Individual Right or Collective Security?

[PJ]

I lean toward individual right but it really depends on the situation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Didn't vote because I don't think they are innately opposed to each other.  Questions like this is why the PM quiz is flawed.

[© tweed]

in USA '13, individual rights; in Bolshevist controlled Russia 1919, collective security.  Kronstadt Rebellion?  I've not made up my mind, and probably won't from now until my deathbed.

[Beet]

To me, it's not even a question. Faced with a real threat to collective security (and not post 9/11 "turraism" nonsense) society will fall all over itself to trample on individual rights. Hobbes was right. It's not so much of a normative opinion as a prediction and judgment about how our society would react.

[dead0man]

99% of the time, individual right.

[barfbag]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I break towards individual right in the overwhelming majority of cases.  It's why, despite my knowing that strict gun control would almost certainly reduce gun crime, I can't find it in myself to really support strict gun laws. 

It's also why despite my personal distaste for abortion, I remain pro-choice.  Or why despite abhorring the death penalty as a barbaric means of punishment, I cannot fathom what I might think if a family member or friend was murdered or brutally raped.

But I think the best way to deal with this is to cherish and protect individual rights while also supporting increased civic engagement and policies that encourage the development of tight knit communities.  When we defend each others individual rights but also look out for each other, show compassion, try to empathize with others, and work with those who break the "social contract" to make them see their own errors and reintegrate them into their communities, collective security can still be achieved while maintaining individual freedoms.

[© tweed]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

counterterrorism is way down on the list of things the PATRIOT Act has been used for by law enforcement.

[barfbag]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

counterterrorism is way down on the list of things the PATRIOT Act has been used for by law enforcement.

Please explain for us in depth detail what other things the Patriot Act has been used by law for. Site specific examples and give your own reasons how they are irrelevant regarding terrorism.

[Beet]

Not trying to call anyone out here, I really respect the individual right position and tbh, that would be my ideal position as well. But I think there's a lot of self-deception that happens among Americans in terms of how much we would really support individual right when the nose hits the pavement, you know? Like how many of us were the ones out protesting the Patriot Act of 9/12/01? More likely we were attending a vigil for the deceased. If there's a killer virus out there near your neighborhood we would all support a quarantine regardless of whether it violated individual rights or not.

[© tweed]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

counterterrorism is way down on the list of things the PATRIOT Act has been used for by law enforcement.

Please explain for us in depth detail what other things the Patriot Act has been used by law for. Site specific examples and give your own reasons how they are irrelevant regarding terrorism.

used over 100x more often for drugs than counterterrorism.
http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/

[Maxwell]

Individual rights, obviously.

[ElectionsGuy]

Individual Right, of course.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Not trying to call anyone out here, I really respect the individual right position and tbh, that would be my ideal position as well. But I think there's a lot of self-deception that happens among Americans in terms of how much we would really support individual right when the nose hits the pavement, you know? Like how many of us were the ones out protesting the Patriot Act of 9/12/01? More likely we were attending a vigil for the deceased. If there's a killer virus out there near your neighborhood we would all support a quarantine regardless of whether it violated individual rights or not.

And if there is a killer virus out there, our response should be measured and we should take the precautions necessary to minimize the loss of life.

People understand that in such situations, there is going to be a temporary loss of personal liberty in order to keep order and keep as many people safe and alive as possible.

The difference is that once the threat has passed, or we have come to terms with it and accepted it and adapted to it, our freedoms must be preserved and reinstated.

This is why creating a patriot act on 9/12/01 was always a bad idea.  We have to sit back and put our feathers back into place before we go seeking vengeance.

[Beet]

Snowguy, I think you've just inadvertently proved my point. You've admitted that when there's a clash between collective security and individual right, society will choose collective security. But once "the threat has passed" (e.g. there is no longer a conflict between the two) we will return to valuing individual rights. This isn't choosing individual right over collective security, but rather the opposite.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, I think you've just inadvertently proved my point. You've admitted that when there's a clash between collective security and individual right, society will choose collective security. But once "the threat has passed" (e.g. there is no longer a conflict between the two) we will return to valuing individual rights. This isn't choosing individual right over collective security, but rather the opposite.

My point is that such crises are rare and hardly represent the majority of the time.

And it's perfectly fine to value collective security in crisis situations.  It's a base human value.  But once the crisis passes, our individual freedoms need to be protected.

[barfbag]

Snowguy, I think you've just inadvertently proved my point. You've admitted that when there's a clash between collective security and individual right, society will choose collective security. But once "the threat has passed" (e.g. there is no longer a conflict between the two) we will return to valuing individual rights. This isn't choosing individual right over collective security, but rather the opposite.

I don't know it seems to be that society chooses collective security until it effects them and then all of a sudden they're all for individual rights. It's called hypocrisy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It depends on the issue, obviously.

[Beet]

barf bag, it's true that some individuals think that way as well. My point is that for this question to have any meaning it must be framed within the context of a meaningful choice. One cannot really claim to value something in lieu of willingness to sacrifice something else.

[barfbag]

barf bag, it's true that some individuals think that way as well. My point is that for this question to have any meaning it must be framed within the context of a meaningful choice. One cannot really claim to value something in lieu of willingness to sacrifice something else.

Are we talking about a permanent choice or individual issues? 

[old dog]

Collective security meaning national defense with internal law & order is the primary justification for any government at all.  Other than that I am for maximum individual liberty.

Is this question some kind of word game where "collective security"  means a cradle to grave nanny state and social engineering?

[old dog]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

Massive illegal databases, cameras everywhere, internet tracking, free speech zones, drones, GPS tracking, even George Orwell didn't imagine some of these things.  The present administration is, at best, incompetent in controlling abuses and, at worst, may be complicit in some of it. 

Defending terrorism?  We must decide, either it is a war or it isn't.  If it is a war, Congress should vote on it.  Any country tolerating or aiding  terrorists to be put on notice to clean up their act within a specified time period or suffer drastic consequences.   Give them a specific date on which their capital city will be vaporized if they don't get with the program. 

[barfbag]

A few minor inconveniences is worth defending our nation from terrorism. I don't know anyone whose had their rights trampled on as a result of the Patriot Act except for those who have to be touched inappropriately at airports. At the same time, we don't want an Orwellian society or to raise the terror alert chart for political purposes.

Massive illegal databases, cameras everywhere, internet tracking, free speech zones, drones, GPS tracking, even George Orwell didn't imagine some of these things.  The present administration is, at best, incompetent in controlling abuses and, at worst, may be complicit in some of it. 

Defending terrorism?  We must decide, either it is a war or it isn't.  If it is a war, Congress should vote on it.  Any country tolerating or aiding  terrorists to be put on notice to clean up their act within a specified time period or suffer drastic consequences.   Give them a specific date on which their capital city will be vaporized if they don't get with the program. 

If we have the technology to do something, then it's going to be done whether it's legal or illegal. In what ways would you stop these things from being done? They do help defend terrorism and Orwellian comparisons are silly when discussing the real world. As for getting rid of terrorists, I'm all for your idea if it's what our country wants.

[RI]

Individuals rights can not in a meaningful way exist without collective security.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Individual rights. There is no excuse to strip any human being of their rights, including the right to privacy.