Full Version: Individual Rights
May I offer a few observations about Individual Rights.
John Stuart Mill wrote that the only time “mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number, is self-protection. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”
Libertarians usually read “interfering” to mean that only when others are materially or physically harmed, is government action warranted. Individual autonomy, small, limited government.
Modern liberals usually read it to mean that material and physical harm, and even psychological discomfort is justification for government action. Individual autonomy, supremacy of the collective, therapeutic government. (The contradiction between individual autonomy and supremacy of the collective can be addressed later)
Modern conservatives usually read it to mean that in cases of material or physical harm or of violations of “traditional values,” government action is warranted. Constrained individual, Small, limited government.
“Traditional values” have been defined as those unwritten social rules concerning civility, ethical behavior, self-restraint, modesty, personal integrity, self-reliance and the like – the distillation of the wisdom of millennia of human history.
Starting around the 1960s, traditional values began to come under attack because they interfered with the ascendant philosophy of individual rights (radical individualism). It was no contest. Traditional values are/were extra-legal, so there was no way to defend them except by legislation. But how can you write a law that requires people to exercise self-restraint or to be civil? How can you even define those terms in legal language? (“Pornography? I know it when I see it.”)
As a “constitutional conservative” I think that limited federal government and a stable, predictable legal framework are essential elements in a representative democracy, but they are not enough. Extreme, radical individualism, without the restraining and moderating force of cultural traditions and norms, enforced by stigma, ostracism and the disapproval of other citizens, must lead inevitably to more conduct being codified – creating “rights” which are likely to offend the majority. This is what is happening today.
So, Libertarians assert the “right” to be left alone, Liberals claim the “right” to health and comfort and Conservatives (at least some of us) maintain that there are no absolute rights.
The Founders were wrong in the assumption that a written Constitution would be administered always by free men who exercised self-restraint, modesty, ethical behavior and morality.
Am I right, and what comes next?
--Pedro
John Stuart Mill wrote that the only time “mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number, is self-protection. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”
Libertarians usually read “interfering” to mean that only when others are materially or physically harmed, is government action warranted. Individual autonomy, small, limited government.
Modern liberals usually read it to mean that material and physical harm, and even psychological discomfort is justification for government action. Individual autonomy, supremacy of the collective, therapeutic government. (The contradiction between individual autonomy and supremacy of the collective can be addressed later)
Modern conservatives usually read it to mean that in cases of material or physical harm or of violations of “traditional values,” government action is warranted. Constrained individual, Small, limited government.
“Traditional values” have been defined as those unwritten social rules concerning civility, ethical behavior, self-restraint, modesty, personal integrity, self-reliance and the like – the distillation of the wisdom of millennia of human history.
Starting around the 1960s, traditional values began to come under attack because they interfered with the ascendant philosophy of individual rights (radical individualism). It was no contest. Traditional values are/were extra-legal, so there was no way to defend them except by legislation. But how can you write a law that requires people to exercise self-restraint or to be civil? How can you even define those terms in legal language? (“Pornography? I know it when I see it.”)
As a “constitutional conservative” I think that limited federal government and a stable, predictable legal framework are essential elements in a representative democracy, but they are not enough. Extreme, radical individualism, without the restraining and moderating force of cultural traditions and norms, enforced by stigma, ostracism and the disapproval of other citizens, must lead inevitably to more conduct being codified – creating “rights” which are likely to offend the majority. This is what is happening today.
So, Libertarians assert the “right” to be left alone, Liberals claim the “right” to health and comfort and Conservatives (at least some of us) maintain that there are no absolute rights.
The Founders were wrong in the assumption that a written Constitution would be administered always by free men who exercised self-restraint, modesty, ethical behavior and morality.
Am I right, and what comes next?
--Pedro
<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'>
Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This topic has been closed because it appears to be a duplicate topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>
Your question to debate was not very clear. I think it's covered here: What are Rights?. If not, PM me with your question to debate, please.
Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This topic has been closed because it appears to be a duplicate topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>Your question to debate was not very clear. I think it's covered here: What are Rights?. If not, PM me with your question to debate, please.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.