3 ms·

I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the reason why

I think individual rights should always trump the majority will. Individual rights are natural, unremovable, and should not be up to debate. It’s the reason why the US is a republic and we have a bill of rights > all laws or orders.

luckylion 7y ago
So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...
- hartator 7y ago
  It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings - mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > It’s up to a judge to decide. Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;) I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    You say they are unconstitutional... where are the court rulings saying this?
TechBro8615 7y ago
This. The US constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It enumerates the rights that were endowed to us by our creator and cannot be taken away from us. This is an important distinction that is frequently overlooked.
cortesoft 7y ago
It is never that simple... individuals' rights are always going to be coming into conflict. It doesn't mean anything to say individual rights always trump the groups will. We are always having to adjudicate the boundaries of rights... that is why we have a court system. Where those boundaries are IS up to date, and has changed over time... this is unavoidable, because there is no 'natural' place to put those boundaries.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> Individual rights are natural Questionable. Who says you have those rights? The government. They can take them away at any time. Just look at the USA PATRIOT Act.

luckylion 7y ago

So no wiretaps, ever? I'm not so sure...

hartator 7y ago
It’s up to a judge to decide. It has to limited in scope, responsable, and with serious individual suspicion. A lot like current quarantine rulings - mass quarantines are unconstitutional in the US - but we all forget.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- luckylion 7y ago
  > It’s up to a judge to decide. Yeah, but he enacts the will of the majority ;) I totally get & agree with the sentiment, but not in the absolutist form. It's always going to be fuzzy, the question is mostly how we weigh the needs of the many and the needs of the few (or the individual). I do believe that the average response to that is strongly reflected in each nation's laws & culture, with the US emphasizing the individual's needs a lot more.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  You say they are unconstitutional... where are the court rulings saying this?

TechBro8615 7y ago

This. The US constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It enumerates the rights that were endowed to us by our creator and cannot be taken away from us. This is an important distinction that is frequently overlooked.

cortesoft 7y ago

It is never that simple... individuals' rights are always going to be coming into conflict. It doesn't mean anything to say individual rights always trump the groups will. We are always having to adjudicate the boundaries of rights... that is why we have a court system. Where those boundaries are IS up to date, and has changed over time... this is unavoidable, because there is no 'natural' place to put those boundaries.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 7y ago

> Individual rights are natural Questionable. Who says you have those rights? The government. They can take them away at any time. Just look at the USA PATRIOT Act.