Question is simple: Does empowerment of the individual via Individual Rights Legislation diminish collective rights? If so, how? If not, why not? *I've been rethinking my own opinion of this lately. Thought I'd throw this out objectively - hence no argument one way or the other - for no other reason than to generate broad and open discussion*
Interesting question. Obviously there are a whole buttload of considerations that could bog us down to the point of being unable to make an assertion regarding the topic. Perhaps really it depends mostly on what you really value. Now that I think about it, the term "collective rights" seems artificial to me, as the "collective" is comprised soley of individuals. Regardless, here's my schpeal on the topic: It doesn't matter because if you want to drive improvement in the species, individual rights are paramount to success. I say that based on the two assumptions: - the species is as good as the weakest link. - rights result in accountability. (you reap what you sew) I think that individual rights must be maximized in order to promote maximum responsibilty. IMO, this is the only path to true minimization of devastation due to human behavior. Firstly you must allow individuals the freedom to make mistakes and then hold them accountable for them. There will certainly still be devastation/dissapointment and such, but that's part of life. IMO, attempting tight control is the worst possible approach as it promotes denial and stifles behavior.
That is a good point, an excellent point. I agree that maximizing individual rights minimizes the collective negative effects of human behaviour on the individual: kinda keeps our instinctual 'destruct' behaviours - i know there's others - in check. but there are times when the collective assertion of rights are, well, a GREAT idea, endorsed by all except one. And that one has the 'individual right' to quash it all. not because the collective assertion was destructive or anything negative[collectively]but, rather, becasue of their individual right to disagree on whatever basis. Doesn't that seem to somewhat empower the individual over the collective? *sorry i'm being vague but really, i want to keep this discussion out of the weeds*
Thank you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not if the collective is made up of strong individuals. Also, I think strong individuals will always be empowered over the collectivists. Sheep need something to bleet. So I think this is a self-balancing system. Strength and freedom breed responsibility. If a member makes a mistake, if the other members are strong they will hold the member responsible for their mistake. Further if they are strong they will be understanding and promote/enforce learning from mistakes.
Well see, that's the point. Collective/individual rights are privilaged and thus not discriminatory - you can be a fuq'n idiot and have as much say in whatever as a genius does (that doesn't server the purpose of rights proper, does it?) i agree with you there. This is what I'm proposing to discuss: can an individual hold the balance of power over the collective?
Of course, look at Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. They were all strong individuals who had an extreme effect on the collectives to which they belonged. Joan of arc, Jesus and Gandhi also had a stronger effect than one would expect from one individual. The demented and disgruntled loners drive 90% of all human progress. Groups have no intrinsic rights other than what the individuals who belong to that group surrender to it. A group can attempt to force its will on the individual through punishment of “crimes” but that is just a form of coercion not an enforcement of any “right”.
