Originally Posted by Greger
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Originally Posted by issodhos
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Issodhos, at the bedrock, where I think your system is falsely based is your claim that government should exist only to secure individual rights. On what is that based, other than your assumption? Why not common rights as well?

I think the only rights that can be "common" to all are those unalienable individual rights held by each and every person. Beyond that, I think the term "common rights" has the tincture of group 'rights' which is also a fiction.

Well, of course, issodhos, how could I ever forget that you alone determine such matters? Maybe you have some other support for that claim, which by the way, completely negates the Constitution.

Phil I'm not sure what hat you pulled this statement out of and perhaps you could explain how his reply to you "negates the Constitution". until then let's discuss "common rights". If, by common rights, you mean rights that we all share(in common) then we also share these same rights as "individual rights" Right? Either we all have the right to bear arms or none of us do, we all "have the right to remain silent" or none do. All rights are common and all rights are individual.
When Issodhos mentions "group rights" I think he is speaking of rights granted to tall people but not short people, Black vs white, young or old, male vs female, gay vs straight.
No such rights exist or, if there are, perhaps you could point out where those are listed or alluded to in the constitution....

Earlier, when you mentioned "common rights", I thought it meant things like Social Programs. Programs like Social Security and yes, even Welfare, that assure the aged, afflicted, and unfortunate individuals, who slip through the cracks for one reason or another, a chance to live with dignity. I understand that this means the government must take from one group to give to another, the very antithesis of Libertarianism, but I also feel that, while Americans are more than willing to give to a worthy cause, there must be a bit of coercion in place to spur them into given enough.

Maybe I've gotten this all mixed up somehow, I'm not the sharpest thorn on the rose after all, If I have forgive me and please clarify the above.

Well, the "hat" I pulled this out of is the language of the Constitution itself. There are a number of provisions therein which amount to common rights -- the one I mentioned earlier being the right of we the people to condemn/take property of an individual with full compensation. The people have the right to govern commerce, etc. Every one of these is a exercise of common will over individuals.

The Constitution is, in fact, an attempt to blend individual rights with common rights and responsibilities, isn't it? So to just focus on the protection of individual rights simply ignores or negates the bulk of the Constitution.

Just because our friend issodhos likes to conflate "common" with "collectivist" doesn't mean you have to fall for that false paradigm, does it?

Now as for the history of man, from what I read the progression was from clan to chiefdom to tribe to state. At no time along that progression was the effort designed to protect individual rights but rather to provide for the common good. That is the primary goal of organizations of all kinds.

Individual rights absolutely need protection, but that has been a development long in the making and refined within the last 1,000 years or so.

Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul