge of how to drive (I know well played out example, easiest to relate to in our case), such that you wouldn't give someone the "right" to drive without first judging that they are indeed aware of how to drive. Not second class, special class (in the good sense).
Beyond that, you must realize that as long as we are talking about flawed statements an individuals rights are determined by a select group of people, and will essentially always be. Their will always be some degree of stratification of power within any system of governance, the only issue is not about fighting it, but to what degree it is exercised, and whether or not the form is serving the interest it was meant to: to benefit society at large, and not to subdue an individuals freedoms to the extent that they exercise self control.
Edit: Only a socialist concerning social rights, not actually in regards to financial considerations among others. Take the parts that work for affording rights and constructing a system, toss out the unnecessary elements that are no longer functioning. PM me Cyber if you want me to break it down line by line. Sorry, I thought I was being clear.
-------------------- "Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi "We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin "Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers." -It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall. -Substance over Style. -Common sense is uncommon.
Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/03/05 10:19 PM)
|
|