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.
But we aren't talking about individual groups, we're talking about society as a whole. Let's say, for an extreme example, we protected the right of the individual to use the water supply to store hazardous chemicals. How is that a more ideal situation than considering society first?
That's a collective choice that harms the individual, and individuals do not have an inherent natural right to harm others, but we do have an inherent natural right to not be harmed.
There is no natural individual right to behaviors/actions that harm others. That's the cornerstone idea behind why all governments, even in their most benevolent form, are tyranny to some degree because they exercise powers to initiate force against and do harm to individuals that no individual among them possesses naturally. If an individual initiates force against another individual by and takes money/property from them against their will, we call it theft. We have laws to punish it. If however, government does THE EXACT SAME THING, we call it taxation. Exact same action, but an entirely different outlook on the action depending on who is the perpetrator.
So an individual storing hazardous chemicals in another individual's water supply would be doing harm to and violating the natural rights of that(those) individual(s). If they were doing it "legally" it would because once again, the government sanction harm against some group individuals for whatever "societal need" they felt placated by storing chemicals in a water supply.
Typically, whenever a discussion about one of "society's needs" pops up, it is because to satisfy that "need" some group of individuals within said society must first be harmed, and the "society need" is the justification for harming the individual.
Name the societal need that simply must trump an individual right that DOES NOT HARM OR OBLIGATE OTHERS, and I'll show you tyranny that is being rationalized and justified.
Individual rights should never be violated for any reason or cause. If society's needs come before the individual, that means that someone has to arbitrarily decide which people's rights don't count as much as others.
Since you brought up Hitler...the Nazis decided that the Jews' and other undesirables' rights could be violated to make society a better place. That was the fundamental principle behind the holocaust. If people would have stood by the principle that everyone has rights just by being alive, that would have never happened. "Killing the genetically inferior will lead to better genetic makeup of society and improve humanity as a whole"...that makes complete sense of you don't care about the rights of certain individuals.
Let's take freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to give their opinion on something without punishment. If society's needs come before the individual, it could be justified to silence a person who has a "bad" opinion because it "harms society". I think most people understand why that is so dangerous.
I saw a meme comparing Hillary Clinton to hitler because both have said things comparable to this ideal.
Bonus question: should business's needs come before individual's needs?
If an individual doesn't want to be part of a society, they should move to a remote island. Society cannot function with individuals acting archaically for their sole self interest. Otherwise, the US would function no better than Somalia.
Business needs should never trump an individual's needs. This is spelled out in the corporate charter.
Quote:
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Making a moral comparison between Hilary and Hitler is asinine, and so is any discussion related to it, so have fun with this silly thread.
Hillary isnt Hitler, but they share the same flawed principle. Every tyrannical government justifies their evil by claiming its for the common good, and technically they could be right. Oppressing one group might benefit the rest...but that doesn't make it okay.
So I can guess that you believe that balance between the individual and society is ideal, and that we as individuals benefit when we think of society as a whole?
No I think that the only means to protect everyone, its to ensure that the individual has their rights protected (as best as possible) so that as a collective every individual benefits from those protections. When you ascribe some form of protection to collectives that is not present in the individual, then the individual can only become subject to the will of the collective (since they have fewer protections).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart
EDIT: after all, your right to live trumps my right to be happy because that's better for society.
No if you're looking at what's better for "society", your right to be happy may be better for society than my right to live. It does not hold that either is of benefit to society, one is better for society than the other or both are of benefit to society. Only society can determine that, and in it's determination your opinion is of no worth unless you happen to be a decision maker in that society, or can influence a decision maker, in the US that would mean you hold some political office, or are a lobbyist.
Depends on what we are comparing. However we are becoming a society where society and business comes before individuals and that is communism or Nazism.
No I think that the only means to protect everyone, its to ensure that the individual has their rights protected (as best as possible) so that as a collective every individual benefits from those protections. When you ascribe some form of protection to collectives that is not present in the individual, then the individual can only become subject to the will of the collective (since they have fewer protections).
No if you're looking at what's better for "society", your right to be happy may be better for society than my right to live. It does not hold that either is of benefit to society, one is better for society than the other or both are of benefit to society. Only society can determine that, and in it's determination your opinion is of no worth unless you happen to be a decision maker in that society, or can influence a decision maker, in the US that would mean you hold some political office, or are a lobbyist.
But rules govern these things (justifiable homicide), which are applicable to every person equally. I would think that the purpose of equally applied law to all is the very essence of thinking of society and not an individual.
Do you think it's right to ask that we be licensed to drive? I would think that the offense of driving without a license harms the individual, because it assumes that we are not inherently able to drive, that we must learn to do so and not doing so may harm society.
Whoever was responsible for that meme doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference between society and the state.
The difference between a fascist military state demanding absolute submission from its citizens and a liberal democracy enforcing democratically determined policies is ENORMOUS.
But really, most people in the so-called liberal democracies don't directly participate in any legislation and have little to no influence on policy. For the most part, wealthy nations serve the interests of a handful of privileged individuals while the rest of us stay out of the loop and cheer for whichever side we think we like best.
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.
