Comments on: The Case for the Individual http://www.shaunconnell.com/the-individual-individualism-and-collectivism/ The personal website of Shaun Connell. Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Publius http://www.shaunconnell.com/the-individual-individualism-and-collectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Publius Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:15:36 +0000 http://www.shaunconnell.com/?p=14#comment-10 Hi Shaun - One of my readers disagrees with you and has commented on a post where I quote you: http://insideyakima.com/2007/10/25/collectivism-vs-individualism If you would like to chime in with a rebuttal, you would be most welcome. Hi Shaun -

One of my readers disagrees with you and has commented on a post where I quote you: http://insideyakima.com/2007/10/25/collectivism-vs-individualism

If you would like to chime in with a rebuttal, you would be most welcome.

]]> By: Collectivism vs. Individualism : Inside Yakima http://www.shaunconnell.com/the-individual-individualism-and-collectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Collectivism vs. Individualism : Inside Yakima Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:48:21 +0000 http://www.shaunconnell.com/?p=14#comment-9 [...] very long, but very interesting article over at Reason and Capitalism entitled: “The Case for the Individual”. Collectivism is the idea that society is some [...] [...] very long, but very interesting article over at Reason and Capitalism entitled: “The Case for the Individual”. Collectivism is the idea that society is some [...]

]]> By: Shaun Connell http://www.shaunconnell.com/the-individual-individualism-and-collectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Shaun Connell Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:17:00 +0000 http://www.shaunconnell.com/?p=14#comment-8 Greg, No, I'm not arguing that one individual is "more" important than two individuals -- I'm arguing against collectivism, or the idea that to sacrifice the one for the sake of the many is wrong. That said, simply because someone says they have a right doesn't mean they have one. No one has a right to eat small children, so restricting their ability to do so is no vice. On the contrary, it would be protecting the rights of the small children to not be eaten. You explain that the rights of the individual are rarely opposed to by the good of society, but this couldn't be further from the truth. After all, pre-civil war it was for the good of society to enslave blacks -- it helped the economy. Were the violations of the rights justified? Heck, no. The same is true for property rights right now -- check out the recent Kelo decision. When we adhere to the idea that violating the rights of the few for the sake of the many is justified, we're just setting ourselves up to get grand slammed by tyranny. Greg,

No, I’m not arguing that one individual is “more” important than two individuals — I’m arguing against collectivism, or the idea that to sacrifice the one for the sake of the many is wrong.

That said, simply because someone says they have a right doesn’t mean they have one. No one has a right to eat small children, so restricting their ability to do so is no vice. On the contrary, it would be protecting the rights of the small children to not be eaten.

You explain that the rights of the individual are rarely opposed to by the good of society, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. After all, pre-civil war it was for the good of society to enslave blacks — it helped the economy. Were the violations of the rights justified? Heck, no. The same is true for property rights right now — check out the recent Kelo decision.

When we adhere to the idea that violating the rights of the few for the sake of the many is justified, we’re just setting ourselves up to get grand slammed by tyranny.

]]> By: Greg Seeds http://www.shaunconnell.com/the-individual-individualism-and-collectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Greg Seeds Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:40:37 +0000 http://www.shaunconnell.com/?p=14#comment-7 Are you attempting to say that the individual is more valuable than the society? This, is patent nonsense. The society is composed of multiple individuals, so you say that one individual is more important than many? Society exists to protect the rights of all individuals equally. When one man claims for himself a right that all cannot safely be permitted (like the right to kill and eat small children), society, as the collective of several individuals, has the right and duty to block this 'right'. For this reason, we lock up or kill murderers, rapists, and other criminals. Very seldom are the rights of an individual directly opposed by the good of society, if society is just. What Clinton and others fail to realize is not that an individual is somehow more important than society, but rather that society is no more than a voluntary (at least tacitly voluntary) collection of individuals. Are you attempting to say that the individual is more valuable than the society?
This, is patent nonsense. The society is composed of multiple individuals, so you say that one individual is more important than many?

Society exists to protect the rights of all individuals equally. When one man claims for himself a right that all cannot safely be permitted (like the right to kill and eat small children), society, as the collective of several individuals, has the right and duty to block this ‘right’.

For this reason, we lock up or kill murderers, rapists, and other criminals.

Very seldom are the rights of an individual directly opposed by the good of society, if society is just.

What Clinton and others fail to realize is not that an individual is somehow more important than society, but rather that society is no more than a voluntary (at least tacitly voluntary) collection of individuals.

]]>