OZOS
Well-known member
So, you would have turned the Jews over to Hitler, is that right?
The time has come...
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Very telling that eider hasn't denied it.
way 2 go
Well-known member
no wuflu passport no entry , to what your country ? a city in your country ? a bus ? a store ? a home ?
the wuflu passport starts benign looking but ...
kinda like how they said 2weeks to flatten the curve turned into 1 year to flatten the curve
eider
Well-known member
Obviously you should have been running things here.
Can ask, what do you do for a living, a job?
Eider does not believe that his rights are above or even equal to the will of the collective (i.e. "team"). What he doesn't understand and will not hear is that this means that he has no rights at all.
The Jews learned this in Germany, Christians are learning it now in India, North Korea, Nigeria, China and elsewhere. People with black skin learned it during the 16th and 17th centuries and it wasn't until a government was set up based on the idea that individuals are where human rights find their only meaningful application that they were ever freed from the nearly world wide systemic slavery that was created by their very own home "team".
Based on Eider's worldview, there can be nothing wrong with anything the collective does because it is the collective that is doing it. It doesn't matter whether it's the collective taking money by force (i.e. under penalty of law) from those who earned it in order to give part of it to people who didn't earn it and keep the rest for themselves (i.e. extortion and theft), or if it's the collective rounding up whole populations of "undesirables" and murdering them in a wholesale fashion, or if it's the collective enslaving people because they look different than the majority. It does not matter, theft, kidnapping, murder, or whatever - anything goes so long as "the whole community is acting as a team".
Clete
The Jews learned this in Germany, Christians are learning it now in India, North Korea, Nigeria, China and elsewhere. People with black skin learned it during the 16th and 17th centuries and it wasn't until a government was set up based on the idea that individuals are where human rights find their only meaningful application that they were ever freed from the nearly world wide systemic slavery that was created by their very own home "team".
Based on Eider's worldview, there can be nothing wrong with anything the collective does because it is the collective that is doing it. It doesn't matter whether it's the collective taking money by force (i.e. under penalty of law) from those who earned it in order to give part of it to people who didn't earn it and keep the rest for themselves (i.e. extortion and theft), or if it's the collective rounding up whole populations of "undesirables" and murdering them in a wholesale fashion, or if it's the collective enslaving people because they look different than the majority. It does not matter, theft, kidnapping, murder, or whatever - anything goes so long as "the whole community is acting as a team".
Clete
expos4ever
Well-known member
I do not follow your reasoning. You appear to be arguing for an all-or-nothing position - either a person's rights as an individual always trump the will of the collective or they never do. Is this what you are saying. It seems eminently reasonable to believe that the optimal way to structure a society is to strike a carefully thought-out balance between individual rights and the rights of the group.
Groups are made up of individuals.
Individuals have rights, not groups.
All men have the same rights. Those rights are inviolable. That means that if someone does or wants something that violates the rights of someone else, they are in the wrong, no matter the circumstances.
Those who violate the rights of others forfeit some of their rights. For example, a thief forfeits his right to some or all of his own property until he can pay restitution, and a murderer or rapist forfeits his right to life when he does those things.
That is how justice works.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The rights of "the many" do not overrule/override the rights of "the few."
I like substantive responses!
The flaw in your premise is shown by the following question...
Carefully thought out by who?
expos4ever
Well-known member
When I write of the rights of the collective, I really mean "the rights of the individuals who make up the collective". It is simple common sense that sometimes it is best to limit the rights of one person in the interests of the rights of many others who might otherwise be harmed by that first person exercizing their individual rights.
No, expo, its not, and even if it was common sense (which isn't common anyways), it would still be wrong.
The rights of humans are, in no particular order: Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.
There is NO conceivable circumstance where violating any of those rights is "best" (to use your word) to limit those rights in favor of other people's rights*, because NONE of those rights are inherently harmful to other people.
Again:
All men have the same rights. Those rights are inviolable. The rights of "the many" do not overrule/override the rights of "the few."
By violating the rights of "the few," you inherently trample on the rights of "the many" because they all have the exact same rights.
* except in the interests of justice where the person has committed a crime and has therefore forfeited some or all of his rights
Right Divider
Body part
Come on man! Don't you believe in "democracy"?
There is no such thing as the rights of the collective because there is no such thing as "the collective" (i.e. "the collective cannot be defined).
Go ahead and try to answer the question I asked you yesterday. Who decides what the rights of the collective are? Who decides when the exercise of my rights has violated the rights of the collective? Who gets to decide what "the collective" even means? It's not one person, so is it two? Three? Is it fifty people? Is it any group of people at all or is it a particular group? Is it the majority? The majority of what, your church group, your city, your state, the whole country? What if the majority in your city said your church group sucks and shouldn't be allowed to exist any longer? What if the majority of the world said your country sucks and shouldn't exist any more? Are they right by virtue of the fact that they're the majority? No? Why not? Who decides whether they're right or not?
WHO DECIDES?
"A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right." - Ayn Rand
If you think it through honestly, you will find that there is no rational answer to my question. The closest to an answer you will find to the question "Who decides what the rights of the collective are?" is "The collective.", which is obviously self-defeating. The concept of individual rights, however, has quite the opposite outcome. I cannot say it any better than others already have...
"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do." - Ayn Rand
Try to apply that same sort of logic to the the collective and see what happens. It won't work because all the concepts break apart into meaningless and undefinable ambiguities, starting with the concept of "the collective" itself. How can an undefined entity have the right to life and even if it could, what would its right to life even mean? How would anyone know whether an undefined and undefinable entity actually existed in the first place and what could it possibly mean to violate it's right to life?
Clete
Last edited:
"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." - Ayn Rand
expos4ever
Well-known member
This is not much of a case - you merely assert that humans have certain individual rights that are never to be reigned in in the interests of others. This is begging the question. Whether this is the law in your country is beside the point - laws can be "wrong".
Later in your post you again merely assert that "There is NO conceivable circumstance where violating any of those rights is "best" (to use your word) to limit those rights in favor of other people's rights*, because NONE of those rights are inherently harmful to other people."
But this is obviously wrong: your "liberty" to go into a crowded place without a mask in the time of Covid clearly endangers other people! How can you possibly argue otherwise?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I can. My refusal to wear a mask has endangered exactly zero people because I tested negative for the kung flu just 5 minutes ago. Never been infectious, never endangered other people.
Furthermore I recognize that the benefit from wearing masks is virtually nonexistent.
Masks stop bacteria, not viruses. It's like trying to stop a beebee with a tennis net.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Nonsense, and you cannot possibly not understand this - nobody could possibly be so stupid as to not understand this. You could still be infectious.
You are playing the game that so many in the Trump camp play - you do not really have a sensible platform; instead your "platform" is to "stick it to the lefties".
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I'm pretty smart and very sciencey. At the professional level in the biological sciences.
Not if I test negative.
Thank you for your tantrum
Last edited:
Too much fun to resist.
I think you need to learn what a "right" is.
If I have the "right" to do something, that means, by definition, that no one has the authority to prevent me from doing that thing.
There is no such thing as a "right" that can be taken away or limited.
Of course they can be. But God's law is NOT, and it is upon HIS law that we draw our rights from, NOT from any human-made law.
Because you say so?
Masks don't work against viruses. Your premise is flawed, therefore I reject your argument.
Going into a crowded place prior to the existence of Sars-CoV-2 endangered other people as well, especially during the normal flu season, yet prior to Sars-CoV-2's existence, NO ONE CARED if you were wearing a mask or not.
Nowadays, if you go somewhere and you don't wear a mask, people get mad, despite the fact that they don't work against it anyways.
Supra.
He tested negative.
How could he be infectious?