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.
The importance of individual rights is undeniable, yet to the extent that we have a country-nation-society-state, that is intrinsically collectivist. The military, for example, is responsible for the defense of the whole population. The police, fire departments, and so on are responsible to the public. Those are collectivist institutions. There are a few very consistent anarcho-capitalists who do not believe in any of those things, but not too many.
For the rest of us, the question is where to draw the line between the individual and the collective, and not that there needs to be some line drawn. It's not then sinister to wonder why, if we have a collective defense service, we may not also have a collective health service, for instance.
The rights of individuals can conflict with each other. The right of a black man to free economic transactions interferes with another man's right to not sell homes to black people.
I don't think there's a conflict there. The man selling homes has a right to not sell them to someone if he doesn't want to...so I agree there. The black man has a right to free economic transactions...I agree, but all that means is that he is free to negotiate a trade with whoever he wants. He doesn't have the right to demand that the other person trades with him. So in this case, the black man negotiates with the other man and the other man says no, and that's ok. (Disclaimer: I wouldn't be surprised if someone claimed I was racist based on that last sentence, so I have to state the obvious that I don't support discrimination based on race.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Oh yay! Surrender yourself to bumper sticker quotes, thats the perfect way to make decisions.
Nope, just truth.
I'm sure you are free to print it on bumper stickers though to spread the message.
There are two different viewpoints of those who favor the collectivist mindset.
If they are a leader, or is someone who seeks control - the collectivist mindset can be used to keep people down while the leader(s) is lifted up. The reason they want to keep people down is because the more regular middle class people have, the more independent they are, and the more power they have to boot out the leaders if they are not happy. Leaders who want unchecked power have to keep people poor where they do not have the resources to remove those leaders. Leaders cater to the least common denominator in the culture in the call for equal outcomes.
For regular people, the collectivist mindset is about perceived fairness, and the desire for people not to live in poverty. Nothing wrong with those desires - however the problem becomes... how did they get poor... what is the remedy to get them what we believe they need. That is where the main issue comes into play. Is it the individual's responsibility to lift himself up, or should society just cover for that person and pay the freight?
You are right in seeing the wishy washy arguments - on one issue being individualists, and on others collectivists. However, there are other agendas in play for those who are wishy washy.
For me - I am mainly about the individual pulling his fair share in society. If someone needs help - I am all for voluntary collectivism where people choose on their own free will to help others without governmental coercion. That is the Christian way to operate.
I am not for collectivism by legislation or taxation. That's just theft.
There are many debates here about various subjects, but the common denominator is often individualism vs. collectivism. I'm mostly starting this because I have a hard time following the collectivist mindset. Many say that civil liberties/human rights are important, but then want to sacrifice the rights of the individual for the "greater good" of society. For example, someone might say that everyone equally deserves the right to free speech, the right to their own body (especially in women's issues), etc. and then support something like wealth redistribution, which violates the rights of whoever they decide to take the money from.
Wouldn't it make sense that individual people have natural rights that should never be taken away, even if the outcome of violating those rights seems good?
There are ways to have both Individual Rights and to have Collectivism that looks out for the Common Good, that is why the founders set up this Nation as it was. As for some of the things you mentioned, free speech is protected but within bounds, meaning one can say whatever they want so long as it does not endanger others or the Nation itself, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater resulting in a panic and people being harmed or killed or giving speeches that call for the violent overthrow of the government which could lead to Millions being killed. A woman has the right to making her own health choices including abortion up until the fetus is developed enough to be considered to be a baby then the baby has it's own rights, at least the right to life. Wealth distribution is a code name for taxes and taxes are legal, we as the people do not get to directly control where those tax revenues are spent, that is what we have Representatives for, don't like their actions work and vote to get them out and replaced by people that will do as you wish, if you cannot then you are stuck with it for now, that is simply how the system works, and no your rights are not violated because there is no right to not pay taxes.
It comes down to logical and rational application of Individual Rights vrs the Common good for the People, and once again it comes down to the People deciding on who will be their voice in the government, be it at the Local, State or Federal levels, we are a Republic and as such a form of Democracy and that is how it works, do not like it find a place that practices a form of government you are more comfortable with, good luck with that, I have been around the world and have yet to see anything better than what the USA enjoys.
There are two different viewpoints of those who favor the collectivist mindset.
If they are a leader, or is someone who seeks control - the collectivist mindset can be used to keep people down while the leader(s) is lifted up. The reason they want to keep people down is because the more regular middle class people have, the more independent they are, and the more power they have to boot out the leaders if they are not happy. Leaders who want unchecked power have to keep people poor where they do not have the resources to remove those leaders. Leaders cater to the least common denominator in the culture in the call for equal outcomes.
For regular people, the collectivist mindset is about perceived fairness, and the desire for people not to live in poverty. Nothing wrong with those desires - however the problem becomes... how did they get poor... what is the remedy to get them what we believe they need. That is where the main issue comes into play. Is it the individual's responsibility to lift himself up, or should society just cover for that person and pay the freight?
You are right in seeing the wishy washy arguments - on one issue being individualists, and on others collectivists. However, there are other agendas in play for those who are wishy washy.
For me - I am mainly about the individual pulling his fair share in society. If someone needs help - I am all for voluntary collectivism where people choose on their own free will to help others without governmental coercion. That is the Christian way to operate.
I am not for collectivism by legislation or taxation. That's just theft.
Sounds great and would work if we were all the Good Christians we should be, unfortunately this has been tried in our past history and the unfortunate fact is we are not up to the task and since that is the case the government had to step in to ensure the well being of it's citizens. Maybe you can change everyone's hearts and programs that take over from where the private assistance leaves off will not be needed. Until then we do need some forms of assistance through the government, but I do acknowledge the fact that they need to be revisited and reformed so that those programs are more efficient and abusers are removed, along methods put in place to assist those without skills to actually make their own way in our society, the teach them to fish while feeding them idea, presented by a very smart man in the past.
Again, there are no natural rights. There are no inherent rights, no God-given rights, no unalienable rights, no imprescriptible rights, no extra-legal rights. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. There are only legal rights; rights provided and protected by law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.
Sounds great and would work if we were all the Good Christians we should be, unfortunately this has been tried in our past history and the unfortunate fact is we are not up to the task and since that is the case the government had to step in to ensure the well being of it's citizens. Maybe you can change everyone's hearts and programs that take over from where the private assistance leaves off will not be needed. Until then we do need some forms of assistance through the government, but I do acknowledge the fact that they need to be revisited and reformed so that those programs are more efficient and abusers are removed, along methods put in place to assist those without skills to actually make their own way in our society, the teach them to fish while feeding them idea, presented by a very smart man in the past.
What do you mean we are not up to the task? Tasks have goals, or a point where the task is complete. What is the task?
That's not their job. Or I should say that should not be their job. I suppose if people vote in leaders to do that - then I guess it becomes their job.
And actually on a limited scale, I would be OK with that. Right now, we are way out of balance. There are people whose current mission is to find out ways for others to pay for their lives.
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.
