"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.Originally Posted by TronDD
And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.Originally Posted by bad manners
Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.What is the "human rights doctrine"? We may be arguing on different pages again. I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man. I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.
Role. What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It is the people.Originally Posted by TronDD
But I agree with this definition of yours, because it actually makes more sense than the democratic nonsense I wrote just above. If a person cannot live in a society, that person should leave the society, and I have said that before.
Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.