Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If an individual's rights can be trumped by the group's rights, then no one's rights are secure.
If an individual surrenders his rights to the group, then he may be their servant.
Groups do not have any rights that require the individuals rights because if their are no rights of the individuals then how can the group which is made up of individuals have any rights to begin with?
dont think of it as individualism vs collectivism. think of it as freedom vs government control of everything. the picture then becomes much clearer.
Applying emotion to a rational debate is childish.
How about you think of it as we have a roads, planes, electricity, radio, internet, TV, standard types of fuel, garbage collection, streetlights, an educated population, etc, all because collectively the people who live in the country decided that having these things is more important than the opinion of some tin foil hat wearing nutjob in a trailer park.
True freedom exists only in theory. Rational successful adults deal with it and move on.
The common good is sometimes relevant, but not for everything. Basically, no slavery would be a common good. Plenty of slave owners would face some economic struggle once slavery was outlawed, but that's a small price to pay for the betterment of society.
And that's the issue. At the time, that was a radical change. Just like wealth redistribution is now. Ultimately, we all know wealth redistribution has good intentions, the issue however is a little different from say slavery. While slavery had some benefiting at the cost of others, the current system doesn't exactly have that. There are examples of it, but the difference is obviously the slaves can't leave while technically employees who are clearly being paid less that is reasonable can leave. We have one side fighting to redistribute wealth to protect less wealthy individuals. While it's good in one end, the problem is that this has a negative impact on everyone who is a 'business owner.' This can mean hurting the ones who take advantage of their employees (I see absolutely nothing wrong with that; what goes around comes around), but it also can hurt the owners who don't. The ones who do pay good salaries and wages to their employees, even at the lowest level; who make an honest living (basically not corporate shareholders...). And that's bad no matter how you look at it.
And that's the core issue with the 'common good.' It's not usually common. Then again, we look back at slavery and view it's abolition as a huge step forward. Would we view wealth redistribution in the same way a hundred years from now? I have my doubts, but I guess that's the nature of the common good. I guess my advise is don't just be emotional, which is usually what the common good is targeting, but think logically and long term affects and how it affect EVERYONE. Be thorough and thoughtful, not impulsive.
The common good is sometimes relevant, but not for everything. Basically, no slavery would be a common good. Plenty of slave owners would face some economic struggle once slavery was outlawed, but that's a small price to pay for the betterment of society.
Slavery was abolished for economic reasons. There's necessarily an economic gain from mobility of labor. While the brits caught on to the at the time liberal idea pretty quickly, the people in the south at the time were too stupid to realize this. This was a long time ago though so clearly this isn't an insult to people who live there now.
Applying emotion to a rational debate is childish.
How about you think of it as we have a roads, planes, electricity, radio, internet, TV, standard types of fuel, garbage collection, streetlights, an educated population, etc, all because collectively the people who live in the country decided that having these things is more important than the opinion of some tin foil hat wearing nutjob in a trailer park.
True freedom exists only in theory. Rational successful adults deal with it and move on.
You are aware all of those services, devices, were and are provided by private individuals and companies..Right?
True freedom did exists for a very long time before you and your kind destroyed it..But don't worry we are restoring day by day.
For people supporting the common good in certain cases, I understand what you're saying but I see it this way...
Every single person alive has certain human rights that can never be violated.
Making an exception to the previous statement in any circumstance means that you do not actually believe it. If you want even one person's rights disregarded, you think that violating human rights is okay in that scenario.
Once you make an exception, it's no longer a principle and it will then be enforced arbitrarily, which is very dangerous for pretty obvious reasons.
This is the logic I use. If you disagree, show me your logic and I'll change my mind if you refute it. It's not important to me that I'm right...it's important that I'm promoting the rational and logical idea.
I've changed my mind, the common good is literally never relevant.
Individuals are the common good. If everyone has the same rights, the common good is in good standing. The only time a common good law or whatever you'd wish to call it should ever even be considered is when you're dealing with a group of people who don't have rights, like slaves and such.
Individuals are always better than the group. To quote George Carlin, "I love and treasure the individual; I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to."
"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."William Pitt, 'the Elder Pitt'
"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."William Pitt, 'the Elder Pitt'
Good grief, can you not have an idea of your own instead of quoting others. Why do you always do this. Let's hear your thoughts
Good grief, can you not have an idea of your own instead of quoting others. Why do you always do this. Let's hear your thoughts
"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Sir Isaac Newton
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
