Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (326925)	12/9/2002 12:20:55 AM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Very odd. Groups of individuals may act collectively to protect individual rights, but you say there is no such thing as the "group." If the police(or a single policeman) are/is attacked, does (he) not represent my individual rights? And is that attack not an attack on my rights directly? And every other member of the group that policeman represents? If someone is systematically attacking my neighbors, is it not my obligation to act? Why do people act collectively at all? And you say an aggregate cannot have rights? What's the point of "providing for the common defense?" I never claimed that there is no such thing as the "group". I did claim that groups do not have rights. Only the individuals within those groups have rights. If you are attacked by another individual, and you ask me for help, I can certainly help defend you. But it is your right to life I would be defending - not our right. When Patricia Ireland goes on TV as spokesperson for NOW, she is expressing her right to free speech, not her organization's. She may be speaking on behalf of her organization, but the right she uses is hers alone. When the police were chasing the DC snipers, they were doing so to bring justice to the criminals for restitution for violating the individual rights of the murder victims. Why do people act collectively at all? People only act collectively if each individual within the collective wishes to act in accordance with the rest. When me and 4 other friends decide where to go out to eat dinner, the group doesn't decide. The group has no brain, no soul, no will. Each of us voluntary agrees to the restaurant we choose. So we do act collectively, but it is individuals that act in a collective manner, not the collective acting in an individual manner. What's the point of "providing for the common defense? Again, the common defense is for the defense of individual rights of many people. BTW, here's another place I think we probably have common ground. One corollary of the fact that aggregates do not have rights outside of the rights of the individuals that comprise them, is that corporations also do not have rights outside the rights of the individuals that comprise them. As such, the limited liability legal rights that a corporation holds today is not a natural right at all.