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.
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?
No on both accounts.
This nation was once all about individuals. About 100 years ago, it got this great idea that individual freedom was a very bad thing, that could ruin those with wealth.
Whoever was responsible for that meme doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference between society and the state.
I agree with that...
Quote:
The difference between a fascist military state demanding absolute submission from its citizens and a liberal democracy enforcing democratically determined policies is ENORMOUS.
...but I disagree here. In both, individual rights can be sacrificed for whatever purpose is deemed ok by others. Actually, most fascist military states that we think of were formed in democratic republics. The difference between a dictator and a democracy is WHO is doing the oppressing.
One guy used to have "the right" to impose his will on everyone else (divine right of kings) and now the majority votes for politicians to impose their will on everyone else (divine right of politicians?). They cant even use the excuse that God gave them the right to rule anymore..people know that's BS. They don't have the right to violate anybody's human rights, but they convince people that its okay if done "democratically", like that somehow changes the fact that everyone has equal rights.
I saw a meme comparing Hillary Clinton to hitler because both have said things comparable to this ideal.
Depends on the specific question at hand. In some cases the individual should come first, in others society. It's always a balancing act, and there will always be people who think the balance should have gone the other way. I have a light preference for the individual, but it's not automatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellastar2345
Bonus question: should business's needs come before individual's needs?
This one's a bit easier - I think the advantage here should almost always go to the individual.
Society's needs are best fulfilled when individuals are allowed to pursue their own self interests with a minimum of regulation to ensure against fraud and harm to third parties not involved in a contract between two willing partners.
The butcher and baker do not care for you...and that is OK.
This "Greater Good" has cropped up many times in history -- there is always a group of Sheep and those who want to be the Sheep Dog. They play to the lowest common denominator to lead the Sheep. It never works out well.
Oh, I don't know. It certainly exemplifies our political system.
Depends on the specific question at hand. In some cases the individual should come first, in others society. It's always a balancing act, and there will always be people who think the balance should have gone the other way. I have a light preference for the individual, but it's not automatic.
This one's a bit easier - I think the advantage here should almost always go to the individual.
When you hear, "it's for the greater good", someones liberties are fixing to be taken.
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.
Sure justifiable homicide is the event where you are defending your right to life (or the life of another), against an attacker. Typical rights conflict scenario it errs on the side of the defender, the defender has no right to kill the attacker unless the attacker is indeed an imminent threat, and is likely to cause death or serious injury. If they are neither an imminent threat, nor likely to cause death or serious injury they have as much right to life as the would be defender. However justifiable homicide is an individual right, not a right that is ascribed to society, society gains benefit of this because to "kill" a society you would have to kill individuals either in part or entirely. This also demonstrates how individual rights extend into protecting "society", if you protect the individual, you protect your society.
All of the above is not a result of society, it's a result of law, the law says that if someone is trying to kill you, then there's no restriction on you trying to kill them right back, "society" may disagree with the outcome of any legal trial of a self defense case and has in many cases. The Law is not society.
Ok so if we agree that this is a right, and that the law does not prohibit homicide under certain circumstances. The what is your opinion of someone using lethal force to defend themselves from the government (local, state, or federal)? If you believe that someone has the right to defend themselves against the government attempting unlawfully to deny the right of life, then we agree. "Society" may also agree, and has many times where police officers have acted unlawfully and been shot in the line of duty by a defender who has successfully argued justifiable homicide. Again this shows that the government is not society either, as did government agree that the situation was justifiable homicide they would not bring a case against the defender.
Problem is you do not define what you mean by society, so it's difficult to discuss, since the law (and legal apparatus) is not society, so that's not government, judges, lawyers, courts, jurors, clerks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwahfromtheheart
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.
You don't need a license to drive. You need a license to drive on public roads. Anyone can drive anything they want as long as it's privately owned on private property with the owners permission. It has been determined (regardless of my personal perspective) that a certain minimum skill level to drive is required to use the public roads, that skill level varies according to state. You do not need a license to own a car either, nor is it ubiquitously necessary to register (states vary, but there is no federal requirement to register your car, only your car that uses public roads).
By trying new things and seeing if they work over time. That's how we have evolved as a civilization. When Rome fell, the world tried the feudal thing for a thousand years. We found a better way so we went to doing that.
Translation:
"The truth would be inconvenient, so I"m going to pretend the questions don't exist."
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.
