Societal freedom

[phk]

Debate

[phk]

What other freedom is there? The freedom of the majority to tamper with the freedoms of the minority?

A "free society" as we think of it is definitely based on freedom of the individual, yes.

Neither group nor individual freedoms ought to take a blanket precedence. The question is one of utilitarianism; what creates the greatest good for the greatest number? If that is an individual right that diminishes a group right, then the individual right's value must outweigh the group right's value. In free speech, it usually does. In overfishing, it doesn't.

[phk]

Adjudicating the infringement of individual rights leads to the victim-saturated society we deal with today - the one that hires lots of lawyers. The overzealous protection of so-called individual rights libertarians call for is exactly what makes us such a lawyer's paradise of a country. Maybe it's about time that we realized that there is such a thing as a group right that does not carry a requisite devolvemnt to individuals. Rights to usage of natural resources, for example, could be interpreted as a group right, since it is the material wealth of a country and it is (ignoring thw world's group rights and interests in the matter) the group right of the country to extract and distribute the resources. However, this doesn't mean that the right to extract and distribute should be the right of every citizen, at least as I see it.

[phk]

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.

Or what about eminent domain, in which the interests and rights of a group of people are determined to outweigh those of a single landowner?

Is every member of Congress allowed to impeach the President if he so desires, or mustn't Congress exercise that right as a group?