Social Stability vs Individual Rights

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

You might wish to reread the preamble of the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

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

Of course

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.

Sorry, I didn't need "society" to tell me I wouldn't like being murdered.

[Velociryx]

Society "adopted" me when I came out of the womb, but I decided to join it long after I was an individual.



At the end of the day, yes, we are social creatures. But WE control the society we create. Not the other way around.

Anytime it IS the other way around, it's ugly.

It's very ugly.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Society "adopted" me when I came out of the womb, but I decided to join it long after I was an individual.

You "joined" society when you were born. Before you had a sense of self, you were a part of our society. You could become aware of yourself as an "autonomous" individual because you live in a society which promotes that ideology, and allows you to hold that ideology.

We are both individuals and members of a social group. We cannot be one without the other. Any attempt to exhault one over the other results in a detriment to both.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
At the end of the day, yes, we are social creatures. But WE control the society we create. Not the other way around.

That's how it should be, theoretically. The truth is, our Frankstein monster of an economy has escaped our direct control and now controls us. The Matrix is alive and well.

[Berzerker]

You might wish to reread the preamble of the Constitution.

Why? It doesn't say the individual serves society. It mentions liberty, fascists dont believe in liberty, they believe the individual serves society. Btw, the preamble is like a table of contents, or a table of context. You cannot remove the preamble from the actual Constitution and apply whatever interpretation to it in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution places severe restrictions on government, if "society" was the determining factor, those limits would not exist and the Constitution would advocate democracy instead of a republic.

And the preamble is not in the Declaration of Independence which is what I am paraphrasing. The Declaration lays down the principles upon which a just government exists and its purpose is to secure our inalienable rights, not sacrifice them on the alter of government in the name of "society".

[chequita guevara]

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

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.

The above is the reason for the Constitution. While it carries as little legal weight as the DoI, it sets out the political philosophy behind the document.

[Velociryx]

That's how it should be, theoretically.

This is the only point that matters.

We agree.

That's EXACTLY how it should be.

And the more steps we take AWAY FROM that ideal, the worse off we are.

End of story.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It doesn't say the individual serves society.

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
End of story.

-=Vel=-

Nyet, tovarisch. Just cuz we agree on the ends doesn't mean we agree upon the means. I think a democratic society is better than an anarchic one. Only when we actively take charge of our society, our economy, our government, only when we cease to absent ourselves from (or when we take control from those who refuse to allow us to make such coices), will we truely be our own masters, and not the slaves of our creations.

And that is the central tenent of Marxism.

[Velociryx]

We agree on the central point of THIS discussion.

Methodology is another matter, and probably best suited for another thread. Agreed, Comrade?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

You "joined" society when you were born. Before you had a sense of self, you were a part of our society. You could become aware of yourself as an "autonomous" individual because you live in a society which promotes that ideology, and allows you to hold that ideology.

By putting " " around joined you are acknowledging that I didn't really join society, I was adopted. And again, I don't need "society" to tell me I wouldn't want to be murdered nor would I need society to tell me murder is wrong.

We are both individuals and members of a social group. We cannot be one without the other. Any attempt to exhault one over the other results in a detriment to both.

When you find that happy balance let us know, but it will still be you - an individual - making the discovery. Can individuals go off on their own, i.e., leave society? Of coure, so how can you say individuals would not exist without society? Its the other way around, society is a product of individuals making individual choices and requires individuals to exist before it can exist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Society "adopted" me when I came out of the womb, but I decided to join it long after I was an individual.



At the end of the day, yes, we are social creatures. But WE control the society we create. Not the other way around.

Anytime it IS the other way around, it's ugly.

It's very ugly.

-=Vel=-

How could you control the society you live in, if at the same time you grant that same power to 290 Million others, including others that may be acting in complete disagreement with your actions?

Accoding to your viewpoint, you are free, but free only in so far as your freedom does not actually impact the freedoms of others. Yet you have already then limited and constrained your very freedoms. 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.

The fact is that yes, every individual within a society if free to chose, free to chose from the set of choices they have available to them, a set of choices defined not by the individual, but society.

Lets say you go to the only car lot anywhere, and they have red, blue and green cars. You as an individual are free to have a red, green, or blue car. Your free choice. But as free as you are, you will not have a yellow car, because the choice does not exist. Well, society is that car lot and its not you that gets to chose the colors available.

I would say that there are three concentric circles of choices available. The largest set is that of chocies materially possible. Then the next smallest circle is that of choices allowed by society-human sacrifice is a choice that;s materially possible,but not socially possible. Finally, the smallest set if popular convention. Not all socially possible choices are there, such as being a goth, for example.

95% of individuals will never, no matter how free, stray from the smallest circle. This is because they are social beings who see the world throught the value code they learned from their generally equally satisfied parents. 4.9% will chose freely from all the socially acceptable choices. These are the more adventerous types, for good and ill. Finally, there is the .1% willing to chose freely from all the materially possible choices. These are our madmen, monsters, revolutionaries, and saints.

[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=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
By putting " " around joined you are acknowledging that I didn't really join society, I was adopted. And again, I don't need "society" to tell me I wouldn't want to be murdered nor would I need society to tell me murder is wrong.

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.

Its the other way around, society is a product of individuals making individual choices and requires individuals to exist before it can exist.

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.