A lot of times when I see someone claiming they're all for individual rights, it turns out they're more for individualized rights that meet their own personal needs.
Yep. "It's a free country! Don't infringe on my rights! Don't let the gays marry!" :?
I just love them. I promise I'll raise it from a cub to become a loving pet that the neighbourhood could appreciate. You see others on the youtube that play with their owners and they look so fun.
So... it's my right. Correct? I can have a cougar?
I guess it could be construed as a right in your pursuit of happiness, or property or just plain liberty. I don't think it's against the law so I guess you could. But as the cougar is endangered, would this 'right' (if one considers this a right) maybe infringe on the collective right as the cougar is endangered? Should I be your neighbour, could it infringe on my right to life should your cougar jump over the fence into my garden and attack me?
Well... I guess you get my point. It's easy to speak of and cite 'individual rights', but at what point does the welfare of others trump an individual's rights? To me... there must be a line somewhere.
Some very well-versed people have eloquently spoken for 'redrawing the line' where individual rights might be sacrificed for the greater of the whole. While I can understand why some individuals might be bothered by this, I cannot understand their reluctance to admit that the problem exists. They would have so much more credibility with me if they would acknowledge the problem instead of rationalizing or denying it.
Agreed, First and last one on my account. Sorry...
awesome! and thank you.
No problem... I wish I could add more to the discussion but I find it (somewhat) hard to translate my thoughts (and they are many) into the english language. :(
I understand how this could be difficult. Do the best you can. Most people will understand if something got lost in translation. (We are used to reading dimistrispearljam's posts afterall! )
Agreed, First and last one on my account. Sorry...
awesome! and thank you.
No problem... I wish I could add more to the discussion but I find it (somewhat) hard to translate my thoughts (and they are many) into the english language. :(
Your english seems more than enough to get your thoughts across. Don't worry about how it comes out. Would love to hear how you perceive this notion of individual rights. It's interesting to hear from different nationalities/cultures when it comes to this.
Well... I guess you get my point. It's easy to speak of and cite 'individual rights', but at what point does the welfare of others trump an individual's rights? To me... there must be a line somewhere.
Some very well-versed people have eloquently spoken for 'redrawing the line' where individual rights might be sacrificed for the greater of the whole. While I can understand why some individuals might be bothered by this, I cannot understand their reluctance to admit that the problem exists. They would have so much more credibility with me if they would acknowledge the problem instead of rationalizing or denying it.
Exactly. Many philosophers have (and still are) debating this, arguments/conclusions naturally differing following their 'penchant'.
It is also that we do not have a common understanding of what are our 'individual rights' and what value they hold.
No problem... I wish I could add more to the discussion but I find it (somewhat) hard to translate my thoughts (and they are many) into the english language. :(
Your english seems more than enough to get your thoughts across. Don't worry about how it comes out. Would love to hear how you perceive this notion of individual rights. It's interesting to hear from different nationalities/cultures when it comes to this.
Thanks! I'll do my best...
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the Universe...
I believe guns, drugs, and unchecked corporatism infringes on individual rights.
I suppose
The fact that they are allowed so much political power and the ability to spend towards campaigns as they please is insanity. Corporations and groups do not deserve that power...
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).
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.
I shortened your post to focus on a couple of points....
Locke, Jefferson, Voltaire, etc. all make valid points but definitely leave alot to be desired in regards to individual rights. I think another thing to address is the idea of collective rights. Would life fall under collective rights? What about access to a healthy environment? If we use life, liberty, property as the basis for individual rights then what constitutes the basis for collective rights? If the Enlightenment philosophers were trying to move away from the problems with tyrannical government then it makes sense that they would focus (heavily and almost exclusively) on individual rights because they needed to be defined and separated because individual rights was a new concept. Perhaps we need to redefine and refine the idea of individual rights.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I think another thing to address is the idea of collective rights. Would life fall under collective rights? What about access to a healthy environment? If we use life, liberty, property as the basis for individual rights then what constitutes the basis for collective rights? .
We would then have to explore the likes of Marx, etc. The 'vile' words 'socialism' and 'communism'!!!!!
Perhaps we need to redefine and refine the idea of individual rights.
Not sure we could get people to agree a definition! We all seem to perceive individual rights as something different, thus the difficulty with people expressing what these rights are - no one on this thread seemed willing to define what they see as 'individual rights'. When some do, it all seems extremely selfish and greedy. It would seem that 'choose' is a big word when it comes to individual rights. But choose what? And what if if interferes with my choice? Me, me, me... that what seems to count. Is 'choice' a fundamental right? If so, where do we stand on laws that curtail this choice? Sign of our times? Sign of a certain culture? The collective is no longer to be found in these rights.
the foto seems funny,but so shockin and stupid the same time..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
..citizens and nations that after the death of 20 innocent kids feel and understand the need for changes..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Your rights end where mine begin, and that is the balance we have when some people don't apply personal responsibility in exercising their rights. And if too many people don't, then we make laws limiting the right, that is how society works.
I have the right to blare my radio as loud as I want, but since we have so many people in well populated areas, the loud radios have infringed on others' rights to a reasonably quiet night's sleep, so laws were created deal with people who blare their radios which bother others.
You currently have a right to an assault rifle, but there is a tipping point where too many of these weapons are infringing on the rights of others' safety and lives. We can all debate where that tipping point is, but it seems like the majority of people feel we are just about there.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think another thing to address is the idea of collective rights. Would life fall under collective rights? What about access to a healthy environment? If we use life, liberty, property as the basis for individual rights then what constitutes the basis for collective rights? .
We would then have to explore the likes of Marx, etc. The 'vile' words 'socialism' and 'communism'!!!!!
Perhaps we need to redefine and refine the idea of individual rights.
Not sure we could get people to agree a definition! We all seem to perceive individual rights as something different, thus the difficulty with people expressing what these rights are - no one on this thread seemed willing to define what they see as 'individual rights'. When some do, it all seems extremely selfish and greedy. It would seem that 'choose' is a big word when it comes to individual rights. But choose what? And what if if interferes with my choice? Me, me, me... that what seems to count. Is 'choice' a fundamental right? If so, where do we stand on laws that curtail this choice? Sign of our times? Sign of a certain culture? The collective is no longer to be found in these rights.
Maybe we ought to agree on what is a right!
Well, since the origin of American individualism comes from Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu, perhaps a re-reading (or first reading) is in order. Locke's Second Treatise is free online, any takers? http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
Me first seems to be the most important right for many. This lack of collectiveness is at the root of many of our problems. I think that we have taken the idea of individual rights to the extreme of selfishness. I think most people have never truly read any of these philosophers. Even though I don't completely agree with Locke or even Jefferson, I have read their words and have some understanding of their intent which puts their beliefs, like social contract, into its necessary perspective. For me, it is why I am a "loose constructionist" because I don't really believe that Jefferson or Madison and certainly not Hamilton were of the idea that the Constitution would never change. Make it difficult to change, yes but not impossible to redefine if necessary.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Your rights end where mine begin, and that is the balance we have when some people don't apply personal responsibility in exercising their rights. And if too many people don't, then we make laws limiting the right, that is how society works.
I have the right to blare my radio as loud as I want, but since we have so many people in well populated areas, the loud radios have infringed on others' rights to a reasonably quiet night's sleep, so laws were created deal with people who blare their radios which bother others.
You currently have a right to an assault rifle, but there is a tipping point where too many of these weapons are infringing on the rights of others' safety and lives. We can all debate where that tipping point is, but it seems like the majority of people feel we are just about there.
20 children bodies isnt something that rights can hide....
if this doesnt make people understand the need for changes,then all save some tears for the next massacre...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
....
I totally agree with you. The individual's right to choose marriage, regardless of gender and the right to determine if a pregnancy is not in her best interests at this time.
See... we do agree on some things.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
....
I totally agree with you. The individual's right to choose marriage, regardless of gender and the right to determine if a pregnancy is not in her best interests at this time.
See... we do agree on some things.
Yup, say DS, did you include gay marriage in your claim that you're all for individual rights?
conservatives love individual rights except when it comes to equality and tolerance... then we have issues.
That's not really fair, though. I'm economically conservative (and probably in other ways as well). I'm also pretty broadminded on many issues.
I really wish the lumping of everyone into a package would end...on both sides. It just slams the door on any real sharing of ideas.
That's just it; fiscal and social conservatism are two very different things. I have no problem with fiscal conservatives however social conservatives scare me greatly. While I may not agree with all of the doctrines behind fiscal conservatism, I appreciate where fiscal conservatives are coming from. Social conservatives on the other hand are quite terrifying to me.
I'm very much into John Stuart Mill's interpretation of liberty; you should have the unfettered right to do whatever you want unless those actions interfere with the rights of another person. As I understand Mill, government has no business being up in your business unless your business is up in somebody else's business. That seems pretty appropriate to me. The fact that he was anti-slavery and an early advocate for woman's rights doesn't hurt either.
That's not really fair, though. I'm economically conservative (and probably in other ways as well). I'm also pretty broadminded on many issues.
I really wish the lumping of everyone into a package would end...on both sides. It just slams the door on any real sharing of ideas.
That's just it; fiscal and social conservatism are two very different things. I have no problem with fiscal conservatives however social conservatives scare me greatly. While I may not agree with all of the doctrines behind fiscal conservatism, I appreciate where fiscal conservatives are coming from. Social conservatives on the other hand are quite terrifying to me.
I'm very much into John Stuart Mill's interpretation of liberty; you should have the unfettered right to do whatever you want unless those actions interfere with the rights of another person. As I understand Mill, government has no business being up in your business unless your business is up in somebody else's business. That seems pretty appropriate to me. The fact that he was anti-slavery and an early advocate for woman's rights doesn't hurt either.
Most people, at least from what I've seen/read (and not just here), use the term "conservative" in a sweeping and usually negative sense. That's what I take issue with.
Social conservatism I'm not so much on board with, but going back to Mill's words up there - as examples off the top of my head - someone who's anti-choice? Fine, believe as you wish...but don't try to take that choice away from others. Devoutly religious? No problem here, but respect that I have different views than you.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
OK, I laughed at your comment, mickeyrat :P ...and at the same time, I do appreciate seeing another side of things, not only from those I typically disagree with, but also from those who I sometimes DO agree with.
I may not be ultimately swayed, but I generally gain more insight into a particular issue, or a particular person.
(oh yeah, and the free speech thing too )
edit - I swore I read "anal orgies" up there. My bad!
Comments
Yep. "It's a free country! Don't infringe on my rights! Don't let the gays marry!" :?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Well... I guess you get my point. It's easy to speak of and cite 'individual rights', but at what point does the welfare of others trump an individual's rights? To me... there must be a line somewhere.
Some very well-versed people have eloquently spoken for 'redrawing the line' where individual rights might be sacrificed for the greater of the whole. While I can understand why some individuals might be bothered by this, I cannot understand their reluctance to admit that the problem exists. They would have so much more credibility with me if they would acknowledge the problem instead of rationalizing or denying it.
I understand how this could be difficult. Do the best you can. Most people will understand if something got lost in translation. (We are used to reading dimistrispearljam's posts afterall!
Your english seems more than enough to get your thoughts across. Don't worry about how it comes out. Would love to hear how you perceive this notion of individual rights. It's interesting to hear from different nationalities/cultures when it comes to this.
Exactly. Many philosophers have (and still are) debating this, arguments/conclusions naturally differing following their 'penchant'.
It is also that we do not have a common understanding of what are our 'individual rights' and what value they hold.
Thanks! I'll do my best...
I suppose
The fact that they are allowed so much political power and the ability to spend towards campaigns as they please is insanity. Corporations and groups do not deserve that power...
Groups do not have the same rights as individuals
The Supreme Court fucked that up big time
I shortened your post to focus on a couple of points....
Locke, Jefferson, Voltaire, etc. all make valid points but definitely leave alot to be desired in regards to individual rights. I think another thing to address is the idea of collective rights. Would life fall under collective rights? What about access to a healthy environment? If we use life, liberty, property as the basis for individual rights then what constitutes the basis for collective rights? If the Enlightenment philosophers were trying to move away from the problems with tyrannical government then it makes sense that they would focus (heavily and almost exclusively) on individual rights because they needed to be defined and separated because individual rights was a new concept. Perhaps we need to redefine and refine the idea of individual rights.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
We would then have to explore the likes of Marx, etc. The 'vile' words 'socialism' and 'communism'!!!!!
Not sure we could get people to agree a definition! We all seem to perceive individual rights as something different, thus the difficulty with people expressing what these rights are - no one on this thread seemed willing to define what they see as 'individual rights'. When some do, it all seems extremely selfish and greedy. It would seem that 'choose' is a big word when it comes to individual rights. But choose what? And what if if interferes with my choice? Me, me, me... that what seems to count. Is 'choice' a fundamental right? If so, where do we stand on laws that curtail this choice? Sign of our times? Sign of a certain culture? The collective is no longer to be found in these rights.
Maybe we ought to agree on what is a right!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I have the right to blare my radio as loud as I want, but since we have so many people in well populated areas, the loud radios have infringed on others' rights to a reasonably quiet night's sleep, so laws were created deal with people who blare their radios which bother others.
You currently have a right to an assault rifle, but there is a tipping point where too many of these weapons are infringing on the rights of others' safety and lives. We can all debate where that tipping point is, but it seems like the majority of people feel we are just about there.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I really wish the lumping of everyone into a package would end...on both sides. It just slams the door on any real sharing of ideas.
Well, since the origin of American individualism comes from Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu, perhaps a re-reading (or first reading) is in order. Locke's Second Treatise is free online, any takers? http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
Me first seems to be the most important right for many. This lack of collectiveness is at the root of many of our problems. I think that we have taken the idea of individual rights to the extreme of selfishness. I think most people have never truly read any of these philosophers. Even though I don't completely agree with Locke or even Jefferson, I have read their words and have some understanding of their intent which puts their beliefs, like social contract, into its necessary perspective. For me, it is why I am a "loose constructionist" because I don't really believe that Jefferson or Madison and certainly not Hamilton were of the idea that the Constitution would never change. Make it difficult to change, yes but not impossible to redefine if necessary.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
if this doesnt make people understand the need for changes,then all save some tears for the next massacre...
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I totally agree with you. The individual's right to choose marriage, regardless of gender and the right to determine if a pregnancy is not in her best interests at this time.
See... we do agree on some things.
Hail, Hail!!!
Not only is it not fair, it's just a dumbass thing to say.
Posts like this have to end. We all to check ourselves and practice better self-control.
were you referring to what I said?
Yup, say DS, did you include gay marriage in your claim that you're all for individual rights?
That's just it; fiscal and social conservatism are two very different things. I have no problem with fiscal conservatives however social conservatives scare me greatly. While I may not agree with all of the doctrines behind fiscal conservatism, I appreciate where fiscal conservatives are coming from. Social conservatives on the other hand are quite terrifying to me.
I'm very much into John Stuart Mill's interpretation of liberty; you should have the unfettered right to do whatever you want unless those actions interfere with the rights of another person. As I understand Mill, government has no business being up in your business unless your business is up in somebody else's business. That seems pretty appropriate to me. The fact that he was anti-slavery and an early advocate for woman's rights doesn't hurt either.
Social conservatism I'm not so much on board with, but going back to Mill's words up there - as examples off the top of my head - someone who's anti-choice? Fine, believe as you wish...but don't try to take that choice away from others. Devoutly religious? No problem here, but respect that I have different views than you.
As to Mill's thoughts, I agree with them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I may not be ultimately swayed, but I generally gain more insight into a particular issue, or a particular person.
(oh yeah, and the free speech thing too
edit - I swore I read "anal orgies" up there. My bad!
You spelled analogies wrong. :P
Does this mean I don't get a second date?