Social Stability vs Individual Rights

[Velociryx]

The "individual" is a mere human construct. Without society it cannot exist.

Really?

So I owe my existence to society?

I cannot "make it" on my own?

You see....even without active participation in "society," individuals CAN band together to form small familial groups, and do so without societal trappings. That is to say, they can do so and maintain their utter individuality.

Society as we understand it is actually a relatively modern invention. The loose tribal associations and such of ages gone by hardly qualify in the same sense. From Feudalism to modern times though, we've changed for the worse. Democracy is a bold step in the right direction tho...we'll see how the experiment continues to do.

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

As an informed individual, I demand that I recieve healthcare, pensions, parks, museums and public transport paid for out of general taxation.

Average Americans: Grab your government by the balls and demand the healthcare that is yours for the taking. Now that's individualism.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The "individual" is a mere human construct. Without society it cannot exist.


Society as we understand it is actually a relatively modern invention.

Uh, that's news to me.

Don't you think that the kingdoms of Ancient Egypt (the world's first superpower) had what is clearly a stratified society ?

They certainly seemed to think so.


Unless you're using some other definition of 'society' that I'm not familiar with.

Rather than seek the divine and develop a rapport with the gods, the role of the priest was akin to an everyday job. For, as the pharaoh was seen as a god himself, the priests and priestesses were seen as stand-ins for the pharaoh; as it was the greater job of the priests and priestesses to keep Egyptian society in good order, as is the case with most theoretically based societies. The mystical attributes of the priests and priestesses take on a secondary role, when one considers the heightened role religion played within Egyptian society. Not only was religion a way to attain the ethereal and basic needs of the Egyptians, but it also served as a mechanism to order society, to create a hierarchy, and to preserve the culture for future generations. As such, the role of the priests and priestesses was both functional and mystical on both levels.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/religion/priest.html

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Then he would work on Preparation a through h and ultimately design the Allan Parsons Project.

[Velociryx]

Molly:

That's a good point, but when you consider that homo sapiens has been around for ~400,000 years, I'd not class the ancient egyptians as being terribly old, what, with their first appearance in 3k bc?

Or, we could trace our roots back further, to Australopithecus ramidus, which places our history beginning somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5 million BCE.

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.

-=Vel=-

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You see....even without active participation in "society," individuals CAN band together to form small familial groups, and do so without societal trappings. That is to say, they can do so and maintain their utter individuality.

Society as we understand it is actually a relatively modern invention. The loose tribal associations and such of ages gone by hardly qualify in the same sense. From Feudalism to modern times though, we've changed for the worse. Democracy is a bold step in the right direction tho...we'll see how the experiment continues to do.

Family groupings are just much smaller societies. There still had to be food gatherers, 'warriors', probably a chief. Life was much less complicated, rules may have persisted thanks to natural selection rather than an abstract appreciation of social order, but there was still structure. Which societal trappings are missing?

[Velociryx]

I would say that the whole "shared institutions" aspect of small familial or tribal gatherings is quite absent, and therefore, the group you mentioned is not really a "society" any more than my family (new wife, two dogs, and two cats) could be classed as its own "society"

To my understanding, at least, "society" does not embody the notion of structure. Of course, it is, by definition, structured, but I do not believe that one can point to the presence of structure and assume that a society MUST be present because some semblence of structure is present.


-=Vel=-

[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.

I think Frankychan is correct thouight- massive corruption in the legal system has nothing to do with social stability. IN fact, this sort of corrupt system is the cause for creating social instability. The system in China today is one in which a small group of elites are trying to buy a significant portion of the population with economic growth while leaving the majority in the dust-and such a dynamic can only end in disaster.

If anything, the US system is far more effective at maintaining social stability than the one in China today, because the US system for its flaws, has something the Chinese system is sorely lacking- legitimacy.

A legal system, no matter how lenient or harsh can only aide social stability if it is based on legitimacy. Any systme without it might be able to suppress issues, but the season it wavers, the whole thing comes crashing down.

[Velociryx]

I don't deny that, GePap. (the fact that humans have always tended to be, at the very least, tribalistic, and more recently, created advanced structures we now refer to as "society"), but the world is not made up of members of some vast collective.

History is made....continues to be made by INDIVIDUALS.

Obviously, if we're gonna live more or less together under the same umbrella, there have to be rules.

It would be the purest form of folly to suggest otherwise.

But if the core argument is that the rules should put the blanket of society first, and the individuals who make it up as a second....no. I cannot accept that.

Society...the fabric and structure of the PORTION of our lives lived together, should not intrude upon, nor subvert the individual.

My opinion, of course.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Individuals make history, yes. And history made individuals.

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.

[Berzerker]

Good job Vel, society doesn't create individuals, individuals create societies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Good job Vel, society doesn't create individuals, individuals create societies.

Is that so?

So when did you chose to be part of this society? When did your parents chose?

And have you ever done anything that is actually outside the constraints, both of mores, and values, of this society?

Hell, your very insistance in the primacy of the individual is nothing but parroting of one of the basic values of the society you were born into.

[Berzerker]

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.

Which is why I view fascism as a left wing ideology (see my sig ) In this country the law was to serve as guardian of our inalienable rights, our individual rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The "individual" is a mere human construct. Without society it cannot exist.

Really?

So I owe my existence to society?

I cannot "make it" on my own?

No, you cannot. Humans are social animals. Humans can no more exist on their own than can wolves, cetacians, etc. We aren't like other animals that are fully programmed to go at birth. We need the protection of parents and a social group, we need to learn the lessons of our elders, etc.

Adult humans, after having been raised and protected by society, can break away and live on their own, but they carry a piece of it with them, in the lessons their learned, the knowledge they have. A hermit does not exist without the aid of society.

And societies do not have to be large. Small human bands wandering across the savannah 100,000 years ago were societies. Even mountain men had societies, albeit much looser than we would normally grant that term.

[Berzerker]

So when did you chose to be part of this society? When did your parents chose?

We choose all the time as we decide to stay in society instead of going off on our own. Society "adopted" me when I came out of the womb, but I decided to join it long after I was an individual.