4 ms·

What is "individual sovereignty"? Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit. The world of sovereign in

by sethrin 14y ago

What is "individual sovereignty"? Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit. The world of sovereign individuals is wonderful in objectivist fantasies. In reality, it results in anarchy, for a brief moment before one strongman clubs another over the head, and two other people decide to team up against their neighbors. Even casting aside the concept of civilization as we know it, you cannot reproduce in a vacuum, nor live in one. You are beholden to others for your existence, and you repay this debt by helping to ensure the continuation of the species. A morality that prizes collective rights over the rights of the individual is fundamental to our biology. Sovereignty, therefore is not a function of individuals. Lest I be decried as an opposite but equal ideologue, I do see a necessary role for the individualists. The forces of society and government are powerful, and must be resisted: what is bad for one individual is just as likely to be bad for the whole of society. Neither side should ever presume an absolute right: in this battle there is no victory. You also err in your definition of government. You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force. The 'competitive market' for government is commonly called warfare. Government is a necessary evil as long as men are capable of violence.

smsm42 14y ago
They don't come from the society - otherwise there's nothing wrong with slavery, if only society condones it. If you want to claim the society is wrong and slavery is bad, you need to find some reason why. If the reason of "I don't like it" does not sound convincing to you, you'd have to find some principles that lie beyond the customs of the society. It doesn't have to be God's will, but it has to be something. Society can only follow these principles or violate them, and according to that be a good society or bad society. But it can not be the source of it - unless you are willing to concede slavery was perfectly fine, while society accepted it.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  Society is a collection of individuals, including many who opposed slavery (not all of whom were slaves). It's turtles all the way down.
- sethrin 14y ago
  I am in principle willing to concede that, but I don't think it necessary. I am not willing to put the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. Individuals do not reproduce -- we are not bacteria. There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned. The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies. They also can only be defined within the context of a society: fairness and equality for one individual (or a sociopath) is whatever the hell he likes. You don't need the argument for individual rights in order to decry slavery, though it helps. Where societies are not fair or equal, they are not good. When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good. There are other measures of morality, but none so fundamental.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Collective can not have rights different from the rights of people, since collective is nothing but people - it just word saying "many people". So you're saying "I'm not willing to put rights of individual over the rights of other individuals". OK, that sounds fine, but nobody is asking you to. >> There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned. Useful to whom? Species is just another word saying "a lot of people". I'm sure to some of these people suppressing right of some other people would be very beneficial. So what? >>> The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies. People understand very different things when they say "fairness" and "equality". Some people think it's "fair" that somebody can not work a day in his life and still get money, shelter, services, education and many other goods paid by somebody else who works 14 hours a day. Some think it's not. Some think it's not "fair" that some people have millions and live in luxury and some have trouble with paying for their basic needs - and others think it's completely "fair". Same with equality - equality of what? The only way people can be truly equal if they are identical clones living identical lives in identical circumstances. This can not happen. So equality needs to be qualified - what we want to be equal? The society can do nothing with these definition - these things mean different things for different people, and always will. Politicians use this to lure people into voting for them, but in their speeches they just mean "vote for me please". >>> When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good. Sorry, this is baloney. Individual has absolutely no obligation to be "beneficial" to other people. Treating people only as resources or sources of benefits for oneself is immoral and such treatment - if you're talking about sociopaths - is usually a sure sign of some pathology in emotional/moral sphere. It is not a fundamental measure of moral, it is a fundamental measure of immorality. This is what leads to societies where millions of people get murdered, because they were declared "not useful for society".
dreamdu5t 14y ago
"Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit." Individual sovereignty was granted to you by God. You were born with it. It's a self-evident fact. Any denial of such requires you to employ your own will over your body. Any denial of individual sovereignty proves it. Your comment is the result of the ownership of your own body. "You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force." Government does not have a natural monopoly on force because they do not sell it. To have a monopoly you need a market. Government is not a group you hire to defend your rights, instead government forces you to be their subject and pay for their protection. Forcing someone to pay for your protection is a protection racket. I've never read Ayn Rand and I am not an Objectivist. Espousing objectivism is not a prerequisite for defending the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
- sethrin 14y ago
  God isn't real. Neither is individual sovereignty. Just ask Napoleon, or Hitler, or any man ever executed. Individual sovereignty is not the same thing as free will. You don't require currency to be a market, but you do, in fact, pay taxes. You also pay with your productivity and everything that you do which does not benefit solely yourself. Do read up on the definitions of "market", "natural monopoly," and "sovereignty."

by sethrin 14y ago

smsm42 14y ago

They don't come from the society - otherwise there's nothing wrong with slavery, if only society condones it. If you want to claim the society is wrong and slavery is bad, you need to find some reason why. If the reason of "I don't like it" does not sound convincing to you, you'd have to find some principles that lie beyond the customs of the society. It doesn't have to be God's will, but it has to be something. Society can only follow these principles or violate them, and according to that be a good society or bad society. But it can not be the source of it - unless you are willing to concede slavery was perfectly fine, while society accepted it.

trhtrsh 14y ago
Society is a collection of individuals, including many who opposed slavery (not all of whom were slaves). It's turtles all the way down.
sethrin 14y ago
I am in principle willing to concede that, but I don't think it necessary. I am not willing to put the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. Individuals do not reproduce -- we are not bacteria. There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned. The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies. They also can only be defined within the context of a society: fairness and equality for one individual (or a sociopath) is whatever the hell he likes. You don't need the argument for individual rights in order to decry slavery, though it helps. Where societies are not fair or equal, they are not good. When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good. There are other measures of morality, but none so fundamental.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Collective can not have rights different from the rights of people, since collective is nothing but people - it just word saying "many people". So you're saying "I'm not willing to put rights of individual over the rights of other individuals". OK, that sounds fine, but nobody is asking you to. >> There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned. Useful to whom? Species is just another word saying "a lot of people". I'm sure to some of these people suppressing right of some other people would be very beneficial. So what? >>> The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies. People understand very different things when they say "fairness" and "equality". Some people think it's "fair" that somebody can not work a day in his life and still get money, shelter, services, education and many other goods paid by somebody else who works 14 hours a day. Some think it's not. Some think it's not "fair" that some people have millions and live in luxury and some have trouble with paying for their basic needs - and others think it's completely "fair". Same with equality - equality of what? The only way people can be truly equal if they are identical clones living identical lives in identical circumstances. This can not happen. So equality needs to be qualified - what we want to be equal? The society can do nothing with these definition - these things mean different things for different people, and always will. Politicians use this to lure people into voting for them, but in their speeches they just mean "vote for me please". >>> When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good. Sorry, this is baloney. Individual has absolutely no obligation to be "beneficial" to other people. Treating people only as resources or sources of benefits for oneself is immoral and such treatment - if you're talking about sociopaths - is usually a sure sign of some pathology in emotional/moral sphere. It is not a fundamental measure of moral, it is a fundamental measure of immorality. This is what leads to societies where millions of people get murdered, because they were declared "not useful for society".

dreamdu5t 14y ago

"Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit." Individual sovereignty was granted to you by God. You were born with it. It's a self-evident fact. Any denial of such requires you to employ your own will over your body. Any denial of individual sovereignty proves it. Your comment is the result of the ownership of your own body. "You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force." Government does not have a natural monopoly on force because they do not sell it. To have a monopoly you need a market. Government is not a group you hire to defend your rights, instead government forces you to be their subject and pay for their protection. Forcing someone to pay for your protection is a protection racket. I've never read Ayn Rand and I am not an Objectivist. Espousing objectivism is not a prerequisite for defending the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

sethrin 14y ago
God isn't real. Neither is individual sovereignty. Just ask Napoleon, or Hitler, or any man ever executed. Individual sovereignty is not the same thing as free will. You don't require currency to be a market, but you do, in fact, pay taxes. You also pay with your productivity and everything that you do which does not benefit solely yourself. Do read up on the definitions of "market", "natural monopoly," and "sovereignty."