Individual Rights

[PLC1]

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.

It's not really a non sequiter pointing out that the original meaning of the words has evolved over time. If the argument is to be made that the only purpose of government is to protect rights, and it is a good argument I agree, then just what constitutes protecting those rights has to be addressed. When the words were written, some of the populace had no rights. Moreover, technology has changed, the country has grown, and so the necessity of protecting rights has also changed.
For example:
When a corporation gets so big and powerful that it can control a segment of the marketplace, is it a legitimate function of government to control it so as to protect the rights of the people who depend on that marketplace?
Do our rights need to be protected from the actions of the big banks?
How about from the actions of people who use the roads we all pay for?

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes you assume government requires a moral purpose.

First, you should recognize that my use of the term "morality" is based on reality, not religion.
Most people who view morality in a religious context, are likely to agree on the overwhelming majority of things I could list as being moral or immoral. For example, lying, cheating, stealing... Would you agree these are immoral acts? Chances are, you do... We're just likely to disagree as to why these acts are immoral.

Im not too sure ive heard of one that does that ever.

You've heard mine: A moral government protects the individual rights of it's citizens, while an immoral one violates those rights....
According your concept of Morality, what would a moral government look like in real life?

Certainly would be nice but human nature wont tolerate it. (Power corrupts and all).

In that context, "human nature" would prefer the system we have now, where it can operate under the radar and often with impunity, thanks to the grandiose size and scope of government power. "Human nature", as you call it, would gravitate toward the easiest targets for the greatest rewards. A system that does not allow any individual, any group, or even the government itself, to legally violate the rights of others.

It would be a constant battle, but one worth fighting.

Sorry but i have trouble talking abstract theory that bears no semblence to real life.

If that's another reference to the unlikelihood of Individual Rights gaining enough popular support to become successful in the current political climate, I can't say I disagree... We few advocates for individual Rights always find ourselves terribly outnumbered by the collectivists on both sides.



An "abstract theory that bears no semblence to real life", is exactly what we have now as a matter of public policy. Nearly all government programs and policies exist in direct conflict with reality... What's the National Debt up to now? Attempts to perpetuate the existence of policies and programs that operate in defiance of reality, always have predictably disastrous results... What do you think our debt going to look by the time we "fix" social security?

 

[dogtowner]

First, you should recognize that my use of the term "morality" is based on reality, not religion.
Most people who view morality in a religious context, are likely to agree on the overwhelming majority of things I could list as being moral or immoral. For example, lying, cheating, stealing... Would you agree these are immoral acts? Chances are, you do... We're just likely to disagree as to why these acts are immoral.

You've heard mine: A moral government protects the individual rights of it's citizens, while an immoral one violates those rights....
According your concept of Morality, what would a moral government look like in real life?


In that context, "human nature" would prefer the system we have now, where it can operate under the radar and often with impunity, thanks to the grandiose size and scope of government power. "Human nature", as you call it, would gravitate toward the easiest targets for the greatest rewards. A system that does not allow any individual, any group, or even the government itself, to legally violate the rights of others.

It would be a constant battle, but one worth fighting.

If that's another reference to the unlikelihood of Individual Rights gaining enough popular support to become successful in the current political climate, I can't say I disagree... We few advocates for individual Rights always find ourselves terribly outnumbered by the collectivists on both sides.

View attachment 697

An "abstract theory that bears no semblence to real life", is exactly what we have now as a matter of public policy. Nearly all government programs and policies exist in direct conflict with reality... What's the National Debt up to now? Attempts to perpetuate the existence of policies and programs that operate in defiance of reality, always have predictably disastrous results... What do you think our debt going to look by the time we "fix" social security?

Morality need not be tied to religion. And we probably agree on a majority of specifics.
What we do not seem to agree on is moralty being a required component of government.
Its true that many government enforce some morality. But IMO none seek to enforce all. Moreover none seek to be moral themselves (100 % or close to it). It may not be a good idea to demand something if them that they have no intention of providing.
This is why I suggest that we agree to forfeit some portion if our individual rights for the perceived value of what the government is offering.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is why I suggest that we agree to forfeit some portion if our individual rights for the perceived value of what the government is offering.

Irony: It may not be a good idea to demand something if them that they have no intention of providing.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate the meaning of the concepts being discussed...

Inalienable Rights: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. Synonym: Inviolable -
prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration.

Contextual highlights:

We - a majority of the voting individuals...
Agree to - Should vote to repudiate for all other individuals in perpetuity...
Some Portion - An unspecified amount of...
Individual Rights - An indivisible sum...
Perceived - On the specious claim that...
Value - We can trade freedom for security...
Government Offer - What could go wrong?

 

[dogtowner]

Irony: It may not be a good idea to demand something if them that they have no intention of providing.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate the meaning of the concepts being discussed...

Inalienable Rights: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. Synonym: Inviolable -
prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration.

Contextual highlights:

We - a majority of the voting individuals...
Agree to - Should vote to repudiate for all other individuals in perpetuity...
Some Portion - An unspecified amount of...
Individual Rights - An indivisible sum...
Perceived - On the specious claim that...
Value - We can trade freedom for security...
Government Offer - What could go wrong?

I get it. Clearly every government vilates these induvidual rights to some extent or other. I see no point in denying this
As you suggested earlier in the thread, goveenments will not last if they do this to which i would add because that power tends to grow and become intolerable. And so we see that no government lasts. Not one. The only difference us how quickly the process happens and hiw violent is the reset.

 

[GenSeneca]

I get it.

I'm still not sure where it is you're falling on some of this... But I won't press it. Looks like PLC has unanswered questions...

 

[GenSeneca]

If the argument is to be made that the only purpose of government is to protect rights, and it is a good argument I agree, then just what constitutes protecting those rights has to be addressed.

Police, military, and the courts... That last one exists specifically as impartial arbiter for settling disputes over rights violations. Reality exists as final arbiter for all other disputes.

When a corporation gets so big and powerful that it can control a segment of the marketplace, is it a legitimate function of government to control it so as to protect the rights of the people who depend on that marketplace?

If the company is using force, or fraud, against anyone, then yes... Legitimate function of government to stop the violations (police) and punish the violators (courts).

The earned existence of a monopoly is not a violation of anyone's rights, it's an impressive achievement. Monopolies rarely exist in free markets, because they must legitimately, and consistently, outperform all their competition.

Now, if government is barring competition from entering the market place, then those individual government agents should be held to account for the violation of rights, and abuse of government power.

Do our rights need to be protected from the actions of the big banks?

If those individuals are engaged in using force, or fraud, against others, yes.

If you are trying to initiate the use of force, by government edict, fraud, or physical violence, to alter company policy simply because you disagree with it, then you are the one attempting to violate the rights of those bankers, and they should be protected from you, by government.

How about from the actions of people who use the roads

The Police and the Courts.

Good questions PLC.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm still not sure where it is you're falling on some of this... But I won't press it. Looks like PLC has unanswered questions...

Simply put, I dispute some of assumotions you make as they are not reflected in practice.

 

[GenSeneca]

Simply put, I dispute some of assumotions you make as they are not reflected in practice.

Such as?

I have already noted the public's overwhelming support for Altruism. Whether it's religious or social, the individual is told he has a duty, or obligation, to make sacrifices in his own life for the good of others. If the individual agrees with the Altruist philosophy, then he will do so voluntarily. If the individual does not agree, the Altruist cannot legally put a gun to the individuals head and force him to do it anyway.

When applied to politics, Altruism is tyranny and every Altruists becomes a tyrant. As a political philosophy, Altruism is Collectivism. The individual cannot be allowed a choice in the matter of sacrificing himself for the good of the collective, he might choose not to, so the Altruists make it legal for those in government to hold individuals at gun point... The Collective uses government's monopoly on the legal use of force, to pass laws that make it illegal for the individual to refuse to act in accordance with the Collectivist demands.

Collectivism, in practice, is a tyranny of the majority. You can do whatever the hell you wish to your neighbor, so long as your gang of thugs is big enough to hold power in government. Equality is the very first victim, it's dead once the first law is passed. From that point on, government is no longer the protector of individual rights. Government has become an incredibly powerful threat to the individual, with power over whatever the hell it wants.

Without equality, government no longer protects the rights of the individual. He must find political shelter in his own collective (republican/democrat), and place his trust in that group for his protection. When his party is in power, and whether he actually is or not, he feels safe. However, when the other party takes power, he can quickly make himself paranoid thinking about all the ways his rights can now be violated.

If any of you consider your group to be your greatest defender, and the opposition to be a threat to your rights... That should be recognized as the giant f**king alarm bell that it is! You know government, as a whole and regardless of who runs the place, should protect the rights of all its individuals. You know too that our government, who no longer holds its citizens as equals under the law, actually is violating rights. It's not blindness, it's a refusal to see. It's not deafness, it's a refusal to hear. The truth is screaming in your face but you have chosen to ignore it.

The fact that the stated purpose for the existence of our government is "not reflected in practice", should indicate (to anyone who considers our equality and rights as individuals to be self evident truths), that government is in desperate need of massive reforms to restore equality and rights of the individual.

 

[dogtowner]

Simply put, I dispute some of assumotions you make as they are not reflected in practice.

Such as?

I have already noted the public's overwhelming support for Altruism. Whether it's religious or social, the individual is told he has a duty, or obligation, to make sacrifices in his own life for the good of others. If the individual agrees with the Altruist philosophy, then he will do so voluntarily. If the individual does not agree, the Altruist cannot legally put a gun to the individuals head and force him to do it anyway.

When applied to politics, Altruism is tyranny and every wellAltruists becomes a tyrant. As a political philosophy, Altruism is Collectivism. The individual cannot be allowed a choice in the matter of sacrificing himself for the good of the collective, he might choose not to, so the Altruists make it legal for those in government to hold individuals at gun point... The Collective uses government's monopoly on the legal use of force, to pass laws that make it illegal for the individual to refuse to act in accordance with the Collectivist demands.

Collectivism, in practice, is a tyranny of the majority. You can do whatever the hell you wish to your neighbor, so long as your gang of thugs is big enough to hold power in government. Equality is the very first victim, it's dead once the first law is passed. From that point on, government is no longer the protector of individual rights. Government has become an incredibly powerful threat to the individual, with power over whatever the hell it wants.

Without equality, government no longer protects the rights of the individual. He must find political shelter in his own collective (republican/democrat), and place his trust in that group for his protection. When his party is in power, and whether he actually is or not, he feels safe. However, when the other party takes power, he can quickly make himself paranoid thinking about all the ways his rights can now be violated.

If any of you consider your group to be your greatest defender, and the opposition to be a threat to your rights... That should be recognized as the giant f**king alarm bell that it is! You know government, as a whole and regardless of who runs the place, should protect the rights of all its individuals. You know too that our government, who no longer holds its citizens as equals under the law, actually is violating rights. It's not blindness, it's a refusal to see. It's not deafness, it's a refusal to hear. The truth is screaming in your face but you have chosen to ignore it.

The fact that the stated purpose for the existence of our government is "not reflected in practice", should indicate (to anyone who considers our equality and rights as individuals to be self evident truths), that government is in desperate need of massive reforms to restore equality and rights of the individual.

well well well so you do get what Ive been trying to say. The government has no intention of protecting our rights. Oh sure they protect some to some extent as a placebo if you will on matters it finds too trivial to concern itself with. And I dont dispute that what we see in play in the seats of power should be alarming, they are alarming. But in words attributed to Alexander Tyler the life of a democracy is 200 years putting us overdue for a reset. I would love to see a society ruled by rights and morals and we could easily be closer to that than we are but I know human nature will not tolerate. Cooperative (not collective) government just cant be.

 

[GenSeneca]

I would love to see a society ruled by rights and morals and we could easily be closer to that than we are but I know human nature will not tolerate.

Murder is illegal, yet people still get murdered... So while I agree that murder is wrong and people shouldn't do it, we should forget about trying to have, or enforce, laws against it, because "human nature" won't allow it.

That is, essentially, the reason you have said it is impossible for individuals to have equal rights under a government that is specifically tasked to the protection of them... Some individuals will inevitably use government to violate the rights of others, it's "human nature". So, rather than making and enforcing laws against it, we should simply accept the violation of rights as a legitimate function of government...

"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."

Dog, you certainly are not alone... Although I seem to be. Nearly every person on this forum, and the public in general, sees the violation of rights as a legitimate function of government. Most of you look around and think, eh... It's not that bad yet. If it gets bad, then I'll speak out against it. Well, consider the fact that passing a single law, making it illegal for any individual to violate the rights of another, would cause our government to collapse.

 

[dogtowner]

Murder is illegal, yet people still get murdered... So while I agree that murder is wrong and people shouldn't do it, we should forget about trying to have, or enforce, laws against it, because "human nature" won't allow it.

That is, essentially, the reason you have said it is impossible for individuals to have equal rights under a government that is specifically tasked to the protection of them... Some individuals will inevitably use government to violate the rights of others, it's "human nature". So, rather than making and enforcing laws against it, we should simply accept the violation of rights as a legitimate function of government...

"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."

Dog, you certainly are not alone... Although I seem to be. Nearly every person on this forum, and the public in general, sees the violation of rights as a legitimate function of government. Most of you look around and think, eh... It's not that bad yet. If it gets bad, then I'll speak out against it. Well, consider the fact that passing a single law, making it illegal for any individual to violate the rights of another, would cause our government to collapse.

Re murder you will note that I said government will choose to enforce some rights. This is one but even this is subject to conditions. Do you have a right to personalproperty ? Emminant domain says you dont yet wbat government eschews it ?

All Im saying is that no government will ever task itself with protecting all individual rights. Never more than a subset which is slightly negotiated with its citizens.

Of course the right thing would be for it to do as you suggest but the right thing will never happen as govt was created to provide power. And you know what they say about power...

 

[GenSeneca]

govt was created to provide power.

Gov was created to secure our rights.

At least we both agree a government of equal individual rights would be the "right thing".

 

[cashmcall]

Great debate... I enjoyed it..

 

[dogtowner]

Gov was created to secure our rights.

At least we both agree a government of equal individual rights would be the "right thing".

With all due respect, I do not agree with the first sentence. I dont believe any govetnment anytime anywhere from caveman Og to Libya(picked a pretty new one by way of example) has ever gone for that.