|
Post by brandt on Jan 22, 2012 11:04:39 GMT 10
I believe that the function of government is to protect individual rights as is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. Other places may put the will of the majority above the individual and they will eventually reap what they have sown.
Is it right to take what another has by right? It isn't a vague or difficult question.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 22, 2012 12:23:15 GMT 10
I believe that the function of government is to protect individual rights as is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. Other places may put the will of the majority above the individual and they will eventually reap what they have sown. I guess that means the US will also reap what it has sown. Is it right to take what another has by right? It isn't a vague or difficult question. The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right
William Safire
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 22, 2012 12:42:15 GMT 10
It will indeed. We can either return to our Constitution or become more Europeanized and give up our beliefs and support of individual freedom as the cornerstone of our government.
William Safire - "The right to do something does mean that doing is right"
My right to my property is protected under our Constitution. Some believe that theft is wrong unless 51% vote that it should happen. Since the most significant minority is the individual who should the government protect?
Even in English Common Law, what are society's rights? There are none mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps there is something mentioned in Australia's foundation of law? Is there any mention of society trumping the individual?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 22, 2012 12:53:25 GMT 10
I would be surprised and disappointed if the inane, ideological terminology of Rand's Objectivism was featured in any form of legislation.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 22, 2012 15:28:01 GMT 10
I would be disappointed if uninformed and unrealistic agendas drove legislation. There are realities in the world and money does not grow on trees no matter the questions that people do not want to answer.
I am sorry that you think that private property and personal freedom is inane.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 22, 2012 18:12:00 GMT 10
I am sorry that you think that private property and personal freedom is inane. Where was that said?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 22, 2012 22:00:00 GMT 10
I am sorry that you think that private property and personal freedom is inane. Where was that said?Not by me. It is yet another instance of misattribution. My criticism was of the inane Randian slogan of the most significant minority being the individual. BTW, legislation would indeed be unjust if it was ever targeted at or away from specific individuals (a bit like retrospective legislation).
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 23, 2012 5:30:45 GMT 10
[ My criticism was of the inane Randian slogan of the most significant minority being the individual. Randian? Really? So the Enlightenment philosophers, from whom the founders of the US derived their concept of individual rights, were "Randian?" Really, Philip, you can do better than that!
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 23, 2012 6:39:51 GMT 10
It does come down to a point of view. Is the individual the fundamental element of society or just part of a society?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 7:45:53 GMT 10
Randian? Really? So the Enlightenment philosophers, from whom the founders of the US derived their concept of individual rights, were "Randian?"
Really, Philip, you can do better than that! It does come down to a point of view. Is the individual the fundamental element of society or just part of a society? Replied to under the Objectivism thread.
|
|