Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

[GenSeneca]

I believe we should be as free as possible. The only justifiable reason for a law to restrict our freedom is to protect the rights of another.

I have to disagree. Laws do not protect our rights, force does. If laws protected our rights, we wouldn't need policemen or a military, we'd simply write some laws and then sit back and relax in total security.

Laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes. Only force can stop them and that's why we entrusted government with having a monopoly on the legal use of force.

Laws exist merely as means for punishing those who violate the rights of others. Because of those realities, I disagree that we should pro-actively restrict our freedom through laws under the pretense of protecting the rights of others. Using the bloody nose analogy, just because there exists the possibility of you punching me in the nose, we shouldn't pass a law that forces everyone to keep themselves handcuffed to their own belt buckle.

 

[GenSeneca]

Without law you have no rights. To say that there is a right to anything, petitio princippi, only begs the question that such right is recognized by law in the first instance. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. Without the law, we have nothing.

Rights are freedoms of action that exist independent of laws and government, therefore they need not be "recognized" by law in order to exist. This is not an opinion, its not theory, its verifiable fact.

The only function of law is to punish those who violate an individuals rights. It is only by force or fraud that our rights can be violated and its only by force that our rights can be secured.

Perhaps in your social collectivist worldview, rights are not freedoms of action but creations of the state, I.E., rights are whatever the state says they are. As I pointed out before, if rights are created by the state, anything can be made into a right and there are no limits to what can be determined to be a right. When I pointed out this fact before you replied:

"Our rights are defined by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited" - Richard

You say that our rights are created by laws, so where are there limitations on what can be made into law? You provided no explanation, you simply dismissed it as "nonsense". Such dismissals are an act of evasion.

The Democrats could write a law that says Democrat voters have a "right" to vote as many times as they want in an election. According to you, its the law that establishes our rights, so if they were to pass such a law, it would establish a legitimate "right", at least it would according to your explanation of our source of rights. Thus, there is no limit on what could be considered a "right", it would simply need to be codified into law and magically, a new right would be created.

"What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues." - Ayn Rand

 

[Richard Savage]

Name one right that is not subject to law. There are none. Even the very air we breathe is subject to legal regulation. Your philosophy only works in Ayn Rand novels; in the real world there are laws that govern everything.

 

[GenSeneca]

Take note, Richard offers no defense of his own view, instead he chooses to attack Randian philosophy by way of strawmen.

Name one right that is not subject to law.

All rights are subject to law where a government and laws exist. The still uncontested point that I made was that individual rights exist regardless of the existence of laws or government. Individual rights are freedoms of action and therefore do not require government, or laws, in order to exist. Collective rights are constructs of government and laws, without the existence of government and laws, Collective rights do not exist.

There are none.

While I agree that, where government and laws exist, rights are subject to their authority, your statement was that rights are a creation of government that come into being by way of laws. So you've offered an opinion that you're unwilling, or unable, to defend and instead, offered a red herring in its place.

The issue was never whether or not rights are subject to laws but whether laws, and government, are responsible for the creation of our rights.

Your philosophy only works in Ayn Rand novels; in the real world there are laws that govern everything.

You continue to beat down this same strawman and its no more impressive now then it was the first time you used this failing tactic.

Rand's philosophy relies on laws, and government, to serve a very specific role, that of protecting our individual rights.

Laws do govern everything but the laws of man do not govern everything. Natural law, the law of gravity for instance, is not subject to the laws of man... only man is subject to the laws of man.

Gravity exists independent of any man made laws or government, our individual rights equally exist regardless of whether or not laws or government exist. Where laws and government do exist, man is subject to them but only under the threat of force. In the absense of force, mans laws are meaningless and his governments powerless.

Wherever man exists, his individual rights exist. Whether or not laws or government recognize his individual rights, they still exist. Its only in the absense of government and its laws that Collective rights cease to exist.

 

[Dr.Who]

But Dr. Who... The Radical Lefties claim that's precisely your aim, that you "religious types" want to use the force of government to create a theocracy where all Americans are coerced into living as good "bible thumping" Christians... Are you suggesting that such rhetoric is "rotten nonsense"?

For the most part it is. There are some social conservative who want to build a society largely based on religion and tradition. The left just sees these bogeymen under every bed.

There are more on the left who would bring us substantially toward communism (like the president) than there are on the right who would bring us substantially toward a theocracy. Meanwhile the polices and power given to government by the mainstream left could be abused to result in a theocracy while the policies and power taken from government advocated by mainstream conservatives could never move us toward communism or theocracy.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have to disagree. Laws do not protect our rights, force does. If laws protected our rights, we wouldn't need policemen or a military, we'd simply write some laws and then sit back and relax in total security.

Laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes. Only force can stop them and that's why we entrusted government with having a monopoly on the legal use of force.

Laws exist merely as means for punishing those who violate the rights of others. Because of those realities, I disagree that we should pro-actively restrict our freedom through laws under the pretense of protecting the rights of others. Using the bloody nose analogy, just because there exists the possibility of you punching me in the nose, we shouldn't pass a law that forces everyone to keep themselves handcuffed to their own belt buckle.

 

[Dr.Who]

Name one right that is not subject to law. There are none. Even the very air we breathe is subject to legal regulation. Your philosophy only works in Ayn Rand novels; in the real world there are laws that govern everything.

The right to think quietly to oneself whatever one wants to think.

 

[Richard Savage]

The right to think what you wish (i.e. the right to your opinions without interference) is a legal right recognized under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It is a direct grant by law. There have been times in history when people were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death for their opinions. (Their "natural" rights were not much use to them!) Fortunately, there are many laws designed to protect a person from discrimination for their thoughts and beliefs. In this, to say that you have a right to anything only begs the question of its enforcement by law; for absent the law, such right is a meaningless nullity.

 

[Dr.Who]

The right to think what you wish (i.e. the right to your opinions without interference) is a legal right recognized under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It is a direct grant by law. There have been times in history when people were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death for their opinions. (Their "natural" rights were not much use to them!) Fortunately, there are many laws designed to protect a person from discrimination for their thoughts and beliefs. In this, to say that you have a right to anything only begs the question of its enforcement by law; for absent the law, such right is a meaningless nullity.

Sorry but if it is not expressed then it does not fall under the protection of the 1st.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

 

[Dr.Who]

How is it that we live in a country where virtually no one owns up to being a collectivist, or communists or socialist and yet 90% of the democratic party is clearly within the camp of socialism and people openly argue that we should steal from the rich to benefit the poor?

 

[Richard Savage]

It sure does - witness the right to "privacy" under the First Amendment. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

 

[top gun]

How is it that we live in a country where virtually no one owns up to being a collectivist, or communists or socialist and yet 90% of the democratic party is clearly within the camp of socialism and people openly argue that we should steal from the rich to benefit the poor?

It's because you just make crap up.

You like to black & white everything and then point a finger. Anyone can do that. I'll go...

Is a better person caring & compassionate or indifferent & selfish?

Is clean air & water important or is the planet just for our destruction?

See it's not hard to do. Fact is Democrats don't want to do away with capitalism. They just realize that there are some vital things without real competition. For instance healthcare. You don't get any better example than this... the industry is exempt from Antitrust laws.

Eventually we have to realize we as a nation can't afford to do things like Nation Build and give away so much money to other countries. That and a reduction of the size of our military will save tremendously.

And we will be back doing well even before that. Things will be bullish once again. Hang in there.

 

[GenSeneca]

The right to think what you wish (i.e. the right to your opinions without interference) is a legal right recognized under the First Amendment to the Constitution...

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The amendment recognizes that our right to free speech already exists. The purpose of the amendment is not to create, or grant, our right to free speech but simply to bar government from making laws that abridge that freedom.

It is a direct grant by law.

Simply reading the amendment is enough to prove that our right to free speech isn't GRANTED by law, its PROTECTED by law. If you read the amendment, our right is being protected from abridgment at the hands of congress, the institution tasked with the creation of laws.

There have been times in history when people were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and put to death for their opinions. (Their "natural" rights were not much use to them!)

As I said earlier, only force can deny us our individual rights. Using force to deny an individual his rights does not cause the right to no longer exist, it only prevents the right from being exercised.

Fortunately, there are many laws designed to protect a person from discrimination for their thoughts and beliefs.

Protecting individual rights from force and fraud is the law's, and governments, only legitimate function.

In this, to say that you have a right to anything only begs the question of its enforcement by law; for absent the law, such right is a meaningless nullity.

Your conclusion is wrong because the premise its based on is false.

If your statement were referring to Collective rights, it would accurate.

Free speech, for example, does not require laws, government, or force in order to be exercised. It exists, and therefore can be exercised without those things. Only force can be used to stop someone from exercising free speech but that doesn't cause the right to no longer exist. Hence the reason we entrusted government with a monopoly on the legal use of force and barred that same government tasked with protecting our rights from making laws that abridge them.

Now Collective rights are entirely creations of government and require the application of force to be exercised. Healthcare for example, you cannot exercise a "right" to free healthcare without government forcing someone else to provide you with it. Without the force of government, such a collective "right" does not exist.

 

[GenSeneca]

Fact is Democrats don't want to do away with capitalism.

That's like saying the Nazi's didn't want to kill Jews....

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism.

 

[top gun]

That's like saying the Nazi's didn't want to kill Jews....

The very fact that you compare Democrats wanting things like Social Security & Medicare to Nazis wanting to kill Jews just shows how unhinged the Right has truly become.