Thread Topic: Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights


William Anderson, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute weighs in on the Durham rape fiasco:

"Whatever one wishes to make of those claims, I believe they miss the point entirely. The Duke case presents, in a microcosm, a clear picture of life in a future United States in which the Politically Correct world of the college campus becomes the legal standard for everyone. That is a world in which all events are viewed through an extremely abstract prism in which there are only "group" or "collective" rights, and where all individual rights are destroyed. Ultimately, it is the world of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin’s "Show Trials" of the 1930s, in which we saw this whole thing in full flower."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson133.html

Why are individual rights losing ground to collective rights in this country?

6/21/2006 11:02:36 AM

WE'RE NOT GONNA PROTEST

WE'RE NOT GONNA PROTEST

GUTTER IS A TOOL

6/21/2006 11:21:11 AM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=409604

6/21/2006 11:26:34 AM

^ & ^^

My guess is you're trying to make a point, but you're being too clever about it for me. Please be more clear.

6/21/2006 11:36:41 AM

THE FABULOUS BIRRRRRRRD SHOW

6/21/2006 11:46:29 AM

this guy was making sense until he started talking about the USSR and then he just sounded like a crazy person.

6/21/2006 11:47:05 AM

6/21/2006 11:50:08 AM

Quote :

"Keep in mind that "collective rights" cannot coexist with "individual rights." If the former prevails, it can be only at the expense of the latter. It is one or the other, and there can be no middle ground."

Exactly! There is no way a society can balance individual and collective rights!

6/21/2006 1:01:06 PM

what category of rights is it when you break the North Carolina Lawyers Code of Ethics a couple months before an election?

6/21/2006 1:04:57 PM

6/21/2006 1:11:21 PM

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!

6/24/2006 11:43:38 PM

That was actually a great article. I emailed him a response and he immediately emailed me back. I really wish that more people would see this point of view. This is making adults feel like they shouldn't need to be responsible and only what is legal/illegal.

6/26/2006 12:22:39 PM

I am goign to say that you have to be able to balance collective and private rights. Justice Breyer wrote a somewhat interesting book about balancing the two sets of rights.

We have been spending a lot of time on this topic in Con Law II. It does seem like individual rights are being constricted somewhat by hate crimes, hate speech, and other speech codes. However, it always seems to legally balance back out to protect the individual. Most of the restrictions, specifically on speech, seem to deal with offending people. Those regulations are knocked out.



[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : k]

6/26/2006 1:25:36 PM

Quote :

"However, it always seems to legally balance back out to protect the individual."

Interesting. Could you provide an example? The role of our Constitution was never intended to protect people from being offended at what others say. More speech is always better than less speech. Speech laws may block offensive language from certain individuals, but it also denies the right of the speaker of those words to his/her self-expression. (however vile it may be).

Gov't restrictions should be small islands in a sea of liberty. What we have today are small islands of liberty in a sea of gov't control.

A short, classic piece of writing from the 1800s does a magnificient job of describing the proper relationship between governments and the people. It is called "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. It's available for free, just a google search away.

6/26/2006 10:27:41 PM