Civil Rights, Basically

[Ponder This]

Mountain Man has the absolute right to do as he pleases, but if he moves into town, he's entering a cooperative endeavor which will require him to trade in some of those rights for greater benefits of the endeavor.

I think you are using the term "right" incorrectly. Are you saying that a person's actions in the mountains are always morally good, justified, or acceptable just because he is alone and no one else is there?
I also find your use of the word "absolute" confusing. You say his right is "absolute" and then qualify it by adding a condition, "moves into town".

You're mistaken. Individual actions might benefit the group but individual rights do not.

Individual rights protect the people (the group) from acts of oppression. This is to the benefit of the group. The classic expression of a group where individual rights are oppressed is the dictatorship where one person owns everyone else in the group.

If a government can "make all the right decisions," it should have all the power it needs to implement those decisions. It would be foolish to give it less.

It may seem like the smart thing to give a small group of people (the government) the power to do anything it wants with the understanding that they will "make all the right decisions", but it is not wise to do so. The wise thing is for there to be checks and balances on their power.

When people come together, they do not give up their rights to the collective. Instead what happens is that the people grant power to the government, which is obliged to carry out its duties in service to the people. In other words, the power granted to government comes with a caveat.

 

[joe1776]

I think you are using the term "right" incorrectly. Are you saying that a person's actions in the mountains are always morally good, justified, or acceptable just because he is alone and no one else is there?
I also find your use of the word "absolute" confusing. You say his right is "absolute" and then qualify it by adding a condition, "moves into town".

I'm saying that, in the wilderness, Mountain Man can poop wherever he likes, just like the other animals. But, if he moves into town, he's entering into a cooperative endeavor, a society, where he has to trade-in that right in exchange for greater benefits.

Individual rights protect the people (the group) from acts of oppression.
This is to the benefit of the group. The classic expression of a group where individual rights are oppressed is the dictatorship where one person owns everyone else in the group.

OK, I see your point. But, my point was that individual rights are established on a piece of paper. They protect nothing. They are worthless unless your military can hold off the dictator's military.

It may seem like the smart thing to give a small group of people (the government) the power to do anything it wants with the understanding that they will "make all the right decisions", but it is not wise to do so. The wise thing is for there to be checks and balances on their power.

You've changed your hypothetical. Earlier, we were to assume that the government would make all the right decisions. Now, it's that they are given absolute power "...with the understanding that they will make all the right decisions.

I'm not going to try to hit a moving target.

 

[Ponder This]

I'm saying that, in the wilderness, Mountain Man can poop wherever he likes, just like the other animals. But, if he moves into town, he's entering into a cooperative endeavor, a society, where he has to trade-in that right in exchange for greater benefits.

I think it is more accurate to say that the Mountain Man never had the right to poop anywhere he wanted - he never had a right to poop on other people, which is to say he never had a right to violate other people. Moving into town simply made him aware of this, because there weren't any other people for him to poop on or violate in the wildernesse.

OK, I see your point. But, my point was that individual rights are established on a piece of paper. They protect nothing. They are worthless unless your military can hold off the dictator's military.

I would agree that rights can be expressed in writing on a piece of paper.
I also agree that a military could abuse its power and violate the rights of people.
However, while words on a piece of paper might not physically stop an attack, it does not mean that words do not influence the minds of people who would make such an attack. And thus, I cannot agree that they are "worthless".

You've changed your hypothetical. Earlier, we were to assume that the government would make all the right decisions. Now, it's that they are given absolute power "...with the understanding that they will make all the right decisions.

I'm not going to try to hit a moving target.

I respect your position that such a person ought to rule, but I don't agree that it is necessarily his place to rule. If the people do not consent, then he cannot rule them. I suggest that such a person's "right decision" could be to choose not to rule. Moreover, the powers of government can never be absolute; the powers of government are always conditional.

I don't want to get distracted from the main point, which is that politics is about who has what powers and why. The powers of govenrment are granted to the government by the people via the unwritten social contract which is the essence of society; those powers can be codified in written documents (to an extent); but those powers subsume to the people.