Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

I am a little confused by your point. Isn't "collectivism" the natural state of most animals--- including apes and people? Through out history, and pre-history for that matter, people have lived in groups, gangs, clans, tribes, and nations. The individual living alone is surely the exception to our collectivist natural state.

And yes it is likely true that people have noticed that they are more powerful as part of a group. And in the "natural" course of events we observe that the more powerful prevail over the less powerful, however righteous.

I suspect that if the USA did not have "collective" power... we would have been conquered long ago. And in that circumstance we would have lost the benefits of any proud individualism.

Every person who complains about loss if individual rights has the RIGHT to buy a boat.... sail off into the ocean... and live an absolutely free life.... a law unto themselves.... smoking whenever they wish.... using drugs if they wish... doing really anything they want.

Surprisingly few people take the opportunity to leave the onerous constraints of this collectivist society. If one did not know better, one would think that these people actually like some of the benefits of living in our little collective.

Why should I leave? It is the collectivists who are repeatedly attempting to take away my natural, Almighty-given "rights" to do what I want with my person and property. It is the collectivist pack, so intent on telling me what to do with my property, that should leave and take their cancerous ideas with them. If not for the collective, there would be no wars, no state-sponsored theft, no collective immorality. Each conflict would be between autonomous individuals--the conflict would be engaged and concluded between two individuals with no effect (good or bad) on anyone else. Each individual would account for oneself--there would be no theft of the worthy, the exceptional in order to artificially prop up the lazy, the weak and the immoral.

Irked, who or what says it is your property?

Why, I do . . . and my ability to defend it from any individual set on taking it from me.

Problems arise when the lazy, weak and immoral band together in a collectivist action to deprive me of my property. Then the odds are suddenly stacked against the individual and he is bound to come out on the short end against the thieving mob. Without the collective, it would be a matter of individual against individual: the only natural, true and just type of conflict.

Except, of course the minor detail that humans are pack animals and have always acted collectively. I belive that is called, wait, it is on the tip of my tongue ...

..



..


...


we have a winner!!!

NATURAL LAW

the real natural law, not that crap invented by intellectuals to cover their power grab.

Yes irked and all the other adherents of "property" you own what you own by virtue of the consent of the collective. it may not be pretty or sound very elegant, but in the long run all rights are at the will of the collective. That is just, well, natural law. It is part of the human dna.

Now I like to think that humans have aspired to a version of the collective that honors the individual as he or she is and is respectful of each one's needs, but we are barely at the cusp of such a reality.

Rather than using the concept of the individual to elevate the human experience, such as was the intent of our nation's founders, we see it bandied about as a sword of righteousness. It is a claim of authority when the only true authority is deep within our genetic structure.

I can appreciate why anyone would want to develop the notion of the individual as a inviolate principle, and in the current culture I am such an advocate as well. But I also know that it is a quicksand that easily is the hiding spot for greedy, selfish and hateful humans.

To me it is essential to start consumed by the humility that is present when one assumes one's place as one of six billion plus humans, knowing that for all practical purposes we are identical replicas of a single woman at the beginning of our family.

That the collectivists' grab for power over the individual is old does not make it any less unnatural.

Ardy, you are a very smart fellow, so I suspect you are intentionally being obtuse in reference to my use of the term "collectivism". I think I have made it clear over a number of previous posts that I am using the meaning of "collectivism" (as well as "individualism") in the sense each is used in political theory. Both refer to the relationship between the individual and the state.

I am NOT refering to communal or social arrangements, nor, in the case of individualism, am I refering to a person set apart and unto himself, interacting with no one, and living as though alone on an Island (I am not even sure such a childish theoretical construct exists). There is nothing in the theory of individualism (the liberation political upstart on the historical block) that precludes a robust and voluntary interaction of individuals.

So, once more, when I refer to "collectivism" I am referring to a political arrangement in which the Rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state.

When I refer to "individualism" I am referring to a political arrangement in which the Rights of the individual are secured and respected by the state.

Hopefully, that alleviates some of the confusion.
Yours,
Issodhos

Allowing collectivism in any form whatsoever is a surrender of one's individual rights to the collective will. Some may chose to draw the line "just-so", others may chose to draw the line "this-a-way", but whenever one has chosen to act together one has tacitly agreed with the odious proposition that the collective will, the collective good, has a legitimate place, that the will of the individual can and should be subservient to the will of the many.

All this why-can't-we-all-just-get-along jabber about state-guaranteed rights makes me physically ill.

Satire also requires accuracy to maximize its impact, Irked. It is not a question of the individual's will, but of his Rights. That said, an individual can voluntarilly agree to not exercise a Right or Rights -- for example, when she subordinates them to the requirements of the military when she voluntarilly enters into a contract to enlist. There are many examples of Rights retained but voluntarilly not exercised.
Yours,
Issodhos

Agreeing to be a slave does not alter the fact that one is a slave.

One certainly has the right to choses not to exercise one's rights to the point of abrogating all of one's rights to the will of the collective in the form of indentured servitude to the military. But that state of being has about as much to do with individualism as a Saddam Hussein has to do with righteousness.

Choosing to allow the collective to make decisions that may (and in fact are) counter to the individual's betterment, choosing to allow the collective to attend to one's security and well-being, choosing to allow the collective to "own" anything at all is an abandonment of individual rights indistinguishable from the dutiful surrender of the pup to the alpha male.