Is it Individual rights or 'group' rights and what is the difference?

1. 61

   Kitk33posted 13 years ago

   Is it Individual rights or 'group' rights and what is the difference?
   
   It seems as though there is more fight for 'group' rights, i.e. women's rights, minority rights and homosexual rights, but this also negates the individual, without which there would be none of those 'groups'.

   replyreport
2. 85

   elnavannposted 13 years ago

   The intention is individual (human?) rights, but the strategy to achieve that often has to be through ensuring minority rights.

   replyreport
3. 70

   Keith Engelposted 13 years ago

   Individual rights if properly protected and properly taught are the the only rights needed, because there is no lower Minority than the Individual. In order to understand this, is to understand that a group is composed up of nothing more than individuals, which you showed. There are five inalienable individual rights. These are the right to life, liberty, property the pursuit of happiness and freedom.  Special importance needs to be given to the right to property, which obviously wasn't in the Declaration but is an Individual right.The reason for this is for the safeguard of the right to life, because with out the right to property, you don't own the right to your own life.
   
   Usually what you need to do is follow the trail, if you hear those clamoring for some form of "group" right, there is usually somebody behind them pulling strings to gain control and power, or enjoy having such control and power over a group.  Usually these people are using such causes as a front to usually evil ends because they champion such causes to divide and conquer. It is pitting  one group of individuals against another group of individual in trying to say that this group is trying to prevent this group from obtaining some "right", that is actually once you look at is a privilege living in a technological advance civilization. It is important to note that certain privileges, construed as rights, would not be possible with out technology. History has shown that technology and advancement can go bye bye. Yet, the individual rights don't reside in technology, they reside in the fact of being human.  Unfortunately, the individual rights have become subservient to what is basically a Tribalism mentality now, also called Balkanization.

   replyreport
4. 61

   ib radmastersposted 13 years ago

   Not all individuals and not all groups have RIGHTS.
   What we see a lot of today are Fabricated Rights, that is rights that individuals and groups want us to believe our their rights, but in reality they are not real.
   
   Like Smoker's Rights, which are not really rights, but actions that smoker's take under the guise of a Right.
   
   Where is there a constitutional right to smoke?
   There is none, and in fact when smoker's smoke in public they are really assaulting the people that are around them.
   Smoking is a form of air pollution, and a public nuisance.
   
   Yet for years Smokers have asserted that they have a right to smoke, over your right not to be assaulted by their smoke.
   
   Today Same Sex advocates assert a Right to Marry.
   There is no constitutional right to marry.
   A right doesn't require a license, and marriage requires a license.
   The licensing of marriage contains certain requirements that have to be met before a marriage license is issued.
   
   Illegal aliens assert that they have the same rights as American Citizens foregoing the word "Illegal". They assert these rights without foundation, and at the same time immigrants trying to get into this country following Immigration Procedures are turned away by the millions.
   
   You would think that going through a legal immigration process would give more right to those immigrants, than aliens who illegally get across the US Borders.
   
   My take on this question is that many individuals and groups have desires that they confuse with rights.

   replyreport
5. 61

   Kitk33posted 13 years ago

   Larry Wall:
   First off, thank-you for putting effort and thought into answering the question I posted.  I appologize for not commenting sooner.  I do not agree with what you wrote entirely; particularly the "gun issue" but, I noticed you carried quite a discussion concerning that issue.  By rights, there can be no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms; the argument concerning certain people who misuse such a 'tool/weapon' as a firearm will not stand when it comes to keeping people safe from such individuals.  No 'law' can keep anyone 'safe'; it can only hinder or limit a person(s) from defending themselves and others when they simply try to stay within the bounds of such a 'law.' 
   The shootings that have taken place, in mostly recent years (10-20), were a result of a variety of factors; one being the types of medications the perpetrators were on.  I realize that can be another discussion in itself, so, back to the topic of discussion, if students had been carrying at Virginia Tech, no where near the number of people would have lost their lives. 
   As an example, the shooting that happened as far back as the 60's in Austin Texas, at a University, shows how armed Individuals actually help to stop such a slaughter.  It was two civilians with guns in their cars who helped the officer on scene and they took out the shooter.
   A militia is any able bodied man between 17 and 45, armed with their own weapons providing a common defense of their community.  This can be a police force or civilians banding together to stop some violent act by a person(s) who see fit to attempt it.  The James/Younger gang met just such a citizen force, while attempting a bank robbery in Northfield, MN.
   So my point here is, if an environment such as a college campus has become unsafe, I would DEFINATELY want to be armed.  The 'government' and 'law enforcement' can only do so much; and technically it is my responsibilty to provide my own defense, anyway.  Thanks again, for the hub/answer.  I will be writing more on the specific question I posted so, we can debate if you so choose.
   
   Later,
   Kitk33

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Kitk33posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      To Elnavann, Keith Engel, and IBradmasters:
      
      Thank-you also for posting answers to my question.  I will be posting either my own answer or a hub on this topic, soon.
      
      IBradmasters:
      I disagree with some of you argument concerning "smokers' rights" and

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Is an unsafe college campus made safer by more people, who may or may not be properly trained carrying guns. Also, the constitution says congress shall pass no law... States do have the right to pass laws dealing with guns and related issues.

      replyreport