Societal freedom

[opebo]

No, there is no such thing as a 'group right' Marxist, etc.  Only a group of individuals, each with separate interests that may largely coincide.

[opebo]

No, there is no such thing as a 'group right' Marxist, etc.  Only a group of individuals, each with separate interests that may largely coincide.

That collective right does have some weight.  It's the basis of the communitarian philosophy - which I strongly disagree with and thus won't argue

Oh I have no argument with the idea that politically a large group with a commonality of preferences with generally take precendence over a lone individual.  This is about power, not ethics, which are always completely subjective.

[opebo]

This is a demonstration of how Marxisn, Leninism, Maoism, Socialism, and Collectivism lead to a loss of individual freedom. Anybody who believes in this crap is nuts!!

Well, I agree that anybody believes that it is an objectively moral system is nuts.  However I think that socialism is clearly better for most people in terms of a social contract than pure libertarianism.  Any form of government or system of laws is a compromise between freedom and security, so one always gives up some freedom to Leviathan in order to live in society.  Given that, I find something between socialism and capitalism the best balance for most people.

[opebo]

No, there is no such thing as a 'group right' Marxist, etc.  Only a group of individuals, each with separate interests that may largely coincide.

And in the case of common resources, then, are we to say that everybody has individual rights?

That's what's led to so many of today's environmental problems.

Well, everyone has an individual relationship to any given resource.  As in clean air matters to me from my individual perspective, and your perspective is meaningless to me.  I may or may not care very much about clean air.  Any political decision we make about limiting activities of individuals that may damage the environment is a compromise between freedom to engage in those acts, and the desire of others to avoid the resulting changes in the environment.  Social life is a constant war between individual preferences.  In the end we must all accept a very high price in loss of freedom to live with others, but we should at least be intellectually honest about what we are - completely separate and selfish individuals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We needn't make any claim to a 'greater good' or a precedence of rights in order to exercize eminent domain.  We merely have to recognize that while all interests are individual, all rights are socially granted.  In other words your right to property, as valuable as it is to you, and in my opinion as valuable as it is to the functioning of society economically, is contingent upon the consent of at least a large majority of your fellows in society. 

Alternatively you may try to enforce your right by shooting individuals and representatives of the State that try to trespass, but I think we can all agree on the impracticality of that.  The act of owning property is always somewhat precarious, and is always determined politically.  By the same token, those who take property by eminent domain do so as a result of political power, not any greater claim to objective right or value.