CDZ Individual Rights vs. Society

[dblack]

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.

That's an evocative photo, but can you elaborate?

For what it's worth, I don't disdain what's best for society. I just recognize that it's a matter of opinion and personal preference. It's something we can, and should, work out through voluntary cooperation rather than coercive laws.

 

[dblack]

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.

That's very true. But we've reached a dangerous intersection where we seem to be choosing corporatism (group privilege) over liberalism (individual rights). We've largely lost the ability, as a nation, to distinguish between individual rights and state-granted empowerment.

 

[Camp]

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.

You have a right to travel over public roads just like everyone else. We all collectively have that right. Your right ceases when the collective decides you can only travel at predetermined speeds and only if you agree to restrict yourself to predetermined rules decided upon by the community / collective.
You have 2nd Amendment rights until the collective determines rules. At that point your rights may vanish. If you are judged at some point in your life to be mentally unbalanced or a person who has committed certain types of crimes you will lose your 2nd Amendment right because the collective has chosen that for you to continue to have that right is a danger or created a negative impact on the community / collective.

 

[Anathema]

It is my point of view that the place of Society is to set the limitations beyond which individual choice is no longer considered appropriate. To set the boundaries for appropriateness, if you will. Inside those boundaries people have the Right to make their own decisions, but Society reserves the Right to punish or banish those who can't "color between the lines" as they say.

 

[dblack]

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.

You have a right to travel over public roads just like everyone else. We all collectively have that right. Your right ceases when the collective decides you can only travel at predetermined speeds and only if you agree to restrict yourself to predetermined rules decided upon by the community / collective.
You have 2nd Amendment rights until the collective determines rules. At that point your rights may vanish. If you are judged at some point in your life to be mentally unbalanced or a person who has committed certain types of crimes you will lose your 2nd Amendment right because the collective has chosen that for you to continue to have that right is a danger or created a negative impact on the community / collective.

There's no need to smuggle in "the collective" here. Our rights aren't, and should never be thought of as, "collective". We use government to set limits on our rights when the exercise of those rights threatens the rights of others. Tacking on "or created a negative impact on the community / collective" is what I'm objecting to. It can be used to justify pretty much any evil (slavery for example) that the majority might decide is in their best interests.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

What a charade. An ugly vile post pretending to be even handed. It's so common with leftists it's a given.

 

[Bonzi]

...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.

Where is the line drawn between discrimination and freedom of choice?
I think it's a bit blurred.............

 

[Alystyr]

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.

You have a right to travel over public roads just like everyone else. We all collectively have that right. Your right ceases when the collective decides you can only travel at predetermined speeds and only if you agree to restrict yourself to predetermined rules decided upon by the community / collective.
You have 2nd Amendment rights until the collective determines rules. At that point your rights may vanish. If you are judged at some point in your life to be mentally unbalanced or a person who has committed certain types of crimes you will lose your 2nd Amendment right because the collective has chosen that for you to continue to have that right is a danger or created a negative impact on the community / collective.

There's no need to smuggle in "the collective" here. Our rights aren't, and should never be thought of as, "collective". We use government to set limits on our rights when the exercise of those rights threatens the rights of others. Tacking on "or created a negative impact on the community / collective" is what I'm objecting to. It can be used to justify pretty much any evil (slavery for example) that the majority might decide is in their best interests.

Exactly.
However, there are also those that attempt to gain some perceived advantage by purposefully misconstruing the original concept of a given right. This gives them the justification (in their mind) to bypass any limits that are put into place.

What is "best" for society as a whole is completely subjective, and can change depending on circumstances as well as the goals of whomever is in charge of the society.

 

[Bonzi]

Most of the complaints are coming from those angered over losing their right to discriminate

Really? I don't see it that way.
Let's use Same Sex Marriage as an example.
Our Church has to ensure that our bylaw and constitution state specifically our views on marriage, to protect (or try to) in the event a gay couple wants to get married in our building and we refuse them.
The church is not wanting to discriminate, rather, they want to do right by GOD and Biblical instruction.

 

[konradv]

That's an evocative photo, but can you elaborate? For what it's worth, I don't disdain what's best for society. I just recognize that it's a matter of opinion and personal preference. It's something we can, and should, work out through voluntary cooperation rather than coercive laws.

How can voluntary cooperation work when at any moment someone can claim individual rights and withdraw? Without some sort of coercion what's to prevent those who don't give a damn or whose actions don't effect them personally from doing whatever they want?

 

[konradv]

...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.

Where is the line drawn between discrimination and freedom of choice? I think it's a bit blurred.

It always will be. The only way around it is to live solo on a deserted island.

 

[Camp]

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.

You have a right to travel over public roads just like everyone else. We all collectively have that right. Your right ceases when the collective decides you can only travel at predetermined speeds and only if you agree to restrict yourself to predetermined rules decided upon by the community / collective.
You have 2nd Amendment rights until the collective determines rules. At that point your rights may vanish. If you are judged at some point in your life to be mentally unbalanced or a person who has committed certain types of crimes you will lose your 2nd Amendment right because the collective has chosen that for you to continue to have that right is a danger or created a negative impact on the community / collective.

There's no need to smuggle in "the collective" here. Our rights aren't, and should never be thought of as, "collective". We use government to set limits on our rights when the exercise of those rights threatens the rights of others. Tacking on "or created a negative impact on the community / collective" is what I'm objecting to. It can be used to justify pretty much any evil (slavery for example) that the majority might decide is in their best interests.

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people".

 

[dblack]

However, there are also those that attempt to gain some perceived advantage by purposefully misconstruing the original concept of a given right. This gives them the justification (in their mind) to bypass any limits that are put into place.

Agreed. And that's why it's so important to maintain clarity on what rights are, and what they're not.

 

[Alystyr]

As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored.

Yeah.
The term "bread & circuses" keeps coming to mind...

 

[Moonglow]

not surprised the topic was really about ghey marriage...

 

[Iceweasel]

Is "collective" a bad word. When you use the word "we" you are referring to the "collective". When your society is controlled by a democracy where the collective elects fellow citizens to determine laws and rules that everyone is required to live by you live in a society ruled by the collective. That is just reality, despite successful efforts to demonize the words collective and socialism. Refusal of the masses to accept reality is what keeps the political discourse running in continuous circles. That is exactly what fascist and corporatist want. As long as the masses are busy arguing irrelevant topics among themselves the problems created for the masses by the fascist and corporitist are ignored. To deny collectivism is to deny the concept of "We the people.

Wrong. A collective is not a we. We are individuals. A collective is a group for a common purpose, typically run by elites. We are citizen. People in a collective are subjects, subject to the state.

Corporations get power when they get in bed with government. Those voting for more government are the problem. They only get power if we give it to them and the further we get to being a collective the more power they get. That's the irony of liberalism, it feeds what it claims to be against.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Bingo.

Finding that equilibrium.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Bingo.

Finding that equilibrium.
.

It's hard to compromise when the word isn't in the left's dictionary. When was the last time you heard the word "moderate Democrat" or "leftwing Democrat" or even "leftwing". Failing to fully adopt their point of view is moving backwards.

 

[westwall]

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 rights trump collective rights any day of the week. Collectivism is mob rule and when the mob decides they don't like you they kill you. Read some history, collectivism has murdered more people in the last hundred years, than all of the religions in the world combined, for all of mans history.

 

[Mac1958]

Bingo.

Finding that equilibrium..

It's hard to compromise when the word isn't in the left's dictionary. When was the last time you heard the word "moderate Democrat" or "leftwing Democrat" or even "leftwing". Failing to fully adopt their point of view is moving backwards.

There's not a great deal of moderation from either party right now. Reasonable adults, especially political "leaders", are obligated to submerge their egos and their ambitions, work together to find areas of agreement, and cooperate for the good of the people - even if that means capitulation.

Those who aren't capable of that shouldn't hold office, regardless of party affiliation.
.