Individual Rights Versus Collectivist Rights

[Skinski7]

<div align='center'>Individual Rights versus Collectivist Rights

by Skinski</div>



In his speech Lord Falconer called for a change in the perception that the Human Rights Act is a "terrorists' charter".

He said human rights were not a "straightjacket", but were the values which mark society out as being "different" from terrorists.

On some occasions it would be necessary to infringe on an individual's rights for the sake of the wider community, he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6359913.stm

"Voicing serious concern over a proposed Nigerian bill which would effectively outlaw same-sex relationships, four independent United Nations experts today said it would violate international human rights norms, and urged the Government to withdraw it immediately." UN News Service, Feb 23, 2007

"Malaysia should boost education through strengthened human rights: UN expert" UN News Service, Feb 20, 2007



Human Rights or Political Rights are all to familiar phrases which are constantly bandied about by the media and government. What does they in fact mean?

Few of us take the time to ponder such a question, afterall doesn't everyone know what human rights are? Well if the truth is told it becomes quite apparent that there is more to these simple phrases than meets an initial cursory examination.

There are two opposing views of human rights in the world today. On the one hand we have Creator endowed unalienable human rights which are recognised by the state and the state exists for the primary purpose of securing these human rights. On the other hand we have alienable rights granted by the state itself which cannot in any way be exercised contrary to the overall aims of the state apparatus.

Official documents dealing with the latter view of rights always contain, what can be termed, an escape clause which serves to limit the rights in question.

Let's take a look at a couple of examples...

The former Soviet Union during its tenure as a single nation operated under a constitution (three in fact over the years) which guaranteed protection of certain political rights.

Quote:Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.
Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honour and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.

1977 Soviet Constitution

These rights are then restricted in the following clauses...

Quote:Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programmes are fulfilled.
Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.

Article 59. Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations.

1977 Soviet Constitution

The United Nations has the same foundational premise as the former Soviet Union.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we find many wonderful rights held up to the light and boldly proclaimed but then in Article 29 we find the escape clause...

Quote:Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights


No such restrictive clause is to be found in the United States Declaration of Independence or the United States Bill of Rights. The United States Founders view was in total opposition to the view held by many in the world today.

Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

United States Declaration of Independence

The recognition of a Creator is also essential if one is to hold onto the principle of Creator endowed rights. The external authority of God grants these rights in the first place and men simply do not have the authority to abolish that which God has granted.

If there is no recognition of God then there is no recognition of God given rights. The alternative is then to assert that man is his own god and history clearly demonstrates that when men rule other men unrestrained, tyranny is the result. Without an external authority it becomes the rule of the jungle where the strong rule over the weak.

The issue of rights is an area where the United States of America is going wrong today. Even with the protective laws on the books, the citizens of the United States, both of the legislature and the general public, are supporting the erosion of the principle of unalienable rights.

The United States is the only country in the world today which has the principle of unalienable Creator endowed rights stated blatently in its foundation law. Thus the historical foundation of the United States of America is a beacon of light to the entire world.

This beacon of light can only shine as long as it is proclaimed far and wide as well as loudly for all the world to hear.

[Henry]

Absolutely.

Not only is a restrictive clause (on the people) absent from the American constitution, but it even further states that any rights not explicitely mentioned fully belong to the people (10th amendment I think?)

I think a huge issue is that people in general, at least the ones around me now, truly don't give a shit about their rights, much less are even aware of the concept. This was demonstrated to me the other day at a clothing store. I was in the checkout line and a woman in her 40s was leaving the store and set off the beeping thing. A cashier came over to hear, the lady handed over the bags, and the cashier went through it looking at her receipts. I felt sick watching it, but to the grown woman it was entirely normal and ok for a 16 year old acne covered girl to start going through her stuff, as though she has authority to do so because the machine went off. It's the store's device - it's their responsibility to detag their shit, or not, doesn't matter. Yes, the lady consented, and that's her right, but I sensed she didn't think she had a choice, or that her space was something to be respected. I walked past and regretted not simply letting her know that she was free to go, and didn't have to consent to any more searches if she didn't want to. This example doesn't really address individual right vs. collective good I guess. Just was thinking about this, and that people who don't value their own rights most likely don't give a shit about yours, nor understand what individual rights are all about in the first place.

People love the common good and it's easily sold to them...until the day when they find themselves the minority, when their property is in front of the new highway and gets grabbed, or their kid gets grabbed because of his bruise from the jungle gym.

[Moriani]

Quote:There are two opposing views of human rights in the world today. On the one hand we have Creator endowed unalienable human rights which are recognised by the state and the state exists for the primary purpose of securing these human rights. On the other hand we have alienable rights granted by the state itself which cannot in any way be exercised contrary to the overall aims of the state apparatus.

The recognition of a Creator is also essential if one is to hold onto the principle of Creator endowed rights. The external authority of God grants these rights in the first place and men simply do not have the authority to abolish that which God has granted.

If there is no recognition of God then there is no recognition of God given rights. The alternative is then to assert that man is his own god and history clearly demonstrates that when men rule other men unrestrained, tyranny is the result. Without an external authority it becomes the rule of the jungle where the strong rule over the weak.

The reasoning here is flawed.

There seems to be some confusion understanding the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

I can speak freely, assemble with whomever I want, criticize the government, and own a weapon because I exist, and for no other reason.

Those are civil liberties. Civil liberties, by definition, cannot be granted, not even by a god. Civil liberties are objective, not subjective. They exist whether or not I exist, whether or not I'm aware that civil liberties exist, with or without a government, and certainly with or without a god.

Civil liberties were written into the US Constitution to remind the people and the government of what the government may not do. Those are protections from government, not rights granted by government or anyone else.

Civil rights are another matter entirely. Those rights are granted by government and they can be taken away by government. Such rights concern age, sex, race and gender discrimination, employment opportunites, the "right" to housing or health care and other "rights" that the government, vis-a-vis the people, see fit to grant, or take away.

[Skinski7]

Quote:

Quote:There are two opposing views of human rights in the world today. On the one hand we have Creator endowed unalienable human rights which are recognised by the state and the state exists for the primary purpose of securing these human rights. On the other hand we have alienable rights granted by the state itself which cannot in any way be exercised contrary to the overall aims of the state apparatus.

The recognition of a Creator is also essential if one is to hold onto the principle of Creator endowed rights. The external authority of God grants these rights in the first place and men simply do not have the authority to abolish that which God has granted.

If there is no recognition of God then there is no recognition of God given rights. The alternative is then to assert that man is his own god and history clearly demonstrates that when men rule other men unrestrained, tyranny is the result. Without an external authority it becomes the rule of the jungle where the strong rule over the weak.

The reasoning here is flawed.

There seems to be some confusion understanding the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

I can speak freely, assemble with whomever I want, criticize the government, and own a weapon because I exist, and for no other reason.

Those are civil liberties. Civil liberties, by definition, cannot be granted, not even by a god. Civil liberties are objective, not subjective. They exist whether or not I exist, whether or not I'm aware that civil liberties exist, with or without a government, and certainly with or without a god.

Civil liberties were written into the US Constitution to remind the people and the government of what the government may not do. Those are protections from government, not rights granted by government or anyone else.

Civil rights are another matter entirely. Those rights are granted by government and they can be taken away by government. Such rights concern age, sex, race and gender discrimination, employment opportunites, the "right" to housing or health care and other "rights" that the government, vis-a-vis the people, see fit to grant, or take away.

Thanks for your post, I really thing you raised some important points.

The confusion I see here is in regards to our understandings of the role of government in a society.

I subscribe to...

Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

U.S. Declaration of Independence

The whole premise of the recognition of a Creator in relation to unalienable rights is that it gives the moral foundation for the existence of these unalienable rights. This is what many of the Founders of the United States Republic saw as essential.

Quote:I can speak freely, assemble with whomever I want, criticize the government, and own a weapon because I exist, and for no other reason.

Says who? You?

To say that we have these rights because we simply exist is more subjective than objective as this view is dependent on a subjective philosophical paradigm. Those that argue that humanity is a collective consciousness decry individualism as it pertains to unalienable rights. In a collectivist paradigm you cannot have individual cells (people) going in their own direction as this effects the order of the entire organism (humanity). The aim of any collectivist system is ultimately to have everyone and everything running in unison and to a perfect order. The trains must run on time.

You refer to civil rights as being granted by government and you are correct. The problem here though is that in accepting the governments role as an instrument granting civil rights we have twisted the purpose of government from the protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property) into that of moulding a better society. While this is, on the surface, a noble end it is also very dangerous and immoral due to the factor of coercion involved.

Often for the government to become involved in the granting of civil rights it is necessary to infringe on unalienable rights. A perfect example is in regards to the forced resdistribution of wealth form those with more to those with less in many socialist programs.

[Guest]

Anyone who calls themselves "Lord" and claims to look out my rights I find suspect.

[Moriani]

Quote:

Quote:I can speak freely, assemble with whomever I want, criticize the government, and own a weapon because I exist, and for no other reason.

Says who? You?

To say that we have these rights because we simply exist is more subjective than objective as this view is dependent on a subjective philosophical paradigm.

Yes, I say so, and no one can dispute otherwise.

I think you're confused about subjectivity and objectivity.

I have in my hand an object. In my language it is a pix, though some call it a tsarc or penitsa. About 140 Million people might call it a koogelschreiber, and 100s of Millions refer to it as a ball point pen, or simply a pen.

The name of this object is totally dependent upon the "knower," and that makes its name subjective.

However, its function is objective. Regardless what you call it, its function is to put ink on paper or other things. Call it anything you want, call it a Mercedes-Benz, but it doesn't change the fact that the function of this object is to put ink on things.

More importantly, its function is independent of you and I. If either you or I, or we both cease to exist, its function is still putting ink on things. If you lived your entire life without seeing this object, or without ever knowing that this object existed, that would not have any bearing on its existence or function.

Likewise, my ability to breathe, speak freely, assemble freely and defend myself is inherently objective.

Whether you exist or not has no bearing on my abilities. Your knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of my existence has no affect. What you call my abilities has no impact either. You can rename free speech as "goat-speak" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I am able to speak freely.

My ability to breathe, eat, speak and assemble freely and defend myself also exists irrespective of government. Whether a government exists or not is irrelevant. The form of government, republican, democratic, dictatorial, oligarchial or theocratic has no bearing.

Whether a god or gods exist or not is also irrelevant, just as my belief or lack of belief in a god or gods has no bearing. I still have those abilities.

The application of those abilities is certainly subjective. The fact that I can assemble freely with others doesn't mean that I ought to or that I must. I can choose to be a pacifist and allow others to end my life with no resistance other than a strenuous verbal objection.

Quote:Those that argue that humanity is a collective consciousness decry individualism as it pertains to unalienable rights. In a collectivist paradigm you cannot have individual cells (people) going in their own direction as this effects the order of the entire organism (humanity). The aim of any collectivist system is ultimately to have everyone and everything running in unison and to a perfect order. The trains must run on time.

Those people are anal retentive control freaks who will never be happy unless they are controlling every aspect of people's lives. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and both sexes, and all levels, ie parent-child, one-to-one, teacher-student, employer-employee, scientist-public and leader-follower.

There's an old joke, how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? It only takes one, but the light bulb has to want to change. Those control freaks are unlikely to change, so you'll have to banish them or kill them.

Quote:The problem here though is that in accepting the governments role as an instrument granting civil rights we have twisted the purpose of government from the protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property) into that of moulding a better society.

Civil rights are group rights, not individual rights. Ostensibly they are designed to preserve good order and correct injustices perpetrated by "the majority."

The government of the US has deemed that is is bad public policy to terminate the employment of older workers simply because they are older workers.

I say boot their asses out. Older workers should have the skills and experience to make their own way in life and be running their own enterprises and not dependent on a corporation for security, income, or benefits.
And if people made their own way, there wouldn't be any corporations to control and influence the government. And it isn't necessary for everyone to have their own business. There's no reason why a group of people can't band together and run their own machine shop, or restaurant, instead of being slaves to corporate box restaurants like Appleby's.

It only proves that people are overly weak and basically not good. It isn't that people are basically bad, it's just that people are lazy and selfish and will do anything that they believe will provide them with something for nothing. There's always a Hitler, or a Stalin or a Pol Pot waiting in the wings, and lots of people willing to have them. If Hitler came back, Americans would not only elect him, but make him dictator if they believed it was the only way to keep their McMansions, and 5 cars and $35,000 entertainment center and their Tommy Hilfiger clothes.

Quote:Often for the government to become involved in the granting of civil rights it is necessary to infringe on unalienable rights. A perfect example is in regards to the forced resdistribution of wealth form those with more to those with less in many socialist programs.

It's a form of political patronage. The tendency of government has always been to centralize. No where is that more obvious than in the US, where the governmental system has shifted from a federal system to a national system and is well on its way to a unitary system. The states are no longer sovereign, they have evolved into mere administrative entities that execute and administrate the policies of the national government.

[harmonius]

Quote:Those that argue that humanity is a collective consciousness decry individualism as it pertains to unalienable rights. In a collectivist paradigm you cannot have individual cells (people) going in their own direction as this effects the order of the entire organism (humanity). The aim of any collectivist system is ultimately to have everyone and everything running in unison and to a perfect order. The trains must run on time.

Quote:Moriani: Those people are anal retentive control freaks who will never be happy unless they are controlling every aspect of people's lives. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and both sexes, and all levels, ie parent-child, one-to-one, teacher-student, employer-employee, scientist-public and leader-follower.

There's an old joke, how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? It only takes one, but the light bulb has to want to change. Those control freaks are unlikely to change, so you'll have to banish them or kill them.

Humanity is collectivist and individualist at the same time. I think that venturing too far in one direction or the other is a recipe for failure in most cases. So where do we draw the lines of acceptability and responsibility?
That is truly the question is it not?

I will pose questions to the die hard individualists:

-If humanity started as tribes, how were they able to be successful with everyone just individualy doing their own thing? Hey look a sabretooth tiger! I know, everyone run for it, and YOU, Dave, fight it off for us will ya?

-How did tribes evolve into more complex societal structures with agrarian skills leading to masonry alphabets, math etc? (and I do not want to hear alien intervention nonsense)

-How do nations, political systems, religions, corporations, families, armies etc. exist without some form of collectivism?

I do not think anyone should be forced to participate in anything against their will, however in the tribal structure (which works and has worked for aeons) people had to certainly think twice about what they wanted due to the fact that going it alone and being the 'lone wolf' was often a losing proposition.

I am reminded of those stupid US Army commercials for some reason, where they say "Be an Army of one!" What a load of horse shit. Aside from certain commando elite training for special purposes these people are all part of a collective.

Even the vaunted US Constitution is a set of rules for collective interaction and responsibilities of individual and state. Their may not be something like section 29 of the UN charter written in it (directly,) the premise of unalienable rights applies to EVERYONE. This means that in order to have your unalienable rights safeguarded their are certain principles that come into play.

The US constitution was largely based upon the ideas of the Common-Law as outlined in the Magna Carta. The Magna Cart is essentially a bunch of examples relating back to unalienable rights in regards to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The inverse of this rule is also important: Do not do to others that which you would not want done to you. Certainly these ideas are far older than the Magna Carta and go back to Jesus and likely long before that. I think the freedom to choose for the self is an ingrained function genetically and spiritually in our species.

That is it. Those two formulas, the Golden Rule and it's inverse are truly the only Laws that we are talking about in the context of freedom, but we enshrine those laws through specific areas of understanding ie: article 1 of the constitution, criminal law etc.

Certainly these ideals only work when they are the centre of of our education and understanding. Without them, people will often join with or will do as they are told by people who are stronger and more clever than them (violence and conspiracy) or can convince other people through charisma, fear to infringe upon others rights.

Even with freedom and understanding by all parties, there will always be situations that will strain these ideals far beyond the breaking point. Natural disasters are a good example of this. Disaster strikes and now you do not have enough resources to deal with feeding all the survivors (whether healthy or injured) so what do you do then? Do you let yourself die while on the moral high-ground of not infringing on others right to live? Or do you make the hard choice and say sorry, but me first, I get to eat and you don't, too bad? I think the novel Lord Of The Flies outlines this premise very well. One collective fractures into opposing collectives...

If we are collectivist by nature, as I believe we are, then the ultimate question would be: What kind of collective do we want to participate in if at all?

Everything is determined by situation, or so it seems.

Ah to be a human animal!;)


That's it for the moment I am sure there is lots of stuff I have not mentioned but this is all I feel like doing now.


MMM


BTW, why is this post in the Landmine Legislation section?