is the notion of individual rights being collectively shared considered ideological taboo?

This is a question more about political ideologies.

Individual rights are supposed to be protected by the u.s constitution.

Here is a question though.

What if the idea of individual rights is applied to all of humanity, the idea that individuals possess certain rights is applied to every individual.

If individual rights are collectively shared by everyone, then the loss of rights of one individual would be a infringement on the collective rights of every one else.

If individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean treating everyone equally regardless of sex, race, class, religion, economic background, education, or national origin.

If individual rights are collectively shared, then wouldn’t that mean the loss of rights of one person represent an attack on the rights of all? Furthermore, if individual rights are collectively shared, then the rights of individual people is dependent on protecting the collective rights of everyone.

Is this idea considered abhorrent? The notion that individual rights cannot exist unless they are applied to every one collectively.

That's correct and the rights remain individual rights. Individual doesn't mean they exist without context. It means they are the property of each individual.

One correction.

The notion that individual rights cannot exist unless they are applied to every one collectively.

Click to expand...

A failure to observe a right, or the violation of a right, does not negate the right's existence. Were that the case, there'd be no such concept as injustice.

ecofarm said:

That's all correct and the rights remain individual rights. Individual doesn't mean they exist without context. It means they are the property of each individual.

Click to expand...

But if individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean that the rights of each individual is equal to that of each other and that no one is considered superior or inferior?

Unitedwestand13 said:

But if individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean that the rights of each individual is equal to that of each other and that no one is considered superior or inferior?

Click to expand...

Of course.

But someone's rights being violated does not negate the existence of the right. When a bad guy violates a right, it still exists for everyone. The bad guy can't make the right go away.

Unitedwestand13 said:

This is a question more about political ideologies.

Individual rights are supposed to be protected by the u.s constitution.

Here is a question though.

What if the idea of individual rights is applied to all of humanity, the idea that individuals possess certain rights is applied to every individual.

If individual rights are collectively shared by everyone, then the loss of rights of one individual would be a infringement on the collective rights of every one else.

If individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean treating everyone equally regardless of sex, race, class, religion, economic background, education, or national origin.

If individual rights are collectively shared, then wouldn’t that mean the loss of rights of one person represent an attack on the rights of all? Furthermore, if individual rights are collectively shared, then the rights of individual people is dependent on protecting the collective rights of everyone.

Is this idea considered abhorrent? The notion that individual rights cannot exist unless they are applied to every one collectively.

Click to expand...

Rights are secured and defined by the countries who establish them. So no, individual rights are not collectively shared by everyone.

Unitedwestand13 said:

But if individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean that the rights of each individual is equal to that of each other and that no one is considered superior or inferior?

Click to expand...

Maybe. It depends entirely on what you mean by "collectively". The notion that the rights can be formed into collectives can be used to justify some pretty horrific overriding of individual rights.

Other, rights (as well as responsibilities) can be conferred differently based on a compelling state interest and taken away after due process of law. Equal protection of the law currently allows drawing distinctions based on "economic background" (i.e. how much income or property one has) and government imposed segregation by sex. Some may toss in race as well, for things like AA or minority owned business contract preferences. Of course, we have very different laws (rights?) when it comes to a person's age, but I'll let that go since your OP did not address it.

ecofarm said:

Of course.

But someone's rights being violated does not negate the existence of the right. When a bad guy violates a right, it still exists for everyone. The bad guy can't make the right go away.

Click to expand...

But an attack on the right of an individual represents an attack on everyone else’s ability to uphold that right. If injustice harms an individual, then it is the collective duty of everyone in society to undo the damage caused by that injustice.

Unitedwestand13 said:

But if individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean that the rights of each individual is equal to that of each other and that no one is considered superior or inferior?

Click to expand...

Collective and equal are not synonymous if the collective is not inclusive of every person (e.g. those with different citizenship, sex or age). For example "gay rights" and "women's rights" are collective but apply only to members of that collective.

cpwill said:

Maybe. It depends entirely on what you mean by "collectively". The notion that the rights can be formed into collectives can be used to justify some pretty horrific overriding of individual rights.

Click to expand...

By collective, I mean that the rights of individual are equal to the rights of all other individuals, and if a individual wants to protect his individual rights, that inherently means defending the rights of other individuals.

Simply put, if someone is deprived of their rights, that represents an attack on the rights of myself and everyone else.

ttwtt78640 said:

Collective and equal are not synonymous if the collective is not inclusive of every person (e.g. those with different citizenship, sex or age). For example "gay rights" and "women's rights" are collective but apply only to members of that collective.

Click to expand...

But what if rights are something collectively shared by all of Humanity?

Unitedwestand13 said:

By collective, I mean that the rights of individual are equal to the rights of all other individuals, and if a individual wants to protect his individual rights, that inherently means defending the rights of other individuals.

Simply put, if someone is deprived of their rights, that represents an attack on the rights of myself and everyone else.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.

I would agree wholeheartedly that everyone's individual sovereignty and inherent rights are equal.

As a practical matter, I do not think that an attack in the rights of any is necessarily an attack on the rights of all. For example, the brutal treatment of Copts in Egypt or of Christian women in Pakistan does not mean that I can claim martyrdom as a Christian in the US.

I would say that

A) those regimes most likely to accuse the rights of their own people are more likely to abuse the rights of others, making them more likely to be a threat, and

B) Regardless of whether it is our rights being attacked, it is incumbent on us to defend the rights of others, though that can mean many different things.

Unitedwestand13 said:

But what if rights are something collectively shared by all of Humanity?

Click to expand...

OK, but enacted/enforced by what governing body (and taxing authority)?

cpwill said:

Thank you for clarifying.

I would agree wholeheartedly that everyone's individual sovereignty and inherent rights are equal.

As a practical matter, I do not think that an attack in the rights of any is necessarily an attack on the rights of all. For example, the brutal treatment of Copts in Egypt or of Christian women in Pakistan does not mean that I can claim martyrdom as a Christian in the US.

I would say that

A) those regimes most likely to accuse the rights of their own people are more likely to abuse the rights of others, making them more likely to be a threat, and

B) Regardless of whether it is our rights being attacked, it is incumbent on us to defend the rights of others, though that can mean many different things.

Click to expand...

That seems wonderful on the surface, yet how can the personal property (or income) of one person be taken by force of law and then be given to another person under such an equal rights utopia?

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, but enacted/enforced by what governing body (and taxing authority)?

Click to expand...

What I am asking goes beyond policies

If individual rights exist collectively amongst humanity, then would that mean depriving another person of their rights represents an a attack on everyone else?

Unitedwestand13 said:

What I am asking goes beyond policies

If individual rights exist collectively amongst humanity, then would that mean depriving another person of their rights represents an a attack on everyone else?

Click to expand...

Yes, and proper redress of that grievance would be up to exactly, who? In other words, if I see someone harm another (deprive them of some right) am I then free to punish them or to form a mob of like minded folks to assist in that effort?

The collectivity of rights is a natural consequence of unalienable individual rights and does not need to be codified.

For example, if everyone has free speech, then collectively we must tolerate speech, even speech we disagree with. If we show intolerance to disagreeable speech by trying to oppress its freedom of expression, then this actually undermines individual rights for everyone.

I see this as the rights equivalent of the nuclear security dilemma. Everyone has nuclear arms, but nobody is going to try and take somebody else's nuclear arms away because it could mean mutually assured destruction.

Unalienable human rights work the same way. If you try to oppress the unalienable rights of anyone, then you are liable to lose them. That is how the collective aspect manifests. We don't touch anyone's rights because we won't want to lose our own.

The problem is how these rights are being framed. We are supposed to be raised to see these rights as unalienable, granted by a divine source (or by nature, if you prefer). We are born with them, we need them to live full and satisfactory lives. They can't be lost or gained. They are not subject to change because they are in-born. However, people are brought up to see them as rights which are enforced by the state. If the rights aren't being respected, then people turn to authority to uphold them.

This has created a dilemma where rights are qualified and dispensed by the state, and is a major deviation from personal responsibility.

Unitedwestand13 said:

This is a question more about political ideologies.

Individual rights are supposed to be protected by the u.s constitution.

Here is a question though.

What if the idea of individual rights is applied to all of humanity, the idea that individuals possess certain rights is applied to every individual.

If individual rights are collectively shared by everyone, then the loss of rights of one individual would be a infringement on the collective rights of every one else.

If individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean treating everyone equally regardless of sex, race, class, religion, economic background, education, or national origin.

If individual rights are collectively shared, then wouldn’t that mean the loss of rights of one person represent an attack on the rights of all? Furthermore, if individual rights are collectively shared, then the rights of individual people is dependent on protecting the collective rights of everyone.

Is this idea considered abhorrent? The notion that individual rights cannot exist unless they are applied to every one collectively.

Click to expand...

As long as one side thinks women are brood mares and they want the state to make sure they drop babies, no way.

Unitedwestand13 said:

But an attack on the right of an individual represents an attack on everyone else’s ability to uphold that right. If injustice harms an individual, then it is the collective duty of everyone in society to undo the damage caused by that injustice.

Click to expand...

Correct. That's justice.

Unitedwestand13 said:

This is a question more about political ideologies.

Individual rights are supposed to be protected by the u.s constitution.

Here is a question though.

What if the idea of individual rights is applied to all of humanity, the idea that individuals possess certain rights is applied to every individual.

If individual rights are collectively shared by everyone, then the loss of rights of one individual would be a infringement on the collective rights of every one else.

If individual rights are collectively shared, doesn’t that mean treating everyone equally regardless of sex, race, class, religion, economic background, education, or national origin.

If individual rights are collectively shared, then wouldn’t that mean the loss of rights of one person represent an attack on the rights of all? Furthermore, if individual rights are collectively shared, then the rights of individual people is dependent on protecting the collective rights of everyone.

Is this idea considered abhorrent? The notion that individual rights cannot exist unless they are applied to every one collectively.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am confusing what you are saying, Unitedwestand13. Do you mean that the liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are liberties that every single person on Earth should ideally enjoy? And that those liberties being unjustly suppressed in one country threatens potentially poses a threat to the rights of people elsewhere?

Because if that is what you are saying, I certainly agree to a degree that all human beings should ideally have the liberties that people in the United States of America enjoy. However, the Constitution only constrains the United States government, and, by extension, the state governments from encroaching on the liberties of its citizens. So the enforcement mechanism for stopping the suppression of the rights of others elsewhere beyond the jurisdiction of the United States is certainly limited.

Felis Leo said:

Perhaps I am confusing what you are saying, Unitedwestand13. Do you mean that the liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are liberties that every single person on Earth should ideally enjoy? And that those liberties being unjustly suppressed in one country threatens potentially poses a threat to the rights of people elsewhere?

Because if that is what you are saying, I certainly agree to a degree that all human beings should ideally have the liberties that people in the United States of America enjoy. However, the Constitution only constrains the United States government, and, by extension, the state governments from encroaching on the liberties of its citizens. So the enforcement mechanism for stopping the suppression of the rights of others elsewhere beyond the jurisdiction of the United States is certainly limited.

Click to expand...

This thread was my first attempt at creating a debate over ideological principles and I Was applying the rights of the u.s constitution to all of humanity. I would like to discuss this topic further if possible.

Human rights are collective, though seldom enforced. Your individual rights are your human rights plus; that which your government allows you to have. The right to remain silent is neither universal, nor applicable behind closed doors.

Individual rights are created by our government. The constitution and more specifically the bill of.rights and the laws that control our society.

I have always felt that your individual rights stop where the other guys start.

Are we speaking of government's infringing on your rights. If so then you will have to litigate it.

If you are talking about an individual infringing on your rights then there is a legal path to take. Or you can handle it.yourself and deal with the consequences.