Civil Rights, Basically

[joe1776]

Currently the trend goes more into the other direction, downgrading democracy and this is world wide. People will only miss their rights when they lose them.

How are they being downgraded? Do you have an example?

 

[Heyo]

How are they being downgraded? Do you have an example?

Dozens. Poland is infringing on reproductive rights and the independence of the jurisdiction, so much so that they have been reprimanded by the European Court and may lose benefits; similar things are happening in Hungary. The US is about to curtail reproductive rights. Free speech is under thread by hate speech laws all over the world (not that hate speech laws are bad per se but the danger exists that the child will be thrown out with the bath water). Muslim majority countries are fighting against sharia law extremists, Afghanistan has lost that fight. Germany, which has a right to refuge is hiding behind other EU states to prevent people from making use of that right.

Just watch the news. And it is not only those big news things. One little change in police competency here, some data collection there ...
After a time of increasing democracy from the '60 to about 2010, the pendulum swings in the other direction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The wheels of progress in governing grind slowly because the people in power want to hold onto it. We don't need to replace democracies, we just need to upgrade the concept routinely as we do a piece of software.

Yeah, I like that you claim an intersubjective we of a certain set of beliefs as if that we is objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO, you are on the right track in identifying the problem in America. The "trite sayings and political dogma" condition many Americans to think that their rights should be absolute.

A hunter-friend told me that he didn't have any use for an assault rifle, but he thought that someone who did should have the right to own one. The thought of cooperatively trading in that right for the welfare of others didn't occur to him.

Correct, it is different thoughts. And yours is the right one, right?

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". They are equal. Every democratic society has special protection for minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
Unless there is a very good reason to protect the "the many", the rights of "the few" should not be curtailed.
(E.g.: the right to bodily autonomy was upheld during Covid, even so mandated vaccination could have saved millions of lives.)

Those refer to individual rights, which is what many refer to when they say "freedom." But as the OP suggests, society is a cooperative endeavor. The individual's freedom might be limited for the good of society. My only point here is in agreement with the OP that absolute individual freedom is impractical, and in fact, it can be suicidal for a society which overemphasizes individual rights over the good of the collective whole. If the collective dies, we all die - both the minority and the majority.

The US has its focus on curtailing the rights and liberties of people outside the US. The only thing the collective US agrees upon is having the biggest military in the world - and to use it.

This may be true. But this also points up the fact that, all too often, our leaders say one thing and do another. Our words, slogans, and political mottoes don't match with reality.

For example, you're asserting that the US is curtailing the rights and liberties of people outside the US, although to hear the US government explain it, they're protecting freedom and human rights from tyranny. It's all about "making the world safe for democracy."

It may be total BS, but it's the widespread faith that people have in these ideals which is the biggest obstacle to solving the problem at hand. Either people believe in these ideals or they don't. If they do, then they have to accept the risks that come with freedom. If they find that it's unacceptable or impractical to practice what they preach, then maybe they shouldn't preach it anymore.

Liberties curtail each other. My impression is that many in the US, when they speak of freedom, they mean being able to do what they want without repercussion or contemplating the freedom of others.
Liberty is not practical with people who don't value the liberties of their neighbours as much as their own. In a society where people fight for their rights (and those of others), tolerate behaviour that doesn't infringe on their rights and others and know the difference, liberty is not only practical but almost a logical consequence.

I think there are different perceptions of freedom which don't always coincide with each other. But when speaking of people's attitudes and tolerance of their neighbors, then there has to be a certain foundation of goodwill and mutual self-interest in order to promote an attitude of cooperation and support of each other's personal rights and freedoms. However, that's not explicitly written into the Constitution, so lawyers, politicians, and many others in society seem to believe that that's not needed. Their view seems to be that, it is enough that a court orders a thing, and the people should do it without question. After all, "the law is the law," which is another famous slogan which dominates American political thought.

Then there are those who see "freedom" more in the sense of limiting the powers of the Federal government, not about limiting or curtailing the freedoms of neighbors. They might see goodwill and cooperation among neighbors as a natural process, while seeing government intervention or interference as an unnecessary intrusion from outsiders.

 

[Stevicus]

IMO, you are on the right track in identifying the problem in America. The "trite sayings and political dogma" condition many Americans to think that their rights should be absolute.

A hunter-friend told me that he didn't have any use for an assault rifle, but he thought that someone who did should have the right to own one. The thought of cooperatively trading in that right for the welfare of others didn't occur to him.

Well, it goes with some of the sayings we have, such as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and "no one is above the law." Theoretically, if taken literally, this means that, whatever the government has, the people can have. If the police can have assault rifles, then citizens (theoretically) should have the same right. The assumption being that the citizens would be responsible, decent, law-abiding, and respectable - just as we expect our police, judges, politicians, and lawyers to be (oops).

Of course, your friend could argue that, by simply owning such a weapon, he's not directly infringing on anyone else's rights or negatively impacting on the welfare of others. As long as he doesn't use it and it remains locked up and reasonably safe, then it doesn't hurt anybody. It's only when it falls into the wrong hands - some crazoid or malcontent hellbent on some kind of vendetta.

 

[Truth in love]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

Your theory that the individual will give up their rights for the groups benefit would make a great slogan for the legalization of slavery and rape.

I do have a right to own weapons of my choosing not just a shot list approved by others.

 

[joe1776]

Dozens. Poland is infringing on reproductive rights and the independence of the jurisdiction, so much so that they have been reprimanded by the European Court and may lose benefits; similar things are happening in Hungary. The US is about to curtail reproductive rights. Free speech is under thread by hate speech laws all over the world (not that hate speech laws are bad per se but the danger exists that the child will be thrown out with the bath water). Muslim majority countries are fighting against sharia law extremists, Afghanistan has lost that fight. Germany, which has a right to refuge is hiding behind other EU states to prevent people from making use of that right.

Just watch the news. And it is not only those big news things. One little change in police competency here, some data collection there ...
After a time of increasing democracy from the '60 to about 2010, the pendulum swings in the other direction.

OK, I misunderstood. When you wrote that democracy was being downgraded, I thought you meant that democracy, the political system, was being challenged. The Sharia Law challenge would qualify, for example.

As for your other examples, IMO, the world's democracies get off on the right foot by being "governments for the people." But they go downhill fast as competent decision-making systems. So, I don't expect their decisions to morally trend in a straight upward path.

 

[joe1776]

Correct, it is different thoughts. And yours is the right one, right?

In the OP, I gave reasons to support my opinion. So, if you, or another poster, can't counter those reasons, I will assume I'm right, of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the OP, I gave reasons to support my opinion. So, if you, or another poster, can't counter those reasons, I will assume I'm right, of course.

It is not a fact that you are right. It is an opinion. But you can always give evidence for it a per the burden of proof.
There are no known objective method for the relevant good and bad, that the OP is about.

 

[joe1776]

Well, it goes with some of the sayings we have, such as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and "no one is above the law." Theoretically, if taken literally, this means that, whatever the government has, the people can have. If the police can have assault rifles, then citizens (theoretically) should have the same right. The assumption being that the citizens would be responsible, decent, law-abiding, and respectable - just as we expect our police, judges, politicians, and lawyers to be (oops).

I bolded the sentence in which I think you're reaching. I don't think that the idea that no one is above the law logically reaches that conclusion.

Of course, your friend could argue that, by simply owning such a weapon, he's not directly infringing on anyone else's rights or negatively impacting on the welfare of others. As long as he doesn't use it and it remains locked up and reasonably safe, then it doesn't hurt anybody. It's only when it falls into the wrong hands - some crazoid or malcontent hellbent on some kind of vendetta.

However, he has no valid use for it and weapons like that will sometimes, without a doubt, fall into the wrong hands because we don't know how to prevent that. So, it's balancing the right to own something that will be put away in a safe against the loss of innocent human lives. That's not a tough call.

 

[joe1776]

It is not a fact that you are right. It is an opinion. But you can always give evidence for it a per the burden of proof.

My opinion is supported with reasons. That's an argument which can be debated.

There are no known objective method for the relevant good and bad, that the OP is about.

Wrong. The OP is not a moral argument. It's a brief explanation of how and why cooperative endeavors must treat individual rights to succeed as a society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My opinion is supported with reasons. That's an argument which can be debated.
Wrong. The OP is not a moral argument. It's a brief explanation of how and why cooperative endeavors must treat individual rights to succeed as a society.

Well, no. That is not the only form for a society. And succeed has no objective standard. That is the moral part. Learn to check your words for a subjective or objective standard.

 

[joe1776]

Your theory that the individual will give up their rights for the groups benefit would make a great slogan for the legalization of slavery and rape.

Nonsense.

I do have a right to own weapons of my choosing not just a shot list approved by others.

If that's true, you should be able to effectively counter the OP which is a brief argument open to debate.

 

[joe1776]

Well, no. That is not the only form for a society. And succeed has no objective standard. That is the moral part. Learn to check your words for a subjective or objective standard.

You aren't making sense to me. You seem to define your terms in a way that I can't follow. If you don't have a counter-point to the OP, I'm done.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You aren't making sense to me. You seem to define your terms in a way that I can't follow. If you don't have a counter-point to the OP, I'm done.

Learn that all words have 3 aspects: A meaning/definition, that they are signs and that they are about something.

So for your: "A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens." That is not a fact, that is a hidden evolution about what we ought to do.
The key word is "is" and that it has several meanings. You use the one where you state what you think a society ought to be about. But if you observe humans that is not what a society is.
So you start by presenting what looks like a fact, but it is not.

So you don't give the definition of a society. You stated how you think a society ought to function.

 

[joe1776]

...
So you don't give the definition of a society. You stated how you think a society ought to function.

I defined a society well enough by describing it as a cooperative endeavor and stating its objective.

If I didn't give a proper definition of a society, then you can counter my argument by correcting me. Give me your definition of a society. You aren't engaging me in debate by simply declaring that I'm wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I defined a society well enough by describing it as a cooperative endeavor and stating its objective.

If I didn't give a proper definition of a society, then you can counter my argument by correcting me. Give me your definition of a society. You aren't engaging me in debate by simply declaring that I'm wrong.

Well, I googled "what is a society in sociology" and here is the first hit with reference:
"Exactly what is a society? In sociological terms, society refers to a group of people who live in a definable territory and share the same culture. On a broader scale, society consists of the people and institutions around us, our shared beliefs, and our cultural ideas."
Chapter 4. Society and Social Interaction – Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition.

Your definition is a subset and thus not the only definition of a society. Where as these 2 are based on observations, yours is philosophy in the end. "To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

 

[joe1776]

Well, I googled "what is a society in sociology" and here is the first hit with reference:
"Exactly what is a society? In sociological terms, society refers to a group of people who live in a definable territory and share the same culture. On a broader scale, society consists of the people and institutions around us, our shared beliefs, and our cultural ideas."
Chapter 4. Society and Social Interaction – Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition.

Your definition is a subset and thus not the only definition of a society. Where as these 2 are based on observations, yours is philosophy in the end. "To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

Clarify this for me, please: When you say that my definition of a society is not the only one, do you think that you have stated a reason to reject my definition? And, do you think that by labeling it "philosophy" that you have discredited it?

I have offered a definition based on my opinion of its essential nature:
A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.
I can't think of what else it could be. Can you?

My opinion isn't a fact. If you were to post a valid reason as a counter, you will change my mind. If you were to post a better definition based on its essential nature, I'd change my opinion. But when you can't do that, despite your valiant effort in trying, I gain confidence that I'm right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Clarify this for me, please: When you say that my definition of a society is not the only one, do you think that you have stated a reason to reject my definition? And, do you think that by labeling it "philosophy" that you have discredited it?

I have offered a definition based on my opinion of its essential nature:
A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.
I can't think of what else it could be.

My opinion isn't a fact. If you were to post a valid reason as a counter, you will change my mind. If you were to post a better definition based on its essential nature, I'd change my opinion. But when you can't do that, despite your valiant effort in trying, I gain confidence that I'm right.

That you can't think of it any differently is the tell. As for essential nature, please give evidence for what that is. Not a definition, evidence.