I found myself extremely disappointed and sorely tempted to break my rule about not posting politics on Facebook today. A friend of mine wrote the following:
I don't agree with Ron Paul because he wants to lift the rights of the individual above those of a group ideology. What he's missing is that as humans we thrive on grouping ourselves, and we identify others by the groups they're in. You can't just pretend those groups don't exist, nor can you pretend that others won't use those groups to discriminate unjustly. He's not unintelligent; I think he knows this and pushes the agenda anyway. THAT is why he won't get my vote.
I have several issues with this statement but I will start with the things that I agree with:
First of all, you can't ignore the existence of groups and the bigotry and discrimination that arises from them (nor does Ron Paul espouse this).
Next, it is partially true that we identify others by the groups they belong to. I say only partially true because of a question of language. A more accurate statement would be that humans, by and large, make assumptions about a person based on the groups they belong to. These assumptions are most commonly made about people we don't know personally and this gives rise to thoughts such as "you're a Catholic, then you must be against birth control" or "you're a Republican, then you must be against public health care." Are these statements true? In some cases yes, but they are still no more than stereotypes. Once you have befriended a Catholic who uses condoms or a Republican who supports public health care the stereotype breaks and you identifying them as who they truly are.
The comment on how humans thrive by grouping ourselves is also true. Human beings are pack and family group animals. In the dawn of time we gathered together for protection and to increase our resources and we do the same today but in different ways. We gather together for mutual benefit and as our wants and needs change so do our attachments to others.
I also agree that Ron Paul is not unintelligent, though I don't see a need to expound upon that here.
These few points are where my friend and I divide, as I am about to show:
It is the first sentence more than any other that I have problems with. The issues at hand are well worn- majority vs. minority rights, and the question of individual liberties vs. collective well-being. In truth the issues are the same but on different scales. Every time an individual's rights (the minority) come into conflict with the collective well-being (the majority) this debate arises.
My friend's statement is arguing in support of majority (collective) rights. The problem with this, as our founding fathers saw clearly, is that whether it is a community organizer or a king every group must have a head and the head of that group can and often will abuse their power causing undue hardship on those below them. That is why our constitution states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and any power not specifically granted to the states is reserved for the people. The people meaning each and every individual, not to be infringed upon by any other person.
How we choose to exercise our rights and freedoms is up to the individual. If I make the choice to associate with a group and that group as a whole decides to go right and I choose to go left then there is nothing they can do to stop me. If group ideology had the upper hand I would be forced to go right but that is my choice to make and no one else's.
As a parting note, elevating the group above the individual creates a dangerous tendency towards an "us and them" mentality. This is an unfortunately natural part of being human as we tend to trust what we know (us) and distrust what we don't know (them). It is this method of thinking that has given rise to the Crusades, slavery, and the Holocaust just to name a few. Doing away with the this reliance on groups is the only way we can truly stand as equals with every other human on this planet.
It is indeed an age old question, that of the individual vs the group. It's a difficult one to debate, it being a complicated issue.
ReplyDeleteHow do you deal with the rights of the group vs the rights of the individual? I'm not sure really. There are some things, say like pollution, and example is toxic waste dumping, this is generally frownd upon by "the man" since it can hurt the groups. In this case, the rights of the group, not to be harmed by chemicals getting into the water system are higher then the righs of the individual (the one who dumped the chemicals or ordered this to happen).
Other issues like say, free speech, when the right of the individual is higher then the group (whomever that might be).
I've read some in the constitution (not a whole lot, but I know some of what is in there).It speaks of the righs of the individuals and speaks to the governments roll is (which is often debated). Does the document make the issue any less confusing, sometimes, sometimes not, but at least it gives us a starting point.
One section speaks of the government providing "for the general welfare" of it's citizens (a pro "the group idea), others speak of freedom of speech and the government thus not infringing on the individual.
I tend to in matters of the right of the individual to side with the rights of the individual (free speech,voting rights), but I also know there are matters, where the group rights are important.
I hope all that was not confusing (I don't confess to have any talent in writing or debating), but hopefully you get an idea of where I stand on the individual vs group issue.
-Ler
Your response makes valid points, there are times when the rights of a group outweigh the rights of the individual, though they are rare. This is why we have courts to legislate matters and determine if and when liberty has been disrupted.
DeleteHowever, I disagree with your example of toxic dumping. In this case, the people harmed by the dumping do not become a defined group until after the harmful effects are felt. The government intervenes in advance to protect all individuals from the harmful effect. However, they are often prompted to do so by the efforts of a group.
Perhaps I could have thought of a better example.
Delete-Ler