Im All For

DS1119

individual rights

deserteddotse

No matter what?

riotgrl

At what cost? Any cost?

redrock

Define what you consider your 'individual rights'. Who gives you these 'rights'?

Fundamental human rights (ie right to life)?
Government established rights (which can be given or taken away)?

Your 'individual rights' may infringe on mine - what then?

pandora

DS1119 wrote:

individual rights

me 2

deserteddotse

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

individual rights

me 2

Wow, couldn't see that coming...

riotgrl

redrock wrote:

Define what you consider your 'individual rights'. Who gives you these 'rights'?

Fundamental human rights (ie right to life)?
Government established rights (which can be given or taken away)?

Your 'individual rights' may infringe on mine - what then?

And the American concept of individual rights primarily comes through the ideals of John Locke. And the study of John Locke provides that infringing or violating another persons rights is not in keeping with the ideals of classic liberal thought.

pandora

deserteddotse wrote:

pandora wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

individual rights

me 2

Wow, couldn't see that coming...

Good morning!

Smellyman

hmmmm.

there are a bunch of individual "liberal" rights you don't agree with


some of them even the constitution was almost amnended to deny said right.



so by rights you mean don't touch my guns.


yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww

redrock

No doubt Locke's influence on the founders is immense. His doctrines are cleary reflected in the declaration of idependence. Though I know a lot of his ideas would not please a capitalist state!

He was a great thinker and a great philosopher.

But it would still be interesting to hear what DS (or others) see as their 'individual' rights. Fundamental or 'acquired'. Whether they deem these indidividual rights are valid for them anywhere/anytime or just where they happen to live at the time.

Though I do suspect I know which 'individual' rights the OP is speaking about....

pandora

Smellyman wrote:

hmmmm.

there are a bunch of individual "liberal" rights you don't agree with


some of them even the constitution was almost amnended to deny said right.



so by rights you mean don't touch my guns.


yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww

What does this mean? Are you calling out the OP on personal beliefs?

redrock

riotgr... whilst this thread was started with, what I can see, a clear agenda, it could actually be an interesting discussion.

But it from a few posts already, it would seem that it's just going to quickly go down that downward spiral that certain threads have gone down.

If you are interested in 'properly' discussing individual rights, maybe it can be another thread?

Or maybe some can leave their animosity and passive agressive stance elsewhere and this thread can continue?

know1

I mostly am for individual rights as well, but the increase in these mass shootings is making me re-think that stance.

Empty Glass

I'm all for individual rights and as an Army vet, fought for them.

I am against asshats who can't handle their individual rights responsibly.

MayDay10

Im a fan of individual rights.

I believe guns, drugs, and unchecked corporatism infringes on individual rights.

riotgrl

redrock wrote:

riotgr... whilst this thread was started with, what I can see, a clear agenda, it could actually be an interesting discussion.

But it from a few posts already, it would seem that it's just going to quickly go down that downward spiral that certain threads have gone down.

If you are interested in 'properly' discussing individual rights, maybe it can be another thread?

Or maybe some can leave their animosity and passive agressive stance elsewhere and this thread can continue?

I think this could be a great discussion! Again, very philosophical, in the same vein as some of our discussions prior to the sad happenings of last week. Perhaps others could leave their negativity at the door and participate in a real discussion of rights? Here's a thought:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all
men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody
has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of
his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes
out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his
labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby
makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state
Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that
excludes the common right of other men. For this “labour” being the
unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right
to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good
left in common for others.

This is from Locke's Second Treatise and it creates an interesting question. Property is one of our individual rights but what makes property individual and not common? From this passage of Locke's, it seems as if we have to make it ours, not by taking it but by working for it. So if I am to claim property as mine then don't I have to show that I have mixed my labor with the property to "earn" it? Locke goes on to state that if you put in the labor then in part that makes it no longer part of the common but then part of the individual. Therefore, property is but one right. Of course, we can poke holes in whether or not paying for something makes it our property as well.

redrock

Fundamental right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Other 'rights' are just 'actions' following in order to access these fundamental rights. Property being one of them (note: property in the largest sense of the word).

Locke says that all property belongs to nature (therefore the common - equally available to all) until an individual lays claims. How he justified this individual claim (and right) is via individual labour but also with some 'caveat' that property gained being for the good of the collective. He professed that excess accumulation of individual property is wasteful though what one has gained as an individual (pursuing the fundamental rights of liberty,etc,), a government cannot take away. But with the creation of the monetary system, what used to be equal rights for all essentially created unequality.

This is very basically explained but it is an example of where individual rights can impede on someone else's individual right. I'm not talking about 'some work/some don't - so some have/some don't' but on the laying of claim.

But then, whilst I think Locke is a great thinker, he was what one would call now a serious capitalist, he had slaves (going against his fundamental principles) and justified taking the land of the native americans in his works, contradicting a lot of his other pieces. He was still a hypocrite and a racist.

But whilst property is one example, what about the right to life? Fundamental individual right one would say. One that shouldn't be taken away from any individual (unless such individual agrees to it..). Would my individual right to life supersede someone elses? If so why? If considered such a fundamental individual right, can one justify the death penalty as punishment or for the 'good of the collective'?

Personally, I think we all fool ourselves thinking we have any 'control' over our rights - fundamental or acquired. All rights are relative.

JimmyV

I'm all for personal responsibility.

redrock

Don't want to seem obtuse, but those that say that they are for their individual rights, what are these for you (don't have to be too precise and list them!)

Mayday10 - "guns, drugs, unchecked corporatism infringes on individual rights" Which of your rights to they infringe on? Drugs... can do good for some. Corporatism - are you talking about economic tripartism? If so, does that infringe your 'property' right?

redrock

JimmyV wrote:

I'm all for personal responsibility.

Real personal responsibility would be the ultimate.

JimmyV

redrock wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I'm all for personal responsibility.

Real personal responsibility would be the ultimate.

Agreed. We hear so much about rights, but just because we have the right to do something does not mean we necessarily should, would or need to do it.