Quote Originally Posted by TronDD
Quote Originally Posted by bad manners
Quote Originally Posted by TronDD
I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.
It can and does in every society.
I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong). Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct. I think we are arguing about different things.
"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.

Quote Originally Posted by bad manners
Quote Originally Posted by TronDD
One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.
So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.
A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.
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.

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.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by TronDD
That is the roll of goverment. So, yes, I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case. But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals. If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation.
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.

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.

Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.
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"?