CDZ Individual Rights vs. Society

Bonzi

Diamond Member
May 17, 2015
43,020
16,011
2,290
What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?
 
What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?
Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.
 
It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.
 
Is this a thread meant to be about pure liberalism vs. pure socialism?
 
What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?
Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong did what they considered best for the whole. Do you want to live under a dictatorship that decides what is moral or acceptable? Being a particular religion may not be acceptable. If you have a gay child, will you willingly hand it over to a firing squad? If you are worked as a slave and complain, will you protest being executed? You cannot say that these are extreme measures and would not happen here, but they would. Any dictatorship, and allowing any government to deny anyone rights will evolve into a dictatorship, will become catastrophic to the country. There are most likely things you do that will be considered shameful... will you march to the hangman's tree? I doubt it.

I think there is something everyone does, without exception, that others would find unacceptable.
But there is a happy medium between 100% permissiveness and 100% control/dictatorship.

Bottom line question is, as a county, which should take precedence....? The individual or the group
(in general, I understand there will be circumstances and exceptions).

Secondary question, is there a point where denying individuals for greater good is "ok"?
 
How is it that some think that by extending equal rights to all citizens means their individual rights will be eroded?

Give an example? Do you mean like the "Wedding Cake" issue?
e.g. Homosexual couple wants a wedding cake, baker refuses based on religious beliefs.
So, either homosexual couple is "discriminated against" OR baker has to go against their religious beliefs in order to "obey the law" (or, perhaps, can't even start their own business because of the conflict). Solution?
 
How is it that some think that by extending equal rights to all citizens means their individual rights will be eroded?

Give an example? Do you mean like the "Wedding Cake" issue?
e.g. Homosexual couple wants a wedding cake, baker refuses based on religious beliefs.
So, either homosexual couple is "discriminated against" OR baker has to go against their religious beliefs in order to "obey the law" (or, perhaps, can't even start their own business because of the conflict). Solution?
Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians.
 
There will always be individual freedoms that will interfere with the freedoms of others or have negative costs and damage to the community and collective. That is the whole purpose of having laws. Post #3 was spot on correct.

It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.
 
What's more important? Individual Rights or what is best for the "whole" (Society)?
Does granting equality and individual rights necessarily IMPROVE society?

There was a time divorce was shameful.
Are we better as a society now that it is commonplace?
What about same-sex marriage?
What do you think will be the next "formerly frowned upon/shameful" activity/thing that will become legal and/or acceptable?
Will it stop at "same sex marriage"?

Individual enumerated rights can only be suppressed by an overwhelming compelling government interest.

Recently equality and individual rights have been on the opposite ends of the argument, not the same end.
 
Religious rights do not extend to the right to discriminate.

And any baker refusing service on 'religious' grounds is not really religious at all. They certainly aren't Christians. No Christian would use a beautiful, loving, forgiving faith to perpetuate hateful stereotypes and pile undue humiliation on individuals. They are not Christians, they are, in fact, bigots twisting a beautiful faith to serve an ugly purpose. Let's stop the charade. Stop calling them Christians

People that are dedicated to their faith base their lives on that faith, here and with their eyes on the afterlife.
Christian's worship God, who finds men laying with men an abomination.
A Christian's #1 purpose is to live a life glorifying to God.
Supporting something that is an abomination to God is not glorifying to him.
So, Christian's ARE discriminated against.
 
It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.

Do you think the balance is "off" in the US?
 
There will always be individual freedoms that will interfere with the freedoms of others or have negative costs and damage to the community and collective. That is the whole purpose of having laws. Post #3 was spot on correct.

It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.

There is no denying their SHOULD be balance
But IS there..... ?
When the rubber meets the road, and we must choose, all things being equal, what's our responsibility to be toward more times than not... ?
 
There will always be individual freedoms that will interfere with the freedoms of others or have negative costs and damage to the community and collective. That is the whole purpose of having laws. Post #3 was spot on correct.

It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.

I disagree. The balancing force limiting individual rights should be the individual rights of others. What's "best for society" is a dubious justification, enlisted by everyone with a desire to control others.
 
It's not a matter of one or the other. It's a balance. Politics is the process of finding the fulcrum of the moment.
Do you think the balance is "off" in the US?
Not really. Nothing's perfect, but we've achieved a livable balance of individual property rights vs. the health of society. We haven't seen a river burn lately thanks to the death of the notion that just because one owns a section of a waterway, you can dump anything you want into it. Most of the complaints are coming from those angered over losing their right to discriminate. I don't give a damn about them. They need to go live in the mountains.
 
...Most of the complaints are coming from those angered over losing their right to discriminate. I don't give a damn about them. They need to go live in the mountains.

I remember when patriots took pride in defending the rights of others, even those they disagreed with.
 
The balancing force limiting individual rights should be the individual rights of others. What's "best for society" is a dubious justification, enlisted by everyone with a desire to control others.
This is what disdain for what's "best for society" leads to.

Cuyahoga_River_Fire_Nov._3%2C_1952.jpg
 
I remember when patriots took pride in defending the rights of others, even those they disagreed with.
Sounds good in the abstract, but the devil is in the details. The more the population increases, the closer my nose comes to your fist.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top