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.
How in the world would violating rights benefit more people? That's what I'd like to know. What would be an example of that?
Everyday example - 3 guys mug a 4th guy and take his stuff for themselves.
Historical example - Stalin/Hitler/Mao having a plan for society, and certain people are killed or imprisoned for not going along with the plan, or for supposedly being the source of society's problems.
Modern example - The Green New Deal, which would forcefully limit people's prosperity and choice in the name of saving the planet. Wealth redistribution schemes, eminent domain, many things related to war, etc.
But personally, I'd agree that collectivism never benefits society in the long term, because it undermines the very principles of civilization itself - non-aggression and property rights.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,514,729 times
Reputation: 12187
In an affluent society option 2 can work but any scarcity of resources and the only option is collective needs trump individual rights. Otherwise you have mass suffering.
I had to give this some thought.
I decided that:
The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
My reasoning is that you wouldn't put an entire society in danger to save one person.
If one person had to die to save the lives of a thousand people, you would have to make that choice.
However, it's a really tough question.
I will give it some more thought and be interested to see others responses.
I had to give this some thought.
I decided that:
The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
My reasoning is that you wouldn't put an entire society in danger to save one person.
If one person had to die to save the lives of a thousand people, you would have to make that choice.
However, it's a really tough question.
I will give it some more thought and be interested to see others responses.
How in the world would violating rights benefit more people? That's what I'd like to know. What would be an example of that?
Using eminent domain to purchase private property, even if someone doesn’t want to sell it, to widen a road so fire trucks can get down it and potentially save the life and property of many other people.
Yes. Taxes are inherently putting the society over the individual. Anything funded through taxes would inherently be lost if we valued individual rights over society in every situation.
There are plenty of debates and discussions here, but I think many come down to two conflicting philosophies. I thought it would be interesting to see which option people pick, and why...
A) The rights of individual people matter less than the common good, or society as a whole.
B) The rights of individual people should be respected, even if violating them would benefit more people.
Which would you say is more in line with your views?
Those are our only choices? Why am I not surprised.
Where's the choice for:
C) The rights of individual people should be respected, except for critical cases such as foreign invasion, mass pollution harming large segments of the population, crimes etc. And those exceptions that infringe on people's rights must be defined by the people via laws. With strict, explicit limits on how much the rights of the individuals will be usurped, and punishments prescribed for anyone who goes beyond those strict limits.
You know, sort of the way the Constitution has been laid out for more than 200 years (except for the penalties on people who violate it, unfortunately)?
Those are our only choices? Why am I not surprised.
Where's the choice for:
C) The rights of individual people should be respected, except for critical cases such as foreign invasion, mass pollution harming large segments of the population, crimes etc. And those exceptions that infringe on people's rights must be defined by the people via laws. With strict, explicit limits on how much the rights of the individuals will be usurped, and punishments prescribed for anyone who goes beyond those strict limits.
You know, sort of the way the Constitution has been laid out for more than 200 years (except for the penalties on people who violate it, unfortunately)?
The content of your response is valid, but you could have given the OP the exact same answer minus the snippy tone.
I wish we could have one single thread on here where we speak to each other without the snark.
Sorry, I dont mean to pick on you particularly. I just think the OP posed a good and thoughtful question for a change.
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.
