From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 08:37:26 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>
> It seems instinctively obvious that the common good should outweigh the
> individual good. However, it quickly leads to the majority oppressing
> the minority. Worse yet, such a system can evolve into an oppression
> hell where everybody is working toward the "common good" while no
> individuals actually benefits.
>
> I think such a system is really a defensive maneuver against the
> possibility that a small group of individuals will override a larger
> group of individuals. I think people who promote the "common good" are
> really promoting wide-spread individual rights. They just don't believe
> that it can be achieved for everyone, so they are willing to sacrifice a
> few individuals along the way. Such a system is flawed, however. If
> individual rights can be ignored for one or a few, it can be ignored for
> anybody.
But does an individual waive some rights when they act against (initiate
violence) another individual, or do you believe that there should be no
consequences for such violations? If you have no consequences, those who
did nothing wrong are sacrificed to protect the guilty. If you hold the
guilty responsible, and confiscate their rights, you are ignoring
individual rights for a few, as a means of protecting the rights of the
rest.
Furthermore, is it right to respect the individual rights of those who
believe that there are no individual rights, and who state they have
common cause with those who initiate violence against individuals? If a
group believes that common good is paramount over everything else, and
the group, or members of it commit initations of violence, isn't it
proper to hold the entire group responsible?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:56 MST