Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

[Brigandier]

More importantly, how far should they be extended until they infringe on society?

I believe individual rights extend until that individual chooses to harm another. In other words, everyone is free until proven guilty, and they should be allowed to enjoy everything they wish, until they are guilty.

I understand this conflicts with the big picture of things, if everyone is free to do what they want, how does my neighbor know where his lawn ends? This is the conflict in society, having freedom and order. I think it is possible by giving people rather liberal freedoms, and letting them make the choice. Wrong behavior is still illegal, one person's freedoms cannot infringe upon another, that is too far.I believe a person has a right to individuality, property, and productivity.

Collective rights are the right of a state, nation, or union to collectively bargain for a share of the conglomerate. Historically, this has been done through war, in the modern age, diplomacy rules. I view this right as the one that should be most limited, I think the right for the collective to perpetrate violence should be limited to defense, but also should be reserved to protect individuals experiencing "state" violence.

I don't know, I need help on finding more collective rights, I'm mostly drawing a blank on what a bunch of dumb monkeys need to collectively do...


Oh wait! A collective right is the right to exploration, and allowing any human to explore any frontier he wants, no questions asked. An ideal society would have that shit reverse tax deferred. That's when you spend money on a goal to explore, and the government gives you some help, because whenever a person makes money, the government gets a millionfold, it's just the laws of society.

 

[drebo]

There are no inherent collective rights. The same cannot be said of individual rights.

To insinuate that a collective has inherent rights is to favor that collective above others, including individuals, which is contrary to the ideal that individuals should have rights which are inalienable. To give a collective rights over an individual is to restrict that individual from those rights.

A collective only has the power that the outside gives it. The collective's power over the outside is granted power, not derived power. This is applies to all collectives: unions, governments, etc. Individuals give power to groups. Groups do not, by nature, have power. Only individuals have power.

 

[WHAMPOM]

More importantly, how far should they be extended until they infringe on society?

I believe individual rights extend until that individual chooses to harm another. In other words, everyone is free until proven guilty, and they should be allowed to enjoy everything they wish, until they are guilty.

I understand this conflicts with the big picture of things, if everyone is free to do what they want, how does my neighbor know where his lawn ends? This is the conflict in society, having freedom and order. I think it is possible by giving people rather liberal freedoms, and letting them make the choice. Wrong behavior is still illegal, one person's freedoms cannot infringe upon another, that is too far.I believe a person has a right to individuality, property, and productivity.

Collective rights are the right of a state, nation, or union to collectively bargain for a share of the conglomerate. Historically, this has been done through war, in the modern age, diplomacy rules. I view this right as the one that should be most limited, I think the right for the collective to perpetrate violence should be limited to defense, but also should be reserved to protect individuals experiencing "state" violence.

I don't know, I need help on finding more collective rights, I'm mostly drawing a blank on what a bunch of dumb monkeys need to collectively do...


Oh wait! A collective right is the right to exploration, and allowing any human to explore any frontier he wants, no questions asked. An ideal society would have that shit reverse tax deferred. That's when you spend money on a goal to explore, and the government gives you some help, because whenever a person makes money, the government gets a millionfold, it's just the laws of society.

Your rights stop where they infringe on others, is that simple enough?

 

[Zebo]

You do realize rights are mental abstractions and its only a right, because the law gives it to you? Right?

Before we came up with these so-called rights and a sovereign to enforce your rights - rights extended to how far you or your clan could enforce. That is to say might made right. Currently, might still makes right, and they are still mythological realities but we allow democratic process to work and sovereign to enforce.

To answer your question we can make a right whatever we want it to be.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I believe individual rights extend until that individual chooses to harm another. In other words, everyone is free until proven guilty, and they should be allowed to enjoy everything they wish, until they are guilty.

I understand this conflicts with the big picture of things, if everyone is free to do what they want, how does my neighbor know where his lawn ends? This is the conflict in society, having freedom and order. I think it is possible by giving people rather liberal freedoms, and letting them make the choice. Wrong behavior is still illegal, one person's freedoms cannot infringe upon another, that is too far.I believe a person has a right to individuality, property, and productivity.

Enjoy the heavy metals in your food supply.

Also your unregulated roads with no requirement to carry liability insurance.
Hope you don't drive a nice car.

Fraud. Fraud everywhere.


And I already know what you're gonna say. "But those hurt people!"
Ahhhh... silly Fundie. But go ahead and say it so I can stomp you good.

 

[Brigandier]

Enjoy the heavy metals in your food supply.

Also your unregulated roads with no requirement to carry liability insurance.
Hope you don't drive a nice car.

Fraud. Fraud everywhere.


And I already know what you're gonna say. "But those hurt people!"
Ahhhh... silly Fundie. But go ahead and say it so I can stomp you good.

I'll try...

Those hurt people! And those people hurt, should not take it lying down. They should call MD's, JD's, PE's, and give it a good run! What happened to them was random, but they should get their just due. If a shop, business, corporation can be proven to have done wrong in the court of law, restitution will be made.

It's been said that America is a sue happy country, damn right we are, it keeps us free. We can sue all the way to the goddamn top, we can go down in the history books, if we got(have) the case.

 

[xj0hnx]

You do realize rights are mental abstractions and its only a right, because the law gives it to you? Right?

Laws do not give rights, they protect rights.

 

[piasabird]

You have the right to die and pay taxes, and that is about as far as your rights go. On the other hand the Constitution of the USA does promise an individual certain rights that the government can not infringe upon, thus they are called Constitutional rights. Then after that you have the right to file suit when you consider that someone has caused damage to you or your rights have been infringed upon. However, if you dont stand up for your rights you can expect to lose them.

 

[Scotteq]

It's simple: When "A" annoys or harms "B" in order to (do/fix) "X", then "A" is a scoundrel.

This simple rule can be applied in a Macro or Micro level.

 

[Jaskalas]

Your rights stop where they infringe on others, is that simple enough?

But my own personal suitcase nuke doesn't hurt anyone, it just keeps me warm at night. Does THAT make it clear that your definition does not apply?

It seems as if it should read... your rights stop when others think you have the potential to infringe and so they preemptively do something. That's how it appears to work.

 

[CPA]

There are no inherent collective rights. The same cannot be said of individual rights.

To insinuate that a collective has inherent rights is to favor that collective above others, including individuals, which is contrary to the ideal that individuals should have rights which are inalienable. To give a collective rights over an individual is to restrict that individual from those rights.

A collective only has the power that the outside gives it. The collective's power over the outside is granted power, not derived power. This is applies to all collectives: unions, governments, etc. Individuals give power to groups. Groups do not, by nature, have power. Only individuals have power.

And I would argue also that a collective right is not a right at all, it is an average cooperative. The "right" is an agreed upon measure of those in the group. Cooperation of a right is a bastarization of individual rights culled from each individual within the group. I think you more appropriately called it, it's a "power" granted by the individuals. It certainly is not a right.

 

[Brigandier]

And I would argue also that a collective right is not a right at all, it is an average cooperative. The "right" is an agreed upon measure of those in the group. Cooperation of a right is a bastarization of individual rights culled from each individual within the group. I think you more appropriately called it, it's a "power" granted by the individuals. It certainly is not a right.

If their are no collective rights, why do countries exist? I'd argue the only collective "right" is the right to congregate and assume a collective identity. If that right is true, that collective must have rights as well, hence "collective rights". I agree that those rights are always tempered by the will of the people, but democracy itself could be seen as a "collective" right.

 

[drebo]

If their are no collective rights, why do countries exist? I'd argue the only collective "right" is the right to congregate and assume a collective identity. If that right is true, that collective must have rights as well, hence "collective rights". I agree that those rights are always tempered by the will of the people, but democracy itself could be seen as a "collective" right.

Countries (and governments) exist because those individuals outside the country or government allow them to exist. That country can exist only as long as the people outside of that country allow it to exist. That's not a right, but rather a power granted by individuals.

The "right to congregate" is an individual right. A collective is made up of individuals. The collective has no right to exist, but rather is granted existence by those that recognize it as an entity.

Democracy, or the right to a direct say in that which rules over you, is not a collective right, either. That right is the right of an individual. A democratic government has no more right to exist than an authoritarian government, as neither has any rights or powers other than what those who exist outside of that government allow.

Wasn't it Plato's Republic that went over this in rather great detail?

 

[Brigandier]

Countries (and governments) exist because those individuals outside the country or government allow them to exist. That country can exist only as long as the people outside of that country allow it to exist. That's not a right, but rather a power granted by individuals.

The "right to congregate" is an individual right. A collective is made up of individuals. The collective has no right to exist, but rather is granted existence by those that recognize it as an entity.

Democracy, or the right to a direct say in that which rules over you, is not a collective right, either. That right is the right of an individual. A democratic government has no more right to exist than an authoritarian government, as neither has any rights or powers other than what those who exist outside of that government allow.

Wasn't it Plato's Republic that went over this in rather great detail?

I agree with all that, I actually haven't read Plato yet, can you recommend a good translation? Translations are tough on me, most bore me to tears.

I'd love to believe there is no such thing as humanity, only humans; after all, humanity has done some pretty wretched things in the past. Governments are instituted among men to insure individual rights, this ideal of individualism would be collectively held, and form an institution in itself. Are you saying that institution has no rights?

In theory I agree with that, but how does it work in practice? If the institution has no right, prisons are camps, illegal. Yes, those that go have overstepped the bounds, but if the institution has no rights, it has no right to incarcerate those that step over bounds. If their is no collective, the only recompense to damages is cold steel, and that is chaos. The collective certainly has rights in an abstract sense, but only those rights given to it; the rights given to it should come with chains, so they're not rights, but binding agreements. Am I getting warmer?

 

[Zebo]

Laws do not give rights, they protect rights.

Give and protect are synonymous in this context because without a sovereign and law codifying such rights you have no rights, we'll other than what you can protect/give to yourself.

There is no natural rights, those are mental abstractions as well.

 

[drebo]

I'd love to believe there is no such thing as humanity, only humans; after all, humanity has done some pretty wretched things in the past.

Humanity is nothing more than another group, or collective, as you say. In our context, however, it encompasses all humans. As such, it's pretty irrelevant. Unless, of course, some Martians want to come wipe us out because they don't like the way we run our planet.

Governments are instituted among men to insure individual rights, this ideal of individualism would be collectively held, and form an institution in itself. Are you saying that institution has no rights?

Governments are created by a group of people to suite that group's goal. The citizens of a nation are not necessarily included within the institution of government, and as such, are outside of that collective. The government which governs over the citizens of a nation can exist only as long as the citizens of that nation, as well as other citizens of other nations, allow it to.

The institution, or government, has only powers that are granted it by those who are not inside the government. Governments have no rights and do not necessarily protect rights of others. Any powers a government has are granted only by those outside of that government (including its citizens). If a government ceases to be useful to its citizens, it will no longer have that power over them.

In theory I agree with that, but how does it work in practice? If the institution has no right, prisons are camps, illegal. Yes, those that go have overstepped the bounds, but if the institution has no rights, it has no right to incarcerate those that step over bounds. If their is no collective, the only recompense to damages is cold steel, and that is chaos. The collective certainly has rights in an abstract sense, but only those rights given to it; the rights given to it should come with chains, so they're not rights, but binding agreements. Am I getting warmer?

The institution has no right to incarserate people. That is a power given to the instution by its citizens and other institutions. As stated, as long as an institution, government, or collective is useful to those affected by it, it will be allowed to remain. If it ceases to be useful, its granted powers will be revoked by those who gave them. But these are not rights. At least not inherent rights. These are powers that are granted, often in exchange for something.

The American government, for instance, exists because its citizens tolerate it enough to allow it to exist and the other nations of the world allow it to exist. We, the citizens of the American government, perceive that allowing this collective to administrate over our individual lives is net beneficial to us as individuals. It provides us with protection and we provide it with the power to see to that protection. The American government does not inherently have the right to exist or to rule over our daily lives...it exists and has power only because we allow it to. A company, a union, or a homeowners' association, is no different. An HOA cannot simply declare itself to exist and decide that you can't hang a sign in your front yard...it gets that power only because you allow it to.

Anarchy and chaos are no less present between two collectives than they are between two individuals. The scales and scopes are just different. There are ~130 countries, and there is just as much strife between them as there would be between 130 individual people. Collectives exist because they must exist for functioning society and to limit the scope of anarchy and chaos. But that does not mean that they have any inherent rights...that simply means that we, as individuals, have recognized the benefit of allowing certain groups to exist.

 

[drebo]

Give and protect are synonymous in this context because without a sovereign and law codifying such rights you have no rights, we'll other than what you can protect/give to yourself.

There is no natural rights, those are mental abstractions as well.

Wrong. Individuals all have rights. I have a right to live, I have a right to be left alone, and I have a right to determine the course of my life...among a billion other rights that cannot be codified.

I do not need a government or sovereign or law to codify my right to life. I may need a collective to protect that right, but not to give me that right. That right is mine and will always be mine.

 

[xj0hnx]

Give and protect are synonymous in this context

No they're not.

because without a sovereign and law codifying such rights you have no rights, we'll other than what you can protect/give to yourself.

Yes I do, or do you think that women in Iran don't have a right to not be beaten, and treated like second class citizens just because their "law" allows it?

There is no natural rights, those are mental abstractions as well.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[xj0hnx]

Wrong. Individuals all have rights. I have a right to live, I have a right to be left alone, and I have a right to determine the course of my life...among a billion other rights that cannot be codified.

I do not need a government or sovereign or law to codify my right to life. I may need a collective to protect that right, but not to give me that right. That right is mine and will always be mine.

:thumbsup:

 

[Zebo]

Wrong. Individuals all have rights. I have a right to live, I have a right to be left alone, and I have a right to determine the course of my life...among a billion other rights that cannot be codified.

I do not need a government or sovereign or law to codify my right to life. I may need a collective to protect that right, but not to give me that right. That right is mine and will always be mine.

No you don't. I could drop some places on earth right now who would not recognize you right to live but right to die instead.

 

[drebo]

No you don't. I could drop some places on earth right now who would not recognize you right to live but right to die instead.

The will of some to take a life does not mean that I do not have a right to live.

When I am conceived, I have life. That life is not given to me by any human, it is inherent in my being.

The failure of an individual or a collective to honor an individual's rights does not mean that individual does not have those rights. It simply means that they (or others) have chosen to give the power to ignore those rights to a collective.

Take slavery, for instance. The right to think for one's self and live one's own life was not taken from the slaves...the slaves always had that. It was simply ignored by a collective (slave owners) who was given the power to do so. Eventually, individuals outside of that collective of slave owners decided they didn't want to give slave owners that power anymore and so they took it away. They rescinded the power they gave to the collective. That act did not give rights to the now-free slaves...it simply allowed the slaves to freely excercise rights they had all the time.

A woman in the middle east deals with much the same. They are not born without free will and thought. Moving to America does not suddenly imbue them with the ability to think for themselves. They have always had that right, but lived under the thumb of a collective (government) which was given the power to not honor those rights.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here's a modern notion to chew on.

The collective has superior property rights over the individual's property rights. Look no further than wealth redistribution. Your property is theirs. Does that mean you are nothing more than the collective's property?

 

[drebo]

Here's a modern notion to chew on.

The collective has superior property rights over the individual's property rights. Look no further than wealth redistribution. Your property is theirs. Does that mean you are nothing more than the collective's property?

The ability of a group to forcibly take property from an individual is not a right of a collective--it is merely a power given to that collective by individuals (often the same individuals who are being robbed).

Appeasement is the same as collaboration. Anyone who does not rail against such action by a collective is party to the collective's actions. Those who fight theft, even if it is "sanctioned," still have a right to their property, even if that right is ignored by a collective. This extends to any and every instance of a collective ignoring the rights of individuals.

At no time is an individual property of a collective, even in slavery. There is always some modicum of free will and free thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do realize rights are mental abstractions and its only a right, because the law gives it to you? Right?

Before we came up with these so-called rights and a sovereign to enforce your rights - rights extended to how far you or your clan could enforce. That is to say might made right. Currently, might still makes right, and they are still mythological realities but we allow democratic process to work and sovereign to enforce.

To answer your question we can make a right whatever we want it to be.

No we can't. Rights are inherent. Some things are right and some things are wrong and there's nothing anybody can do to change it. You would know this if you know who you are.

 

[wuliheron]

Here's a modern notion to chew on.

The collective has superior property rights over the individual's property rights. Look no further than wealth redistribution. Your property is theirs. Does that mean you are nothing more than the collective's property?

Forget property rights, the collective can also draft your ass and send you off to war if they want. They own your body, not just your property. Hell, with modern psychology and psycho-pharmacology they own your mind as well. If you haven't figured that out yet its pretty clear they own your soul as well.