Individual Rights

[GenSeneca]

Individual Rights.

As the name implies, these rights belong to all individuals, equally, without bias or discrimination of any kind. Where the law does not protect everyone equally, individuals rights are violated as a consequence. Collective rights always violate the rights of individuals. Any system of governance that violates individual rights, is unjust, unfair, and immoral.

Collective rights are legislated "rights", or entitlements, that only apply to certain groups. Such "rights" are said to be necessary for their perceived benefit to the collective. As predicted, the ability to vote themselves largess from government funds has poisoned the public against protecting the Rights of the Individual.

Public and Corporate Welfare, Social Security, food stamps, bailouts, subsidies, interventionist foreign policies, and even public schools, just to name a few. There is probably something there you agree with and something you don't. Most people are conditioned to consider violating the rights of others moral for causes they support, and only immoral when done in the name of causes they do not support.

There was probably something on that short list you're willing to violate the rights of others for... but how many of you are honest enough to admit that about yourself? How many of you are deluded into thinking violating the rights of others, to achieve a common good you agree with, is a worthy and necessary sacrifice?

I'm confident in my ability to defend Individual Rights against all challengers because I have a secret weapon... It's called a dictionary. My super secret weapon... A Thesaurus. If the thought of defining the terms being used in a discussion poses a problem for you, then having a rational, logical, intellectual discussion might not be your cup of tea.

Fairness, equality, bias, discrimination, justice, punishment, freedom... Words have definitions. They also have synonyms (words that have similar meaning), and something called antonyms (these are words with a meaning that is the opposite of the word being used).

So, if anyone is full of piss and vinegar, and would like to feed my 'massive ego' by debating me on this topic, come get some! If not, have a nice day!

 

[dogtowner]

I dont really have an argument with the premise per se but I do think the basis for collective rights is a bit different. And there are two ways to see it.
Its closest to being a contract (between ourselves and the government). It is a standard contract as there is no negotiating terms and its take it or leave it and difficult to leave it. In this respect its more like extortion. But its not without benefit. We get roads to get from here to there, some sense of security ("protection" as the extortor might say) among other things.
We have just a little input regarding what these things are and for this we give govt money and suspention of certain rights.

of course this goes back to associating withbiggest and baddest caveman (or elephant or gorilla) so its hardly a civilization invention. And you could quote Jefferson (or was it Franklin ?) and say who surrenders freedom for security has neither but they didnt reject government as the thought would seem to require.

So we're kinda stuck. Perhaps the best we can do is stop allowing our limited input from dwindling further.

 

[GenSeneca]

they didnt reject government as the thought would seem to require.

Quite contrary to what you have inferred... A government is absolutely necessary... But it's reason for existence has been perverted over time.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, but has since devolved into a Collectivist Democracy. In a Republic of 100 people, 99 people could vote to violate your rights and your one single vote would stop them.. because that is the moral purpose of government, to protect your rights as an individual. Gone is the American government that respected and protected the rights of the individual citizen, it has been replaced by a collectivist democracy that auctions off, to any voting majority, legal permits to violate the life, liberty, and property of whole groups.

The Declaration spoke of why it was necessary for Americans to create our own government, it acknowledged the equality of all men, the existence and origin of our inalienable rights, it correctly recognized violations of those rights as tyranny, and declared the intention to create a new government for the purpose of securing our rights, from all forms of tyranny. We have strayed far from that path.

...All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

While public roads, schools, libraries and the like may seem to be sufferable evils for what is seen as their benefit to society as a whole... Make no mistake, these collective rights can only exist where government has abolished equality of rights, where a government and it's people have lost the meaning of the rule of law, and this government now exists contrary to the stated purpose for which it had been instituted among men. It is important to understand that without equal rights, and therefore equal protection under the law, individuals have no protection against a voting majority.

 

[dogtowner]

When has any govertment operated such that one vote overrides all others ?

 

[GenSeneca]

When has any govertment operated such that one vote overrides all others ?

You're taking it too literally. It's an inverse example to show the relative strength of individual rights in a Republic vs a Democracy. The proposed law would violate the very purpose for having instituted the Republic, so it wouldn't actually come to a vote. It's just a shorter way of saying...

Since each individual has the exact same rights as every other individual, and since no individual has the Right to violate the rights of others, no group of individuals, no matter how large a majority they may represent, can magically obtain that non-existent right to then use against others.

That means one mans rights cannot be overruled by any other individual, no matter how many individuals comprise the opposition against him. Each individual has the exact same rights as that one man. The Republic exists to protect those rights, equally, for all individuals.

 

[dogtowner]

You're taking it too literally. It's an inverse example to show the relative strength of individual rights in a Republic vs a Democracy. The proposed law would violate the very purpose for having instituted the Republic, so it wouldn't actually come to a vote. It's just a shorter way of saying...

Since each individual has the exact same rights as every other individual, and since no individual has the Right to violate the rights of others, no group of individuals, no matter how large a majority they may represent, can magically obtain that non-existent right to then use against others.

That means one mans rights cannot be overruled by any other individual, no matter how many individuals comprise the opposition against him. Each individual has the exact same rights as that one man. The Republic exists to protect those rights, equally, for all individuals.

Sounds nice in theory but imposible in reality. Membership in a republic is going to come at a cost the only qu3stion is how great.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sounds nice in theory but imposible in reality. Membership in a republic is going to come at a cost the only qu3stion is how great.

By impossible, are you saying the formation of a government necessitates the violation of rights?

 

[dogtowner]

By impossible, are you saying the formation of a government necessitates the violation of rights?

I might word it more like a surrender but basically yes. Take us as an example (and lets ignore how the constitution is ignored to simplify the point) only some rights are enumetated. And correct me if im wrong but i do not believe thats the full set you might believe.
Of course the intended creator (as in endowed by their creator) is kind of fuzzy and could present differing sets so thats a problem. Not to mention those who dontvrecognize a creator.
Difficult concept to define so pretty much impossible on several counts.

 

[PLC1]

You're taking it too literally. It's an inverse example to show the relative strength of individual rights in a Republic vs a Democracy. The proposed law would violate the very purpose for having instituted the Republic, so it wouldn't actually come to a vote. It's just a shorter way of saying...

Since each individual has the exact same rights as every other individual, and since no individual has the Right to violate the rights of others, no group of individuals, no matter how large a majority they may represent, can magically obtain that non-existent right to then use against others.

That means one mans rights cannot be overruled by any other individual, no matter how many individuals comprise the opposition against him. Each individual has the exact same rights as that one man. The Republic exists to protect those rights, equally, for all individuals.

The original meaning of the words you quoted earlier from the Declaration of Independence did not actually include all of mankind. At the time, it only meant white male property owners. It has evolved over time to mean all mankind, but, in the process, some of the individual rights have been infringed in order to have collective rights. For example, we pay collectively for things like roads, police, fire protection, and schools.

Now, is it your opinion that having things such as the above paid for in common is a violation of individual rights?
Would you go back to the original meaning of the words written in the Declaration of Independence?

 

[GBFan]

The original meaning of the words you quoted earlier from the Declaration of Independence did not actually include all of mankind. At the time, it only meant white male property owners. It has evolved over time to mean all mankind, but, in the process, some of the individual rights have been infringed in order to have collective rights. For example, we pay collectively for things like roads, police, fire protection, and schools.

Now, is it your opinion that having things such as the above paid for in common is a violation of individual rights?
Would you go back to the original meaning of the words written in the Declaration of Independence?

That is what's called a 'non sequitur'. Your reference to racial inequality, certainly a staple of society at that time, is simply misdirection. What you say is true, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. It isn't the words that have evolved, but rather, our willingness to apply them to certain parties. If you closely study the writings of that time, there were many who actively supported the application of those words to all humanity, not just white landowners. Political expediency forced a compromise.

I would disagree, further, that the evolution of those words to mean all mankind has infringed on individual rights. IF you mean that, coincident to that evolution, we have willingly given up some of our individual rights, that is true. But, I'm not sure just exactly what individual rights I relinquished in order to pay for roads, police, and fire protection. There is a significant difference between me agreeing to buy security or roads from the government, in exchange for my tax dollars. Arbitrarily taking my tax dollars, with a concomitant return to me, is a usurpation of my rights, but that is a relatively new phenomenon - starting with FDR. The current regime has merely raised that usurpation to an art form.

There has been, I will agree, a wholesale attack on our individual rights as the government continues to try to gobble up power, thus protecting themselves from the individual. Federal assumption of the local school system is an excellent example.

You must remember they can only do what they do with the tacit approval of the other party in the contract - you. If you don't make them stop, then you are complicit in the theft.

 

[dogtowner]

but that is a relatively new phenomenon - starting with FDR.

You must remember they can only do what they do with the tacit approval of the other party in the contract - you. If you don't make them stop, then you are complicit in the theft.

Its closer to the truth to say it started (in ernest) with republicans with Lincoln but it does show approval of the donkeys. Its really the Whigs but they were such damaged goods Lincoln had to rebrand them.

 

[GBFan]

Its closer to the truth to say it started (in ernest) with republicans with Lincoln but it does show approval of the donkeys. Its really the Whigs but they were such damaged goods Lincoln had to rebrand them.

I'm not so sure ... what individual rights to you believe were usurped by Lincoln? Surely, you don't mean actions coincident with conduct of the Civil War?

Unquestionably, there have been constant attacks throughout our history by the government, starting with Alexander Hamilton, to usurp our individual rights. Generally, these have been rebuffed, although some inroads were made. However, beginning in the mid-1930's, it became a constant deluge, and with the current administration, it has been a tsunami.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not so sure ... what individual rights to you believe were usurped by Lincoln? Surely, you don't mean actions coincident with conduct of the Civil War?

Unquestionably, there have been constant attacks throughout our history by the government, starting with Alexander Hamilton, to usurp our individual rights. Generally, these have been rebuffed, although some inroads were made. However, beginning in the mid-1930's, it became a constant deluge, and with the current administration, it has been a tsunami.

He took cronie capitalism to unheard if heights. Specialties were canal and rail govt funded projects with pue ut the sky promises of growth that were always over budget and never produced the promised rewards. However Lincoln's buds had their pockets lined with silver.
He was a great diciple of Henry Clay who built and crashed the Whigs.

 

[GBFan]

He took cronie capitalism to unheard if heights. Specialties were canal and rail govt funded projects with pue ut the sky promises of growth that were always over budget and never produced the promised rewards. However Lincoln's buds had their pockets lined with silver.
He was a great diciple of Henry Clay who built and crashed the Whigs.

How is 'crony capitalism' going to erode our individual rights?

 

[dogtowner]

How is 'crony capitalism' going to erode our individual rights?

per gen

While public roads, schools, libraries and the like may seem to be sufferable evils for what is seen as their benefit to society as a whole... Make no mistake, these collective rights can only exist where government has abolished equality of rights, where a government and it's people have lost the meaning of the rule of law, and this government now exists contrary to the stated purpose for which it had been instituted among men. It is important to understand that without equal rights, and therefore equal protection under the law, individuals have no protection against a voting majority.