Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What does "we're for individual rights, not group rights" mean?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:12 PM
Original message
What does "we're for individual rights, not group rights" mean?
I've seen this a few times as part of conservative creedal statements, as though it was something profound, but for the life of me I can't figure out what that actually means?

Can someone do opposition prep, and make an agrument for me explaining what the semantic value of that sentence is supposed to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. WTF?
i have no idea..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyandproud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. exactly what it says
no special treatment or punishment for any group of people...group identity means nothing...equal rights and treatment of all individuals should be the overriding goal. That is what it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's code
We're for the individual right to bear arms vs gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. How about gay people bearing arms?
Bet the conservatives haven't thought of that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I'd like to see how the 'Pukes would react to a militia of Gays
Guns are more acceptable to Dems these days since the need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government is not such a crazy idea any more - especially if Shrub gets reelected (God forbid). I wonder if they would be as "gung ho" about liberal militia as they are with right-wing groups. I have a feeling we will find out within a decade or two...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Pink Pistols.
Look them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. How bout gay people *baring* arms!!
:P :9 :crazy: :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. there's a somewhat practical explanation on this thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. It means that against the rich and the powerful
oridinary people are on their own. In other words, our rights will be to be underpaid, overworked, cheated, oppressed, and exploited with no recourse. The individuals rights will be to go hungry, to lack shelter, to suffer from lack of health care, not to have labor law protections, and never to retire.

"Individual rights" is a code word for every man for himself, and to hell with his neighbor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kat45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. What Warpy said
That's exactly what "individual rights" means. You know, the old republican attitude of 'I've got mine, fuck you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. How dare you gang up on me
And question my ill-gotten gains!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. Agreed. It means 'divide and conquer'
It shows up in the right to work laws Bush loves and the nearly unprecedented use of Taft-Hartley against the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), which gave the businesses an incredible bargaining tool. And Bush insisted that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 give him authority to strip all employees in the Department of their civil service protections.

Eliminate the power of collective bargaining and the employee can be exploited at will, which puts us back in the late 18th century, which is where the whole radical conservative movement is taking us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. i think they are talking about things like affirmative action
type programs which are geared toward helping a group of people who have been discriminated or wronged in some ways in the past . it's crap because while the right wing may make up phrases that sound like there is nothing wrong with it. they often ignore the REALITY of what is going on. yes, we have laws that say people can't be discriminated on the basis of race, but that does not mean it is always practiced. to accept the conservative view many times involves ignoring reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. I feel like responding, "well, ok... I'm pretty much just for RIGHTS."
Of any kind. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. That's a good reply.
But how do you suppose they can extend rights to individuals without (simply by association) extending them to groups?

If I am an individual with a right to, say for example, health care.

If I meet two other individuals with a right to health care then we are now a group of people with the right to health care.

Just tell them their statement is infantile and illogical. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Yeah, I wondered that myself - with no answer. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Opposition to protection of the weak
Edited on Sat Jul-24-04 11:27 PM by xocolatl
This means that they are opposed to any kind of legal or economic incentive system that protects the weaker members of society.

For example, consider torts. The reason for large settlements for medical malpractice isn't so the victim (or the victim's family) can cash in for permanent loss of health/function or loved one. It's to create a disincentive for egregious negligence in medical care.

Consider hate crime legislation. It's not that murder is more heinous if the victim is gay or black. It's that stiffer penalties for such murders creates a relative disincentive for would-be perpetrators, who often believe themselves above the law in such cases, to commit the crime.

Republicans and libertarians are against this kind of thing. Willfully or through intellectual dishonesty, they are ignorant of the fact that we live collectively and our actions do affect other people.

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. It means that conservatives have their heads up their asses.
Oh, and that they're a bunch of hate-filled douche bags.

Hope that answers your question! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
15. it's an attack against anything they label as "special interests"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pbg Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. Like So:
"I have the right to use my property in any way I see fit!"
(no environmental regulations!)
"I have the right to keep the money I've earned!"
(Down with taxes on dividends and estate taxes!)
"I have the right to choose my children's education!"
(And if I do, I shouldn't have to pay to support public schools!)
"My children should have the right to pray in school!"
(Publicly, led by a voice over the loudspeaker!)
"I have the right to voice my opinions!"
(that you all are traitors and we should put you in camps!)

Of course, for everyone else, it's all about responsibilities....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Aren't some or all of those "group" rights?
But I get the argument now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
20. Divided you all fall
Hang together or hang separately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
22. It's a direct attack on the First Amendment
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 12:23 AM by teryang
...right of association, "the right to peaceably assemble" in groups to advance their mutual interests.

Any group or association other than a corporation is not entitled to status in bushworld. They play lip service to the pulverized American family and the individual as if those alone were enough to ensure the welfare of the people.

Corporations and their endless progeny of trade associations, think tanks, and political action committess are entitled to the special treatment, subsidies and favoritism under the law that they very obviously have.

But demographic groups, grass root organizations, unions, classes of the injured under civil law, are groups which are not entitled to anything under this view (because it puts them on a more level playing field with the almighty corporation). Demonstrating a disturbing blind spot characteristic of arbitrary rule, these are "special interests" not entitled to any rights.

Next we'll be hearing about the inviolate "right of contract" to undermine all public safety, labor laws, and industry regulation instituted in the last hundred years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kipepeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
25. I think they mean
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 01:09 AM by Kipepeo
Conservatives are against women's reproductive rights, against affirmative action, against same-sex marriage rights, against hate crime laws, and against non-discrimination laws.

But they are for gun rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mellowinman Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
26. Its bullshit.
It doesn't mean anything at all.

Its like they're for "state's rights" until "state's rights" don't get them what they want.

Its like they're for "smaller government" until "smaller government" isn't convenient for them.

Conservatism is about keeping things the way they've always been:

Disproportionately favorable to the rich, White and powerful.

I will NEVER back down from that statement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. You, Sir, are spot on! /eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
27. Unless that group is...
... a church or a corporation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC