Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by fromtheright, Jan 1, 2006.
This question grows out of a discussion poncho and I had on another thread. Your opinion/thoughts?
Both, we see individual rights enshrined but there is a collectivist thread as well. Else the Articles of Confederation would have sufficient.
The individualist says...unalienable rights given by the creator.
The collectivist says...rights provided by the state.
The Bill of Rights says, congress shall pass no laws resistricting the rights of...
Again that's no laws.
The UN says the state need only to pass a law to restrict rights.
Read This. Starting on the bottom of page 7.
Interesting, poncho. Maybe when someone starts a thread on the nature of the Declaration of Independence or UN charters, you'll remember to post it there. Not much relevance to your earlier point, or this thread, as to the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independance has nothing to do with the Constitution. Don't forget the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention was a 2nd revolution which radically changed our form of govt.
The relevance is the definitions of individualism and collectivism so lacking in your post.
Look 'em up. I know what they mean.
As to your 11:24 post, my apologies, I hadn't noticed that you referred to the Bill of Rights. I would still ask whether you believe the unamended Constitution is individualist or collectivist. What about the "general welfare" clause. "Common defense"? "Domestic tranquility"?
The "interesting" comment was re your 11:24 post, not the article you linked. I offer another apology because I lightly dismissed the Griffin post. Not because it was Griffin, though. Having read the other one we earlier discussed, he doesn't interest me, but the portion you directly referred to, beginning on page 7 (apparently the distinction between individualism and collectivism he offered, right?) was actually very good.