Debate Individual rights VS Public order

[Num7]

What is your position on the matter?

Do you believe "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ?

Obviously, society doesn't let you do everything you want because society itself couldn't exist in the first place if it worked that way. Many philosophers thought about that very question, some are more about the individual rights, others are more about public order. In the end, it seems balance is the key, but what exactly is balance? Where does one's rights end?

What do you think?

 

[Crethox]

The most common problem in society I think today is governments or the people who govern do things for their own benefits. Even if the majority of the people living in a country don't want certain changes the government just tosses that aside, forcing us to accept them.

I yet have to see changes affecting us as a society in a positive way. But so far I only see it as if they try to control us even more and make people into mindless creatures following their every whim. Years ago people have fought hard to gain individual rights only to be taken away step by step nowadays.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Graveyard Hound]

What is your position on the matter?

Do you believe "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ?

Obviously, society doesn't let you do everything you want because society itself couldn't exist in the first place if it worked that way. Many philosophers thought about that very question, some are more about the individual rights, others are more about public order. In the end, it seems balance is the key, but what exactly is balance? Where does one's rights end?

What do you think?

Hummmm...always a good question if you happen to be in a society where you can ask it and others are "free" to honestly answer it. Reminds me of the FrenchRevolution period. The "lucky few" had probabbly 95% of the wealth, the rest, well, they were sorta on their own. Bottom line, the many decided to "strike" a balance aand the "few" were reduced in numbers, though the way it was done might seem "revolting" to those with a weak stomach. Trace history aand look t times when a few had almost everything, the Middle Ages for example, the elite, landed nobility had a lot of just about everything, well the rest, well they were not as fortunate. The rich could raise the drawbridge, shut off the rest of those "other people" and let nature take its course. With enoughpeople willing to die to ccorrect a baalalnce of wealth, food, housing, anything can be corrected and possibly even made to function but those with the poower probably won't like it now anymore than the rich Soviet landholdars did in 1917, when Lenin came for with the notion of "equality for the masses". Now you talk about people dying, until thhe Czar was removed and the military decided to back Lenin, who knows how many people were killed or starved to death in prisons. But the "poor" had bread, just as the cry at Paris was "let them eat cake", not something a royal personage should have said with thousands at the gates demanding food, not just more food but just food in general. I think the question is up to where one is on the ladder of society. Those with the most to loose will try like hell to keep what they have, regardless of how they got it and those at the lower end, will probbly tear the damn ladder apart to get treatment to address their ills. In theory, both parties should be willing to meet each other , say about half way up and down, to give attention th what are cited as "issues" regagrding human rights or to go about constructing something that will address the needs of both without punishing those who speak out when rights are not being addressed and will accept civilized treatment when provided and "revolt"; ie," vote the bumbs out" when it is not. I think I might have scratched the surface but I'll leave that up to those who follow.

 

[Num7]

That's a good example of a few taking advantage of their position in society to go crazy with their own individual rights. They basically squeeze everything out of the lower classes until a critical point is reached.

This very example may be old, but it's not outdated. Look at society today. Ok, it's not that bad in North America, but at some point, rich people are richer, and poor people have less and less money and such.

Look at countries such as Haiti. Half of them aren't even sure to eat something today, although a few rich people in that country has tons of money, food, everything they want. These rich people don't help the poor. They enjoy their individual rights.