Community rights versus individual rights - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14984790
Some seem to find my arguments of ‘community rights’ versus ‘individual rights’ as incoherent distractions from the topic. Personally, I find this baffling and the result of not understanding these must be balanced for civil and just society.
https://www.ethicsdaily.com/balancing-a ... cms-15286/
This ⬆️ gives a reasonable explanation of why this balance is needed.
There is a commonly accepted belief today that all debate must be based upon liberalism (individual rights), or it is not a legitimate position. This basically means individual rights advocates always must win over community rights advocates because only one argument is allowed.
Individual rights are derived from community rights (laws). To believe community rights are not an argument for limiting individual rights is to totally misunderstand what rights are. If there are no restrictions on individual rights, then laws serve no purpose. To argue one individual is harmed by a law is reason to change the law totally misses the point of why there are laws. They are deliberately intended to deny some individual rights. That is there purpose.
I welcome your views on whether or not community rights are a legitimate position in a debate.

Edit: Individual rights and community rights are the only argument against the other to keep them in balance. To deny either position removes all restraint on the other.
#14984938
noemon wrote:Because the Home Office has been given instructions under a racist policy titled Hostile Environment that is a racially discriminating policy that seeks to make life miserable and hostile to anyone, not just "illegal immigrants" but also EU citizens as well as British citizens of the Black persuasion like the Windrush victims.

Yapping about "liberal judges" without any context whatsoever sounds like yet another excuse to try and defend all these racist policies.


You want to only debate it based upon ‘individual rights’ so it can be portrayed as ‘right vs wrong’ and ignore the actual political divide. Conservatives want the balance pushed to ‘community rights’. Liberals want the balance pushed toward ‘individual rights’. There is no right or wrong. The community both grants and denies individual rights. This appears to be the issue here. The Home office wants to deny the right to remain in the country during appeals. They have every right to do this if it is acceptable to the community. It is only trying to find a balance between community rights (conservative) and individual rights (Liberal) that is causing the conflict in the courts and media.
The ‘liberal’ insistence upon not recognizing the validity of ‘community rights’ arguments results in thinking it is about ‘right vs wrong’ when it isn’t. It is about deciding which right should take precedence on illegal immigrants. This is why ‘liberals’ want to portray all ‘conservative’ arguments as racist, because they refuse, or are too ignorant, to understand the actual conservative position. Conservatives believe rightly so that they are free to deny some individuals certain rights. Liberals don’t understand this or pretend not to so they can simply dismiss all community rights arguments as racist.
#14984939
These non-sense you parrot every time you have nothing else to say on a particular topic, have been quite tiring and boring so let's attempt to address them slightly at least.

One Degree wrote:Conservatives want the balance pushed to ‘community rights’.


Conservatives in your article refers to American libertarians who are far more about their individual rights than what the article terms "liberals".

yourarticle wrote:A major problem in debates over the proper role of government in such matters is the short-sightedness of people up and down the ideological spectrum. Most liberals recognize the responsibility of government to see that needs are met. Most conservatives recognize that individuals must assume responsibility for themselves even in the face of terrible social conditions.



But many liberals fail to recognize the tendency of government to become self-serving, to absorb power from the individuals they are supposed to serve, and to attempt to micromanage people’s lives, thereby robbing them of their freedom and initiative. And many conservatives fail to recognize that some people in severe circumstances cannot overcome those circumstances on their own, ignore the fact that greed motivates persons in positions of power, and place misguided trust in the ability of enlightened self-interest to provide a just society.


One Degree wrote:This is why ‘liberals’ want to portray all ‘conservative’ arguments as racist


Defending a racist policy that you have already admitted to me that is racially discriminating such as the Hostile Environment policy, means that you are doing it consciously and will-fully. This policy is racist because it racially discriminates and that has nothing to do with "liberals and conservatives". Racially discriminating policies can and have been applied by both liberals and conservatives throughout the years, though in the case of the UK particularly this racist policy was started under the Coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
#14984942
noemon wrote:These non-sense you parrot every time you have nothing else to say on a particular topic, have been quite tiring and boring so let's attempt to address slightly at least.



Conservatives in your article refers to American libertarians who are far more about their individual rights than what the article terms "liberals".





Defending a racist policy that you have already admitted to me that is racially discriminating such as the Hostile Environment policy, means that you are doing consciously and will-fully.


Everyone is in favor of individual rights. The disagreement comes in finding the balance between the two. I see nothing racist in the Hostile Environment policy. It only concerns those in the country illegally without any regard to race.
However, I have no problem with any group of people deciding their race or ethnicity is so closely tied to their culture that they need to discriminate on that basis to maintain their culture. Personally, I have no need for such a policy, but recognize some people of all races believe they do. The view that all people must embrace a multiracial, multicultural society is just an opinion. The fact they think everyone should agree with that opinion is irrelevant, not a factual argument at all. You would need to prove this has some actual benefit to their culture important enough to adopt it. Just because someone believes strongly in a view does not mean it is ‘right’ for everyone. Only their community should make those decisions.

Edit: @noemon , my view isn’t nonsense, it is the basis for civilized society.
#14984944
At risk of being shunned, I understand you perfectly one degree. You’re not going crazy. And I don’t find you racist either...

*quietly tip toes off, glancing over shoulder*
#14984948
One Degree wrote:Everyone is in favor of individual rights.


So your argument that liberals are more in favour of individual rights and conservatives more in favour of community rights is wrong. It is the exact opposite. Conservative libertarians are far more concerned about individual rights than liberals.

The disagreement comes in finding the balance between the two.


Be specific.

I see nothing racist in the Hostile Environment policy. It only concerns those in the country illegally without any regard to race.


So when you told me yesterday "it does justify your claims of the policy being racist" you were not agreeing that this Hostile Policy Environment is in fact racially discriminating as per the official definition:

UN Article 1 wrote:
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[21]


:roll:

The view that all people must embrace a multiracial, multicultural society is just an opinion. The fact they think everyone should agree with that opinion is irrelevant, not a factual argument at all. You would need to prove this has some actual benefit to their culture important enough to adopt it. Just because someone believes strongly in a view does not mean it is ‘right’ for everyone. Only their community should make those decisions.


Sure.

ness31 wrote:And I don’t find you racist either...


One Degree is surely not like other conservatives who call Black people "monkeys" in here. He is not that type of person indeed.

He is however almost always trying to defend some racist policy or a racist person(like the convicted person who rammed his car in Charloteville) one way or another. He does that with various tricks, either by denying the policy or person is racist to begin with, or by repeating this stuff about individual rights vs community rights which to me do not make any sense but I am truly curious on how they make sense to you.
#14984952
So your argument that liberals are more in favour of individual rights and conservatives more in favour of community rights is wrong. It is the exact opposite. Conservative libertarians are far more concerned about individual rights than liberals.

No, that is not correct. This is a separate argument as to what level of government should make these decisions. ‘Liberals’ believe the federal government (UN as you argue) should make these decisions and disregard state and local differences. Conservatives believe most should be decided locally. So it depends on what you define as the community as to who favors individual rights the most. My argument liberals push individual rights more is due to them bypassing local government. On a local level, there would be no real difference other than which rights they granted and which they denied.


Be specific.

Be specific about ‘balance’? I am not sure what you mean, but decentralization allows for the best balance imo.


So when you told me yesterday "it does justify your claims of the policy being racist" you were not agreeing that this Hostile Policy Environment is in fact racially discriminating as per the official definition:

No, I was not agreeing it was racist. I was only agreeing you provided a definition to support your argument. I said I did not accept the definition.



:roll:



Sure.

Does this mean you think everyone should accept your opinion? More than an eye roll seems to be required for a rebuttal.

I honestly don’t understand why you find my view so difficult to understand. Civilization is based upon a group of people passing laws granting and denying rights. There is no ‘absolute truth’ that was used in doing so. They simply decide what they want.
#14984956
One Degree wrote:No, that is not correct. This is a separate argument as to what level of government should make these decisions. ‘Liberals’ believe the federal government (UN as you argue) should make these decisions and disregard state and local differences. Conservatives believe most should be decided locally.


If by locally you mean individually, then indeed that is correct. Conservative libertarians and yourself more specifically believe individuals are at the centre of the universe, you believe that things should only be decided within one degree of latitude and longitude, no?

My argument liberals push individual rights more is due to them bypassing local government. On a local level, there would be no real difference other than which rights they granted and which they denied.


:lol: Are you not the person that has argued that California should not have the right to locally decide what to do with immigrants and that they should instead follow Trump's dictats from government? Once again you are contradicting yourself and seem to be using locally, individually and government however it is convenient for you, curiously always against immigrants.

o it depends on what you define as the community as to who favors individual rights the most.


You seem to be defining "community" as an individual and then ranting against those who prefer actual communities composed of more than 1 individual as "individualist liberals".

Be specific about ‘balance’? I am not sure what you mean, but decentralization allows for the best balance imo.


Be specific what you mean, give an example and show what kind of balance you are talking about.

No, I was not agreeing it was racist. I was only agreeing you provided a definition to support your argument.


You said that by that definition(which you do not accept) my argument(that it's racist) is justified(verbatim).

Which means that you admit that by the UN definition of racism this policy is indeed racist.

Does this mean you think everyone should accept your opinion?


The UN definition is not my opinion, it is what the elected governments of the entire planet have collectively determined what racism is.

I honestly don’t understand why you find my view so difficult to understand. Civilization is based upon a group of people passing laws granting and denying rights. There is no ‘absolute truth’ that was used in doing so. They simply decide what they want.


That is a truism empty of any meaningful statement in context.
#14984959
One Degree is surely not like other conservatives who call Black people "monkeys" in here. He is not that type of person indeed.

He is however almost always trying to defend some racist policy or a racist person(like the convicted person who rammed his car in Charloteville) one way or another. He does that with various tricks, either by denying the policy or person is not racist to begin with, or by repeating this stuff about individual rights vs community rights which to me do not make any sense but I am truly curious on how they make sense to you.


Well, not everyone believes in open borders :hmm:

Granted, the hostile environment policy is rough, but ultimately it is a sovereign nations right to pull stuff like that. Terrible optics yes; a 90 year old getting put through the ringer, but everyone knows a country’s political climate can change at any time. Its happening everywhere. And when “computer says no, computer says NO”.
#14984960
ness31 wrote:Well, not everyone believes in open borders :hmm:


I don't think that's proper because I do not believe in open borders either, that does not mean that I have to accept the sadistic treatment as in the case of the 90 year old or the deportation of Black British citizens which has turned into a scandal.

Granted, the hostile environment policy is rough, but ultimately it is a sovereign nations right to pull stuff like that.


Sure it is, as it is also my right to call this policy for what it is and that is racist.
#14984963
noemon wrote:I don't think that's proper because I do not believe in open borders either, that does not mean that I have to accept the sadistic treatment as in the case of the 90 year old or the deportation of Black British citizens which has turned into a scandal.



Sure it is, as it is also my right to call this policy for what it is and that is racist.


To call the UK racist is just silly :hmm: That country has been tolerant to a fault. If there is now an over correction of sorts in reaction to unchecked immigration, or Brexit or whatever is going on there, then it is a shame for those individuals caught up in it. But to label the UK racist is just contrary to facts and a bit mean.
#14984964
If by locally you mean individually, then indeed that is correct. Conservative libertarians and yourself more specifically believe individuals are at the centre of the universe, you believe that things should only be decided within one degree of latitude and longitude, no?


I have repeatedly pointed out that ‘individual rights’ on their own are not practical, because there is no basis for creating and maintaining civilization. I accept government (community) as a necessity. It should never be larger than what is necessary for a vibrant civilization or it becomes too authoritarian.

:lol: Are you not the person that has argued that California should not have the right to locally decide what to do with immigrants and that they should instead follow Trump's dictats from government? Once again you are contradicting yourself and seem to be using locally, individually and government however it is convenient for you, curiously always against immigrants.

You are arguing the UN should overrule all and now arguing for local autonomy for California?
We are both forced to alter our philosophy to address existing realities. It doesn’t mean we changed our philosophy.


You seem to be defining "community" as an individual and then ranting against those who prefer actual communities composed of more than 1 individual as "individualist liberals".


I have never defined the community as an individual. I have even set a preferred minimum of 10,000 people and a maximum of one million. 100,000 is probably best for most today, but that is not my decision to make.

Be specific what you mean, give an example and show what kind of balance you are talking about.

The balance is determined by the people who make up the community. Illegals are a current example. Each autonomous area has to decide what rights they have if any. Personally, this is bizarre to me because there is no reason for illegals to have any rights, but ‘individual rights’ advocates think they should have. We are trying to find a balance between these views and decide what rights we will grant them or take away.


You said that by that definition(which you do not accept) my argument(that it's racist) is justified(verbatim).

Which means that you admit that by the UN definition of racism this policy is indeed racist.

That makes no sense. Agreeing you produced a definition is not agreeing with your position. I don’t accept the UN’s authority over this and I doubt the U.K. does either. Is the UN ready to enforce their view on the U.K.? If not, then their definition is irrelevant.


The UN definition is not my opinion, it is what the elected governments of the entire planet have collectively determined what racism is.

What is the punishment for refusing to comply? The UN is basically nothing other than a liberal mouthpiece that is incapable of any action against a major country.

That is a truism empty of any meaningful statement in context.

Glad we agree I am right. :)
#14984965
ness31 wrote:To call the UK racist is just silly :hmm:

It is not silly at all, it is simply a fact, that this Hostile Environment policy is a racist policy that has caused serious trouble to several people.

But to label the UK racist is just contrary to facts and a bit mean.


Actually giving me a lecture that people have the right to be sadistic, racist and mean against other people and then calling me mean and silly because I recognise their right but still call it for what it is, is a bit ridiculous, especially when my own human rights are under a direct and very real threat.




One Degree wrote:I have repeatedly pointed out that ‘individual rights’ on their own are not practical, because there is no basis for creating and maintaining civilization. I accept government (community) as a necessity. It should never be larger than what is necessary for a vibrant civilization or it becomes too authoritarian.


You repeatedly claim that conservative libertarians care more about community rights than liberals who supposedly care more about individual rights than libertarians. But your argument is simply not true, conservative libertarians care more about individual rights than classical liberals.

You are arguing the UN should overrule all and now arguing for local autonomy for California?


I am not arguing that the UN should overrule anyone, the UN definition of racism is the working definition that all countries in the planet have collectively agreed, the UN has not overruled them in any way, the countries of the world have made this definition. And this definition does not overrule anything, nor does it have any legal effect on anyone. Has your own unknown definition any legal effect on anyone?

We are both forced to alter our philosophy to address existing realities. It doesn’t mean we changed our philosophy.


No dear, I am not a hypocrite and I am not altering any ideology of mine to suit my purposes like you are. I have not made any statement that local government should overrule national government or that national should overrule transnational government or vice-versa. You made the argument that local government should overrule national government, but in the example I gave you about California deciding locally what to do with immigrants, you disagree with California and insist that Trump at federal level should overrule California's local rights, meaning that your ideology is as good as single-use toilet paper whenever it is convenient to you.

Each autonomous area has to decide what rights they have if any. Personally, this is bizarre to me because there is no reason for illegals to have any rights, but ‘individual rights’ advocates think they should have.


Unless that area is called California and unless she decides that they do not have any human rights. :lol:

Once again conservatives are "individual-rights advocates", you seem to be calling human-rights advocates as "individual-rights" advocates which is also wrong.

We are trying to find a balance between these views and decide what rights we will grant them or take away.


And what balance is that? What are the balanced rights in your example?

One Degree wrote:That makes no sense. Agreeing you produced a definition is not agreeing with your position.


You did not agree that I merely produced a definition, you explicitly said:

One Degree wrote:I was not aware of this definition existing. I don’t accept it, but it does justify your claims.


So drop the act. It's not good being so dishonest about your own statements.

basically nothing other than a liberal mouthpiece


And you are a conservative libertarian mouthpiece that seeks to defend racist policies. Your argument is entirely based on semantics and victimisation. Why should we go with your individual definition of racism whatever that is and not with the definition that 192 countries and their elected governments have collective agreed upon? Besides ad-hom-ing the UN does not attack the definition one bit. What is wrong with the definition of racism? You haven't said. You are doing the exact thing that you whine daily of others doing to you without even bothering to address the definition itself quite unlike all these others. You are seeking to categorise it as "liberal" and dismiss it while spending numerous pages literally whining that liberals categorise you as "racist" in order to dismiss you. :lol: But noone has called you racist, we have called this UK government policy racist and have proved why that is so. It is your individual choice to defend this racist policy and assume this position without even attempting to show why that policy is not racist.

Glad we agree I am right.


Truism
#14984967
My objection to your standard spiel about "community rights" and "individual rights" is that you invariably appeal to whichever one allows you to justify something transparently awful.

If we're talking about Charlottesville, the individual rights of the out-of-town neo-Nazis apparently trump the rights of the local "community" to lodge a counterprotest.

But when we're talking about a police officer manhandling a nurse for refusing to take a blood sample without a warrant, then the "right" of the "community" to carry out arbitrary and illegal seaches trump her right to be left unmolested by the state when she is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Similarly, you'll appeal to "community rights" to defend the harassment of a gay or black person in a town full of bigots, but call for us to respect "individual rights" when a business in that community refuses to serve said gay or black person.

All we want is a little consistency. :roll:
#14984972
It is not silly at all, it is simply a fact, that this Hostile Environment policy is a racist policy that has caused serious trouble to several people.


You can’t write off an entire country as racist because of what has happened to several people. Conservatively, the UK has a population of 60 million. Bad things happen to good people all the time. None of us are immune :hmm:

Actually giving me a lecture that people have the right to be sadistic, racist and mean against other people and then calling me mean and silly because I recognise their right but still call it for what it is, is a bit ridiculous, especially when my own human rights are under a direct and very real threat.


I’m very sorry if you are being personally affected by that awful policy. But actions like that don’t just happen without reason! It will work out you watch. There will be ex gratia payments all over the place.

Edit -

But when we're talking about a police officer manhandling a nurse for refusing to take a blood sample without a warrant, then the "right" of the "community" to carry out arbitrary and illegal seaches trump her right to be left unmolested by the state when she is innocent of any wrongdoing.


Hm, one degrees past is catching up with them lol
#14984974
ness31 wrote:You can’t write off an entire country as racist because of what has happened to several people. Conservatively, the UK has a population of 60 million. Bad things happen to good people all the time. None of us are immune :hmm:


I am sorry but you cannot chastise me for calling a government policy, racist. You can tell me why I am wrong in calling it as such but I have not seen any argument to that effect. The UK has gone down into a deep wormhole and is utterly unrecognisable. It's truly a shame.

But actions like that don’t just happen without reason!


Ramping up racist fear is what populists all across the world do. Identifying the causes that have led to this is the rational way to avoid them in the future. If people in the UK do not like to be called "racist" perhaps they should be electing non-racist politicians on non-racist platforms instead of the opposite. I am sorry if you voted Tory in the past elections because your great-grandpa or husband been voting Tory since they can remember but if you did, you are directly responsible for this awful racist policy because it was in the Tory manifesto which is your responsibility to read before you cast your vote.
#14984976
If this isn’t all based upon political differences then why do you think the Home Office is doing it? The similarities to illegal immigrants in the US and Trump versus liberal judges seems obvious to me. A judge rules against the administration and the administration appeals.


Why is Trump's attorney general appointing what you call "liberal" judges? You would think he would appoint conservative ones.

But then you really don't know what "liberal" means anyway. You have proven that time and time again.

Judges are triers of fact in cases like these. They are not allowed to decide based upon whether they like or even have sympathy for a defendant.

But then you also do not understand who and why they appear before an immigration judge in the US in the first place.
#14984979
noemon wrote:I am sorry but you cannot chastise me for calling a government policy, racist. You can tell me why I am wrong in calling it as such but I have not seen any argument to that effect. The UK has gone down into a deep wormhole and is utterly unrecognisable. It's truly a shame.

Ramping up racist fear is what populists all across the world do. Identifying the causes that have led to this is the rational way to avoid them in the future. If people in the UK do not like to be called "racist" perhaps they should be electing non-racist politicians on non-racist platforms instead of the opposite. I am sorry if you voted Tory in the past elections because your great-grandpa or husband been voting Tory since they can remember but if you did, you are directly responsible for this awful racist policy because it was in the Tory manifesto which is your responsibility to read before you cast your vote.


I’m not chastising you lol, you are entitled to your opinion :) My opinion is that your opinion is harsh. If you have skin in the game then you have my sympathies indeed.

And if by populist, you mean the average Joe, then maybe it was time someone started listening to them. All the stuff happening now in the US, the UK and Europe in general was very, vvvery predictable.

Well the first thing you can be relieved about is[…]

Yes, that is the beauty of free market capitalism[…]

The answer is simple. Stop invading, Russia. Se[…]

Actually, the big fall on monday was due to the h[…]