Individual Rights vs the Common Good (Iraq, lawyer, revolution, speech)
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.
what, if any, Individual Rights should be curtailed or even done away with for the Common Good?
We make many exceptions already, what would you like to see more or less of?
For example, some people say they should be able to do ANYTHING on their property. Most people would disagree. (not many want a skunk farm next door).
thoughts?
All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only to the extent provided by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old shibboleth that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the federal, state and municipal authority, witness the myriad laws, statutes, zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you, not to mention your property. (As I write this, the owner of an office highrise in San Diego is having to take off the top two floors of his building because they intrude on federal airspace.) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Glendale, Arizona) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush! So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne.
By the same token, the right to engage in business (and to earn a living) is subject to the State authority. One may not run a business without license; nor may one contract the labor of others without compliance with the State’s requirements for payment of employment taxes, compensation and casualty insurance, and all other provisions of the law - the violation of which may be sanctioned by civil and criminal penalties. The notion that one has an absolute right to the product of one’s labors (and that of others) is utter nonsense - worse, it is a prescription for anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of such rights. To hold otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights at the expense of everyone else.
All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only to the extent provided by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old shibboleth that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the federal, state and municipal authority, witness the myriad laws, statutes, zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you, not to mention your property. (As I write this, the owner of an office highrise in San Diego is having to take off the top two floors of his building because they intrude on federal airspace.) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Glendale, Arizona) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush! So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne.
By the same token, the right to engage in business (and to earn a living) is subject to the State authority. One may not run a business without license; nor may one contract the labor of others without compliance with the State’s requirements for payment of employment taxes, compensation and casualty insurance, and all other provisions of the law - the violation of which may be sanctioned by civil and criminal penalties. The notion that one has an absolute right to the product of one’s labors (and that of others) is utter nonsense - worse, it is a prescription for anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of such rights. To hold otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights at the expense of everyone else.
You have summed up the general issue with this so called FREE government. I find that generally you support the laws of a nation based on big government and forced nanny state. If I want an addition to my home and I own the land why do I need the governments approval. The income tax law as written in 1916 before then the product of ones labor was your indvidual right. A prescription for tryanny is the existence and idea that government owns your income and your means of personal responsiblity. For someone to work and be paid via the market and sale of services or goods how is this unethical or not liberty. To promote my right to free speech is not at the expense of everyone else. My right to carry and bare arms is not the expense of everyone else.
Also to quote you : "To hold otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights at the expense of everyone else"
This sounds very familar and often repeated by those who read Karl Marx.
The 10 planks of the communist manifesto.. Notice that we have most of them already or moving towards them.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
No. All of our rights are subject to law. That's what the framers of our Constitution provided. That's what we've lived with for more than two centuries. Get used to it.
No. All of our rights are subject to law. That's what the framers of our Constitution provided. That's what we've lived with for more than two centuries. Get used to it.
Interesting you didnt respond to the communist references and the simliar items that have been put into place in our Government. Are you saying Karl Marx was a supporter of the constitution then? Seems to me his communist manifesto is the opposite of that. Also why do we have a central bank that is not in the constitution? Why would the communists want a income and years later in 1916 have an income tax. Seems to me we ignored the framers and the reason for the American Revolution and got taken over by the socialist and communist ideas. I guess things like the free speech zones, and FCC, and gun control laws, the IRS and privacy laws are ignored and 4th branches of government were created I dont see them in the constitution. Or banning guns all together I dont see that as part of the framers ideas. Yet ignoring the framers words and ideas on the constitution seems to the norm for most statist. The solution around liberty is just to have congress make more and more laws and more regulation until someday you have no freedom left. I suppose in your next comment you will find a way to discredit the framers. I hate and I mean this truly those who destroy individual liberty to surrender to the chains of government "knows best". How to raise our children, what we eat, smoke and drink. The idea of liberty wins over tryanny. For to long we have lived under the idea we are truly free, when in fact our country has taken up the idea of empire, socialism and facism for the idealody that individuals are not smart enough to handle their own lives and personal incomes.
In the end here is Thomas Jefferson again to prove my point.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the
accidental opinion of the day; but a series of
oppressions, begun at a distinguished period,
and pursued unalterably through every change
of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a
deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves"
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because
law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the rights of the individual"
You don't support the Constitution at all. Your accusations that I am a Marxist and Communist belie you lack of knowledge of either of those ideologies. What it does show, however, is that you are an "anarchist" - that you do not support the Constitution.
what, if any, Individual Rights should be curtailed or even done away with for the Common Good?
We make many exceptions already, what would you like to see more or less of?
For example, some people say they should be able to do ANYTHING on their property. Most people would disagree. (not many want a skunk farm next door).
thoughts?
If you mean "ANYTHING" as in things that can be shown to reasonably and logically endanger someone else, then no. If you mean so people can push around their busy body little opinions as to what they claim is for the common good, Absolutely.
The problem is there are a lot of people who think very highly of their own claims of the common good when it really is just a personal demand to fit their wants.
Individual rights are in the best interest of the common good.
No. All of our rights are subject to law. That's what the framers of our Constitution provided. That's what we've lived with for more than two centuries. Get used to it.
Framers also said we should refresh liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Seems like when "law" becomes more important than the spirit to which they are written, then some people need to swing from the trees.
No, that's certainly not true. Who is to determine "the spirit" in which law is written? To say that dissent shoud be subject to mob rule is to deny the law; for it is not public opinion that governs, it is the law.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,695,446 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue
what, if any, Individual Rights should be curtailed or even done away with for the Common Good?
We make many exceptions already, what would you like to see more or less of?
For example, some people say they should be able to do ANYTHING on their property. Most people would disagree. (not many want a skunk farm next door).
thoughts?
Individual rights, except for those spelled out by the Constitution of the United States, should be cutailed when necessary for the good of the country, community or organization. Those that are spelled out by the Constitution should be protected.
As far as private property is concerned, if you look at it legally, you have a conveyance- a piece of paper- that gives you NOT the physical property itself but a "bundle of rights". One such right is the right to quiet enjoyment. Notice it says "quiet". You may not do anything you want. Your property is subjected to not disturbing your neighbours same right to "quiet enjoyment". That includes many things but being subjected to zoning laws and HOA rules seems to be among the most controversial of the laws.
But I am for both. You bought your property to use it in the condition it was in when you bought it. If you wish to change that condition, you should have the get the approval of the community around you. For example, if you bought the lot next to me with a 1 story house and you wish to tear it down and build a 4 story McMansion which will cast a day long shadow over my property, you are intruding upon my right to quiet enjoyment. And I will certainly object to your application. At that point the Cobb County Building and Permits Board will decide if your rights are greater than mine or mine are greater than yours. I bought my property expecting a certain number of hours of sunlight upon it. You bought yours expecting to build something much larger on it. How would you like it if you built your larger house and moved in and then I decided I wanted to raise chickens and roosters in my yard because you took away the sunlight and all my grass died?
If you wish to send your children to McEachern High school without vaccination, you are putting children in my kid's school at risk. There are rules in any orderly society for a reason and most- NOT ALL- but most of them have a good reason for being. Those that don't should be scrapped. But just like the red light down the street, they are there because you could not have a functioning society without order.
People often think that they have rights that do not exist. There is no "right" to a job. There is no "right to privacy". There is no "right to healthcare". There is no "right to drive".
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,695,446 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll
You have summed up the general issue with this so called FREE government. I find that generally you support the laws of a nation based on big government and forced nanny state. If I want an addition to my home and I own the land why do I need the governments approval. The income tax law as written in 1916 before then the product of ones labor was your indvidual right. A prescription for tryanny is the existence and idea that government owns your income and your means of personal responsiblity. For someone to work and be paid via the market and sale of services or goods how is this unethical or not liberty. To promote my right to free speech is not at the expense of everyone else. My right to carry and bare arms is not the expense of everyone else.
Also to quote you : "To hold otherwise can only be justified by promoting one’s own rights at the expense of everyone else"
This sounds very familar and often repeated by those who read Karl Marx.
The 10 planks of the communist manifesto.. Notice that we have most of them already or moving towards them.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
For many reasons:
1. If you build an addition to your house and it collapses and injures people, MY insurance has to pay for it and MY taxes have to pay for the EMTs to rescue them out of the rubble.
2. If you build an addition to your house and it burns, MY fire insurance rates will go up.
3. If you build the addition to your house and move your in-laws and their kids into it, MY school taxes go up.
4. If you build the addition to your house and I live next door and it ends up looking shabby and unprofessional, MY home is worth less.
I could go on but you get the picture.
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.