Social Stability vs Individual Rights

[Berzerker]

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in the United States of America, except in as much as we are not British subjects.

So what? We're talking about which is prime, society or the individual. The DoC is clear on the matter and clearly provides "context" for interpreting phrases found in the preamble, not Das Kapital.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is the preamble contradictory? Does it contain phrases that are inherently incompatable with each other? You are interpreting some yet unidentified phrase to mean society is more important than the individual and that would contradict the goal of securing individual liberty.

Who here has said the individual serves society besides you in your sig?

Those who argue for the primacy of society, I believe GePap has argued that. Check the poll

Stability, needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the one or the few

Put another way, society must prevail over the individual

[Berzerker]

Accoding to your viewpoint, you are free, but free only in so far as your freedom does not actually impact the freedoms of others.

Thats the definition of freedom, the absence of force or coercion on choice or action. That doesn't just mean me, but you and everyone else - force and coercion cannot exist without violating the freedom of someone.

Yet you have already then limited and constrained your very freedoms.

Not really, I chose that path and thats what freedom is about - choice. I limit what I do in all sorts of ways, but I can choose again to remove the limits. I can decide to leave society behind and go off on my own or I can decide to stay.

You are free to go anywhere you like, as long as the owner of said place agrees. If said owner does not, then you are NOT free to go there. Therefore your freedom has everything to do with everyone else around you, and precious little to do with you.

Of course, if force or coercion cannot exist for freedom to exist, then that includes force or coercion I may use against others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So what? We're talking about which is prime, society or the individual. The DoC is clear on the matter and clearly provides "context" for interpreting phrases found in the preamble, not Das Kapital.

Stop bringing up strawmen. Kapital has no bearing in this discussion, since it does not discuss what the ideal society would look like.

And if you think the DoI supports your claim of the primacy of the individual, you are again mistaken. Your liberatyrant philoohpy has failed you yet again.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for [b[one people[/b] to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

...

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

And so on. By and large, the DoI is an indictment of the British Crown's crimes against us as a people, not as individuals, though there are complaints as to that as well, and there should be.

Your assertion that individualism was the original basis of our founding documents is once again proven false.

Is the preamble contradictory?

No.

Does it contain phrases that are inherently incompatable with each other?

No.

You are interpreting some yet unidentified phrase to mean society is more important than the individual and that would contradict the goal of securing individual liberty.

How muuch more clear does We The People get? Okay, what about common defense, general welfare, and posterity mean besides society and future society?

Those who argue for the primacy of society, I believe GePap has argued that.

GePap did not argue that. He pointed out that falsity of your claim that human beings sole existence is as individuals and that society does not exist.

Put another way, society must prevail over the individual

Your interpretation. Another, more realitic interpretation is that it is right and good to sacrifice yourself for the good of others and that putting "the individual" (i.e., a small self-selected group of individuals) ahead of society harms both society and most of the individuals in it.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Economic growth of Taiwan. When was democracy installed?

GDP/capita stood at $24,500 in PPP in 2003.

[Berzerker]

Since murder is is unjustified killing, yes, you do need society to tell you that. What constitutes unjustifed, and therefore murder, differs from society to society. Furthermore, I would very much argue you do need to be told that murder is wrong. Because people who don't think murder is wrong kill. We kill too much in order for murder not to be part of the natural human experience.

Did hypocrisy come before society? I dont need anyone to tell me murder is wrong, the sour taste of hypocrisy tells me it is wrong. The fact others murder is meaningless, they aren't me - I'm an individual.

Our apish ancestors lived in social bands, i.e., society, long before our species came into existence. Society predates us. Without society, there are no individuals, only soletary animals, without the abiltity to communicate and having no understanding of rights. You would be subject to the arbitrary whims of whatever more powerful human you happened across.

Sigh, are we talking about modern society or not? Are we talking about morality and philosophy or not? We are talking about the morality or philosophical justifications for societal intrusions on our freedom, not apemen 5 million years ago. Even they made choices, appease the clan alpha male and female(s) or go off on their own.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I dont need anyone to tell me murder is wrong, the sour taste of hypocrisy tells me it is wrong.

Circular argument. Without society, there's no concept of hypocricy. There is no concept of anything without society. Concepts are a product of language, language of society. Without society, you would be a dumb animal, incapable of abstract thought or speech.

Sigh, are we talking about modern society or not?

No.

Are we talking about morality and philosophy or not?

No.

We are talking about the morality or philosophical justifications for societal intrusions on our freedom, not apemen 5 million years ago.

No, we are talking about whether or not individuals can exist seperate from society. That question is determined not by philosophy or morality, but by biology and anthropology. It is a question of our speicies mode of existence.

You may as well argue the philosophical or moral implications of sharks as alpha preditors.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
Human beings exist in social groups, not as individual atoms. MOst political theory based on individual rights as paramount is based on the obviously false notion that human biengs somehow chose to be in groups. HUman beings had no choice, we started in groups, we shall always live in groups.

Exactly, no man is an island unto himself. You cannot disolve yourself from society. That doesn't mean the individual is unimportant, it just means ones individual wants must not endanger the social group. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Also, Libertarianism and lassiez faire capitalism in many cases violates the utillitarian maxim of maximising total human happiness and minimising total human suffering, and are therefore evil and anyones who supports them are immoral scum. Libertariansim is just a "feel good" ideology that insulates people from feeling guilty that they gave others the shaft.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A good example, but AS a free *individual* I would choose a car, and go off and paint it whatever color I wanted to, without regard to whether or not it offended someone else's tender sensibilities....

-=Vel=-

Ah, what a way to utterly miss the point of an annalogy.

I should have used base metals, that way you would have had to make up a crazy alchemy story in order to miss the point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Those who argue for the primacy of society, I believe GePap has argued that. Check the poll

Put another way, society must prevail over the individual

Individuals are secondary to society. That is irrelevant though since in the end the question is all about the values that drive society. I can argue that a society that accepts and supports individual rights will function better than one that does not without losing sight of the fact that individuals are transiatory and certainly of secondary importance to the whole.

Dashi's point was that of a legal system that claims to suppress individual rights in order to mainatin social stability. This of course is a lie since in the Chinese system those well connected and corrupt are unlikely to face serious jail time most of the time (not all, but most), meaning that only the freedom of those at the bottom are curtailed, while those on top are left to roam free.

That inequality of justice, while de facto as well sometimes in the US is essentially de jure in China, and that is destabalizing to society.

Its funny how much liberterians talk about dictatorship, when in fact, the DICTATOR is as free as a human being can be. Why do you guys want to shackle and limit the freedoms of the most successful? Simply to placate the prols and the inferiors?? Funny sense of individualism.

[Berzerker]

Stop bringing up strawmen. Kapital has no bearing in this discussion, since it does not discuss what the ideal society would look like.

Does it color your ideology? That matters if you're claiming a phrase in the preamble was meant to contradict the goal of securing our liberty.

And if you think the DoI supports your claim of the primacy of the individual, you are again mistaken. Your liberatyrant philoohpy has failed you yet again.

What does the DoI offer as the proper role of government? To secure our inalienable rights. You skipped that paragraph...

And so on. By and large, the DoI is an indictment of the British Crown's crimes against us as a people, not as individuals, though there are complaints as to that as well, and there should be.

You mean the Founding Fathers viewed "people" as something other than a collection of individuals? Again, you see the words "public good" and assume that means society over rules the individual because of your ideology, not the ideology of the Framers. If they believed in this primacy of society they would not have created a document to severely limit federal power to do what society wants, true?

How muuch more clear does We The People get? Okay, what about common defense, general welfare, and posterity mean besides society and future society?

Do these contradict "secure the blessings of liberty"? You said NO, so how can you interpret those passages to mean society trumps liberty? Did the Framers have to include in there a reference to their belief that we the people as individuals have the right to defend ourselves from murderers, i.e., self defense? Doesn't this "common defense" stem from our individual right of self defense? Of course, they saw individual rights as the foundation from which to build a new country and society.

Do you know what James Madison wrote about "the general welfare"? He said it was like a chapter heading, nothing more, not a power to do anything. What mattered were the powers given to the Feds. The phrase can mean many things without it becoming a trump card against the individual.

GePap did not argue that. He pointed out that falsity of your claim that human beings sole existence is as individuals and that society does not exist.

Huh? Where did I say that?

Here

Your belief in the primacy of individualism today is built upon a combination of your own personality, and a mass of shared history created over generatrions, the works of dozens of others, reworked by dozens more.

At the end of the day though, each individual is transiatory, they start, the end, and most will never be remembered more than 100 years after their deaths. Society on the other hand, more importantly, humanity, keeps going and going and going. That is why in the end, Laws are about making sure that there is something here for your great great great great great grandchildren, even if you will likely never see them.

There is more to the whole than just the sum of its parts.

Sounds like he believes in the primacy of society.

Your interpretation. Another, more realitic interpretation is that it is right and good to sacrifice yourself for the good of others and that putting "the individual" (i.e., a small self-selected group of individuals) ahead of society harms both society and most of the individuals in it.

More realistic? The poll question parrots the quote from Mussolini. Your interpretation is contradictory, it speaks of self-sacrifice then jumps to society's need to prevent harm from individuals - the sacrifice will not be voluntary.

[Berzerker]

That doesn't mean the individual is unimportant, it just means ones individual wants must not endanger the social group. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face.

You're describing an oft used example to show where freedom stops, not appropriate for your argument that society trumps freedom for the good of society.

Individuals are secondary to society.

See che? Gepap is a fascist.

Its funny how much liberterians talk about dictatorship, when in fact, the DICTATOR is as free as a human being can be. Why do you guys want to shackle and limit the freedoms of the most successful? Simply to placate the prols and the inferiors?? Funny sense of individualism.

Is murder an act of freedom? You apparently think so when claiming a dictator is freest of all people. Individualism is based on the notion we all have rights, dictatorships are based on the notion only the dictator and his cronies have the right to do what they want to others. Funny definitions of freedom and individualism appear in your post

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Is murder an act of freedom? You apparently think so when claiming a dictator is freest of all people. Individualism is based on the notion we all have rights, dictatorships are based on the notion only the dictator and his cronies have the right to do what they want to others. Funny definitions of freedom and individualism appear in your post

Freedom means only "lacking restraint". Do not confuse it with Liberty, which has included in it notions of rights granted by a legitmate authority. Freedom can be licentious.

Dictators don't murder, since dictators make the law and hence their killing is always legal. They are defined as murder only from the outside. Of course, given your penchant for holding on to the notion of some moral absolutism, you are bound to use such language.

Ther fact is that the notion of freedom you espouse is if anything more depedent on sociewty than any other, since in the end, your system only works by complete and absolute agreement on the basic set of rules by all individuals and a willingness to accept those rules and never bend. If any one individual were to decide that they prefered power to playing nice and letting everyone else have their little piece of the pie, your structure collapses upon itself as indivuals group in order to protect themselves.

So what is so funny Berz is that you are the one who wants to act as if the individual always comes first and society second, when in fact the world you seek can only be achieved by a society in which all individuals have given up the possiblity of accruing power and status beyond all others.

[OzzyKP]

Its a valid point Berz. If someone really praised freedom above all, especially equality, they would advocate a dictatorship. Because it creates the most freedom for that one person at the top. Murder IS an act of freedom. If you only cared about you, then to stop yourself from killing X person is a constraint on your freedom.

You have to limit everyone's freedom with law so as to give everyone more freedom. No one is 100% free in your world, but all (or most) are 90% free. That seems like a good trade off.

So gepap's point, no doubt, is that you compromise 100% freedom (i.e. the freedom to kill for one person) for the benefits of everyone. As does he. You just draw the lines in different places. I am more likely to agree with where you draw the line, Berz, but I recognize that we aren't working from ironclad moral precepts that are infallible and directly in opposition to everyone else's.

[Frankychan]

Oh wah wah wah....cry me a river.

GePap gets this whole thread right. And like how he pointed out what MY point was, this whole issue isn't about Social Stability vs. Individualism. It's about Judicial justice.

Furthermore, all this crap about "the individual is separate from the society" is BS. Neither does the society totally shape the individual...its a hand-in-hand deal. The society shapes the individual with mores, values, experiences, etc. But in the same vein, the individual learns from his/her experiences from said society and shapes his/her personality.

THERE IS NO PERSON ON EARTH THAT HAS NOT BEEN SHAPED BY HIS/HER SOCIETY.

As Ozzy said:

You have to limit everyone's freedom with law so as to give everyone more freedom. No one is 100% free in your world, but all (or most) are 90% free. That seems like a good trade off.

There has to be some kind of Justice applied to society in general that is fair and unbiased to maintain social order. Yeah, you may think it infringes on YOUR freedoms...but if everyone thought that way, there'd be fricken riots everywhere. Additionally, YOU'RE personal actions might infringe on MY beliefs and therefore I will want to take action against you.

That's what Justice brings. The fact that hey, you might want to fling your crap at my house cause you feel like it-and I want to beat your ass down and kill you-but there's a penalty involved. That's what Justice and social order brings. "Is the price of doing said action = My personal 'freedoms' worth it?"



Humans are social animals, regardless of whether or not one "belongs" in said society. Even being an "anti-social", one still is immersed in said society. Go live on a deserted island if you hate humanity.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Velociryx


So yes...I'd say that the first recorded appearance of a highly stratified society rearing its head in 3k bc counts as a pretty modern invention.

Then obviously we're using different meanings of the word 'modern'- since it's only through being able to decipher what we have left to us through the relatively scant remains of ancient civilizations that enables us to understand what emergent 'societies' were like.

You must also be unfamiliar with the term 'ancient history', by the way....