Societal freedom

[phk]

Debate

[A18]

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.

[Gabu]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure I understand the question either. If I do, it's rather simple. What else, if it wasn't individual freedom, would the freedom of a society of individuals be built on?

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

One could argue that this in itself is a breach of other's individual rights; I believe that no individual rights should be impeded on, as long as they are not impacting the individual rights of others in a meaningful way. If that's what you mean.

[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.

[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.

[Lunar]

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

[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.

[David S]

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!!

[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.

[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?

[John Dibble]

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?

Common resources are publicly owned. In a democracy, all people own the government. However, it's not like owning something personally, it's more like owning a piece of a corporation, except everyone of voting age has an equal share. Since everyone owns a piece, everyone gets a say in how the land is used, and they can all use them in most cases. It's not the same with privately owned land. Similar concept with the President being impeached - think of the Congress as a board of directors for the corporation and the prez as CEO, just with some slightly different roles. The board and CEO exist because it would be impractical for every individual to be involved in every aspect of a large government.

Now, as far as eminent domain goes, I'll admit that the group seizing the property may have interests, but not necessarily rights to outweigh the right to property. There are cases where eminent domain is used when property is considered 'blighted', but the only blight is a gravel driveway, or the house having only a single bathroom, or there being potholes in the road(which is the local government's responsibility to fix, since roads are public goods) - in cases like this it is only interests, not rights, that bring about the use of this government power. The only valid use for eminent domain, in my opinion, is to take away property that is being used in a way that largely infringes on other's rights. For instance, this happened to my family - our former neighbors had 4 akitas, big fighting dogs, chained up in their yard, and one day two got loose and killed one of our dogs, and then months later they got loose again and bit another of our dogs, both incidents occured on our land. The courts deemed that the woman could not own these dogs because she was irresponsible with them and it harmed our property - they were to be seized by animal control and she wasn't to have dogs anymore. So, eminent domain can only be legitamitely used in cases where the rights of others are being infringed. As with all rights, including property rights, you have certain responsibilities.

[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.

[migrendel]

There are some rights which are truly sacred. They are beyond the reach of majorities, and can never be deprived. Freedom of speech and personal privacy are the two most obvious and most important. On its face, I think that very few would disagree with this proposition.

Some conservatives have argued that a trade-off exists between economic security and personal liberty. I dispute this vehemently, but I imagine their argument centers on the fact that they wish to make money, make more money, and trample on the existence of the deprived, and this is prima facie a social right in itself.  How can this be? How can the accumulation of property take precedence over the basic economic security of many? For when you argue that, the right to be free of poverty, free of ignorance, free of illness, and free of the fear which hangs as a destructive miasma over the lives of so many who did not get dealt such a pleasant hand to play is maligned and fobbed off in the name of capital. Worse yet, this all coincides with the tendency to purloin the truly important social liberties with an evil eye and an unequal hand, targeting those who fail to meet the ridiculous standards the idle have the time to concoct. Dislike them if you wish, for that is your right, but show the graciousness to leave them alone. In the end, freedom shall only exist when we recognizes that it flows not from the vicissitudes of the market, but from the ability to live without the social standards again which so many of us, not bland enough to conform to your lack of vitality, are forced to chafe.

[ATFFL]

Thank you fore reminding me why I did not miss you.

The worst part is someone might genuinely think that what migrendel wrote is actually intellectual.

[migrendel]

I haven't the vaguest idea what crawled up your ass, Tredrick, but it seems quite apparent that you have confused being sarcastic with being perceptive.