- 31 Jan 2019 17:05
#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.
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.
I dream of the United Citystates of Earth, where each Citystate has a standardized border such as one whole degree of Latitude by one whole degree of Longitude.