Im All For

dimitrispearljam

lukin2006 wrote:

Yupper ... Individual rights rule.

the foto seems funny,but so shockin and stupid the same time..

DS1119

...choice.

markin ball

I'm all for being realistic and reasonable, too.

Zoso

conservatives love individual rights except when it comes to equality and tolerance... then we have issues.

dimitrispearljam

..citizens and nations that after the death of 20 innocent kids feel and understand the need for changes..

blackredyellow

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.

hedonist

Zoso wrote:

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.

riotgrl

redrock wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

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'!!!!!

riotgrl wrote:

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.

dimitrispearljam

blackredyellow wrote:

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...

Cosmo

DS1119 wrote:

...choice.

....
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.

cincybearcat

hedonist wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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.

Not only is it not fair, it's just a dumbass thing to say.

rollings

cincybearcat wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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.

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.

DS1119

...freedom.

rollings

DS1119 wrote:

...freedom.

were you referring to what I said?

JonnyPistachio

Cosmo wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

...choice.

....
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?

blueandwhite

hedonist wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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.

hedonist

blueandwhite wrote:

hedonist wrote:

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.

As to Mill's thoughts, I agree with them.

mickeyrat

DS not being allowed to create threads on AMT OR use his anal ogys on here either.

hedonist

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!

DS1119

mickeyrat wrote:

DS not being allowed to create threads on AMT OR use his anal ogys on here either.

You spelled analogies wrong. :P


Does this mean I don't get a second date?