Warbow
Member
Dude, I think you've been living in NYC a bit too long. 
It's true...the meaning of “the People†is collective...not individual.
- Thread starter Graystar
- Start date
- Status
Jim March
Member
Oh really?
You're prepared to back up both allegations I assume?
Those are biiiiig words. Let's see some proof.
All you've done is used modern semantics on the modern meaning of the language to try and press this "collective" concept.
The problem is, the entire IDEA of a "collective right" can't be found in ANYBODY'S writings of the period 1776 - 1794. Connected to the 2nd Amendment, it's a 20th-century construction of the lower courts post-Miller, to try and bend Miller in ways it wasn't intended to go. It's based on 19th Century concepts going back to Marx, not Jefferson
.I assume you're read "CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT" by Denning?
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
It's a peer-reviewed law school journal article detailing how the "collective right" concept developed in order to shoehorn Miller into something other than an individual right niche.
--------------
To everybody else watching: what you're seeing here is THE classic "intellectual mistake". It's where somebody with lots of smarts fixes on one single area of "fact" to the exclusion of all other facts, and then runs with it right off a cliff.
It's why "intellectuals" consistently go through phases backing totalitarian approaches to problems. German "intellectuals" praised Hitler, until the body count got too high to ignore and by then it was too late: they ran into the one thing "intellectuals" are no damn good at, killing the folks that need killing. Russian "intellectuals" backed the Bolshevics to the same end, some STILL doing so in the cattle cars on the way to Siberia. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sick. Read Solzhenitsyn - a good dose of ANYTHING by him immunizes you to that failed collectivist approach. Start with "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
- It's shorter than the Gulag series.Hardcore commies in America's academia still ignore the body counts of Stalin and Mao and praise Castro and even Islamofascism because socialist theories "look pretty". Graystar has latched onto "collective rights" in an "ooooh, shiney pretty thing!" sense without realizing the horrific danger of such an approach and how it's 100% opposed to the Libertarian/"Classic Liberal" approach of Jefferson, Franklin and the like.
Collectivist thinking isn't just wrong. It's deadly. Graystar, there's at least 50 million skulls from the 20th century alone staring out from behind your ideas.
Jim March
Member
Quoting Twency:
Waitasec here: at the core of Graystar's arguments is something really, truly hideous. If he's REALLY prepared to try and back that, fine, but there's no way I'm going to ignore the massive bodycount and *danger* behind his ideas.
I'm being as polite as I can be under the circumstances. The plain fact is, the ideas he's pushing are MORE dangerous than anything coming from a denizen of the "StormFront" site or similar.
He can argue all he wants, but he ain't getting any free rides for "politeness's sake". Not on anything this important.
Waitasec here: at the core of Graystar's arguments is something really, truly hideous. If he's REALLY prepared to try and back that, fine, but there's no way I'm going to ignore the massive bodycount and *danger* behind his ideas.
I'm being as polite as I can be under the circumstances. The plain fact is, the ideas he's pushing are MORE dangerous than anything coming from a denizen of the "StormFront" site or similar
.He can argue all he wants, but he ain't getting any free rides for "politeness's sake". Not on anything this important.
What an absolutely worthless thread.
People are getting all over each others case over some strange semantic game that nobody can even seem to understand...because it makes no sense.
We're you just looking for some way to start a fight, Greystar? Congratulations.
Bizarre.
- Gabe
People are getting all over each others case over some strange semantic game that nobody can even seem to understand...because it makes no sense.
We're you just looking for some way to start a fight, Greystar? Congratulations.
Bizarre.
- Gabe
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
You're logic fails immediately. The government of the US was established by the consent of the governed, through the exercise of the individual right to vote. "We the People..." refers to the expression, by individuals, of their consent to be governed.
I disagree. It is an interesting line of reasoning that I have not seen before, and which could be seized upon at some point by the anti side of things. It is far better to have the time to tear it apart now, rather than be stunned later when it's used before the SC and the time is too short to react.
Not for nothin', but people are still, like I did originally, arguing against the accepted concept of collective rights, not the concept Greystar decided to make up for this thread. They are similar, but Greystar is using semantics that make his definition a little more interesting and harder to refute. I think both concepts are wrong, but at this point both sides are just arguing past each other because they are talking about two different things. I think it is important to get this right, because antis will be using this argument.
Sistema1927
Member
Jim March has it right.
This is not an argument that can be made based on semantics. We need to look both at the context in which the framers operated, as well as their own writings regarding this topic.
To a man, they tell us that rights are individual, and that governments that do not acknowledge individual rights are tyranical.
This is not an argument that can be made based on semantics. We need to look both at the context in which the framers operated, as well as their own writings regarding this topic.
To a man, they tell us that rights are individual, and that governments that do not acknowledge individual rights are tyranical.
Michigander
Member
So, we have the "collective individual" concept, eh?
OK.
No problem.
Just like the "I am an Army of one" slogan from the US Army. I wonder if the US Army really means that? Hmm?
Or the song/album titled "Conspiracy of One" by The Offspring. Can there be a conspiracy of one? According to Graystar, I think the answer would be yes. But according to definition, something most of us try to use in order to effectively communicate with each other, a conspiracy of one is impossible.
Yup. Semantics.
Yup.
OK.
No problem.
Just like the "I am an Army of one" slogan from the US Army. I wonder if the US Army really means that? Hmm?
Or the song/album titled "Conspiracy of One" by The Offspring. Can there be a conspiracy of one? According to Graystar, I think the answer would be yes. But according to definition, something most of us try to use in order to effectively communicate with each other, a conspiracy of one is impossible.
Yup. Semantics.
Yup.
Smoke
Member
"You people are Americans."
Collective? Individual? OR both?
When referring to a large body of individuals bearing some common thread, you may refer to them collectively while still speaking to the individual.
Graystar, you do not have a valid argument, or a clue.
Smoke
Collective? Individual? OR both?
When referring to a large body of individuals bearing some common thread, you may refer to them collectively while still speaking to the individual.
Graystar, you do not have a valid argument, or a clue.
Smoke
Graystar
Member
No it’s not. Semantics has nothing to do with it. I’ve clearly explained the difference between the individual and collective. It much more than just wordplay. There's a fundamental difference in how the two forms are exercised.
Graystar
Member
What I’ve said is that there exist right and privileges that cannot be realized by a single individual.
That’s correct. You have a right to be represented in Congress. However, you cannot exercise that right fully to its end by yourself.
If you can show me how a single person can send a representative to Washington, without the consent of people of his state, then I’ll be happy to reconsider.
Graystar
Member
I’ve already been through this with you. Do a search.
griz
Member
I would say you are talking semantics too, but here is something that fails your test:
In the same amendment the words people and person are used. I would say that since the exception "seized a person" is listed, that negates the idea of the "people" making it a collective right.
Now I don't expect you to buy that, so how about the right to a free press. The press meets your test of collective. Are you saying that an individual does not have the right to publish what they want? How about speech?
Anyway the idea that a "collective right" isn't shared by the individuals of the collective is absurd.
In the same amendment the words people and person are used. I would say that since the exception "seized a person" is listed, that negates the idea of the "people" making it a collective right.
Now I don't expect you to buy that, so how about the right to a free press. The press meets your test of collective. Are you saying that an individual does not have the right to publish what they want? How about speech?
Anyway the idea that a "collective right" isn't shared by the individuals of the collective is absurd.
Graystar
Member
Then exercise your right not to be part of it.
We were having a pleasant discussion until posts like yours started showing up.
Graystar
Member
You’ve just explained what I’ve been saying. You said, “The government of the US was established by the consent of the governed...†Please give me an example of when the exercise of speech or religion requires the consent of the governed.
You can’t, because individual freedoms don’t require the consent of the governed. THAT is the difference.
Graystar
Member
I think you should read the very first post in its entirely. That's where the discussion of the Fourth is.
ThreadKiller
Member
It is quite clear after reading the Federalist Papers that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that private individual citizens be armed for their own defense. They lived in mortal fear of a large standing army.
This debate is very entertaining even though I'm not quite sure what the point is or where it is leading.
However, I am quite sure that the High Road doesn't go through Collectiveville.
Tim
This debate is very entertaining even though I'm not quite sure what the point is or where it is leading.
However, I am quite sure that the High Road doesn't go through Collectiveville.
Tim
griz
Member
I did read the thread and was trying to be nice. You said:
Then you answered a question about this collective right:
If you would have said that individual rights are exercised collectively I would have agreed, but you are trying to make some weird leap to a collective right because a group of people exercise it. Unless you can explain how a collective right differs from an individual right TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO EXERCISES IT, it makes no sense at all. It might not make sense after you explain it.
How can a collective be secure in their/its persons/person? That's where your semantics kicks in. When the framers said "people" they meant everybody. Now admitidly that is a group, but to find a group in there to which the right does not apply is impossible.
Then you answered a question about this collective right:
If you would have said that individual rights are exercised collectively I would have agreed, but you are trying to make some weird leap to a collective right because a group of people exercise it. Unless you can explain how a collective right differs from an individual right TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO EXERCISES IT, it makes no sense at all. It might not make sense after you explain it.
Sam Adams
Member
Justin and Graystar
"Said another way, how can a group have the freedom to speak as it wishes, but no single member of that group?
How can a group have the right to bear arms if no single member of that group is able to?
How can a group have the right to worship the God that it chooses, but no single member can dissent?
If an individual does not have liberty, how can a group?"
I completely agree with Justin, and disagree with Graystar.
We are NOT a democracy governed by the whims of the crowd, we are a representative republic governed by a Constitution. As such, the basic rights of minorities are protected against the will of the majority - even a 999:1 majority. The very purpose of the BOR is to secure those rights against the power of the majority.
I absolutely disagree with the contention that certain rights can only be exercised by a collective. Voting, for example, is done by individuals. If only one person in a particular Congressional district or state chose to vote in a given election, that one person would elect the Congressman or Senator for that district or state. Yes, that is highly unlikely, but it is possible. The same could have in the past, and could in the future, apply to a state's delegates to a Constitutional Convention.
If anything belongs to "the public" or "the collective" then it belongs to no one. This goes as much for real or tangible property as it does for something as intangible as a "right." You can't enter Area 51 without the permission of the government (and you'll likely get shot if they catch you), even though you are a citizen and taxpayer who theoretically owns a piece of it. Same goes for walking into the nearest armory and grabbing "your" M-4 rifle that "your" tax dollars paid for. Nor can you enforce a "collective" right. This is EXACTLY what the statists want - no enforceable rights for anyone, so that individuals can be stripped of their freedom at the convenience of someone or some group in the government. This isn't and cannot be what the Founding Fathers envisioned. In fact, their writings say quite the opposite.
"If an individual does not have liberty, how can a group?" There's that thought again. Let's take the example of an assembly of 500 people to protest some proposed or actual government policy. Under Graystar's analysis of "collective rights," these people have the right to protest...or do they? What, under his analysis, would prevent the police from going to Aaron Ableson and arresting him - as an individual with no individual right to assemble - for protesting illegally. OK, now your crowd is down to 499. Next the police arrest Betty Boop, and so on until the crowd is down to 1. Then Zeke Zacharias is arrested, and there's no more protest. The "collective right" means nothing, not when individuals have no rights. It is an utter logical fallacy to have group rights without the underlying individual rights.
Graystar, I've only read the first page of responses, but I submit that you know this and agree with Justin and I. Your game was a clever one, playing the role of a statist who believes that there are essentially no personal liberties, and elicited 3 pages of responses (so far). Bravo! By the way, in case you were serious, you should remember that there are 80+ million people armed with 1/4 of a billion guns in this country. Whether you are theoretically correct or not (and I believe that you are NOT), the practical task of getting all of them to give up their RKBA (especially in light of the historical results of civil disarmament) will be impossible. You'll just have to live with individual rights, like it or not.
"Said another way, how can a group have the freedom to speak as it wishes, but no single member of that group?
How can a group have the right to bear arms if no single member of that group is able to?
How can a group have the right to worship the God that it chooses, but no single member can dissent?
If an individual does not have liberty, how can a group?"
I completely agree with Justin, and disagree with Graystar.
We are NOT a democracy governed by the whims of the crowd, we are a representative republic governed by a Constitution. As such, the basic rights of minorities are protected against the will of the majority - even a 999:1 majority. The very purpose of the BOR is to secure those rights against the power of the majority.
I absolutely disagree with the contention that certain rights can only be exercised by a collective. Voting, for example, is done by individuals. If only one person in a particular Congressional district or state chose to vote in a given election, that one person would elect the Congressman or Senator for that district or state. Yes, that is highly unlikely, but it is possible. The same could have in the past, and could in the future, apply to a state's delegates to a Constitutional Convention.
If anything belongs to "the public" or "the collective" then it belongs to no one. This goes as much for real or tangible property as it does for something as intangible as a "right." You can't enter Area 51 without the permission of the government (and you'll likely get shot if they catch you), even though you are a citizen and taxpayer who theoretically owns a piece of it. Same goes for walking into the nearest armory and grabbing "your" M-4 rifle that "your" tax dollars paid for. Nor can you enforce a "collective" right. This is EXACTLY what the statists want - no enforceable rights for anyone, so that individuals can be stripped of their freedom at the convenience of someone or some group in the government. This isn't and cannot be what the Founding Fathers envisioned. In fact, their writings say quite the opposite.
"If an individual does not have liberty, how can a group?" There's that thought again. Let's take the example of an assembly of 500 people to protest some proposed or actual government policy. Under Graystar's analysis of "collective rights," these people have the right to protest...or do they? What, under his analysis, would prevent the police from going to Aaron Ableson and arresting him - as an individual with no individual right to assemble - for protesting illegally. OK, now your crowd is down to 499. Next the police arrest Betty Boop, and so on until the crowd is down to 1. Then Zeke Zacharias is arrested, and there's no more protest. The "collective right" means nothing, not when individuals have no rights. It is an utter logical fallacy to have group rights without the underlying individual rights.
Graystar, I've only read the first page of responses, but I submit that you know this and agree with Justin and I. Your game was a clever one, playing the role of a statist who believes that there are essentially no personal liberties, and elicited 3 pages of responses (so far). Bravo! By the way, in case you were serious, you should remember that there are 80+ million people armed with 1/4 of a billion guns in this country. Whether you are theoretically correct or not (and I believe that you are NOT), the practical task of getting all of them to give up their RKBA (especially in light of the historical results of civil disarmament) will be impossible. You'll just have to live with individual rights, like it or not.
Graystar
Member
That’s right. And when they meant individuals they used the word “persons.â€
Well, I’ve already explained it but I’ll do it again.
Your idea of individual rights exercised collectively makes no sense. If the right is individual, and can be fully exercised to its end by a single individual, then it doesn’t matter if that individual is alone or with a group. The exercise is the same. There is no fundamental difference between individuals and groups.
A collective right simply cannot be exercised by an individual. And not because there’s some law or some restraint against individuals, but because it is impossible to do so.
Even in the example of the town of two individuals, where only one can vote, there is still an element of collectiveness because the results of the vote must be accepted by both the voter and the candidate. The voter’s right to choose his representation is not fully realized until then.
Fletchette
Member
AARRRRGGG!
This dialog is making my head hurt!
Look, voting is not a "collective" right, it is an "individual right", the "election" is the collective result.
Freedom of speech is an "individual right", a conversation is the collective result (although I am sure some people here are capable of having conversations as an individual...)
Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, forming a militia is the collective result.
Arguing that we do not have individual rights because the right is stated in the Bill of Rights as a right of all individuals is 1984 style Orwellian word redefinition. And "collectives of one"
This whole conversation reminds me of the two mathamaticians (whose names I forget) that set out to prove that "one plus one equals two" and ended up publishing TEN volumes of abstract mathematical BS before they "proved" it.
The Founders said it very succinctly: these rights are "self-evident", just like 1+1=2
If you don't get it, I can't help you.
This dialog is making my head hurt!
Look, voting is not a "collective" right, it is an "individual right", the "election" is the collective result.
Freedom of speech is an "individual right", a conversation is the collective result (although I am sure some people here are capable of having conversations as an individual...)
Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, forming a militia is the collective result.
Arguing that we do not have individual rights because the right is stated in the Bill of Rights as a right of all individuals is 1984 style Orwellian word redefinition. And "collectives of one"
This whole conversation reminds me of the two mathamaticians (whose names I forget) that set out to prove that "one plus one equals two" and ended up publishing TEN volumes of abstract mathematical BS before they "proved" it.
The Founders said it very succinctly: these rights are "self-evident", just like 1+1=2
If you don't get it, I can't help you.
Graystar
Member
And here is where you completely miss my point. Even if a single person voted, the results of that vote must be accepted by the whole before the right is fully realized. The exercise of individual rights needs no such validation.
JohnBT
Member
"This use of “the People†must be collective in nature."
Collective as in a collection of individuals?
Collections of individuals don't vote, individuals do, one by one.
You folks know, don't you, that there has been quite a lot of tortured logic in this thread? Some of it is worse than the old "What you mean by IS stuff."
John
Collective as in a collection of individuals?
Collections of individuals don't vote, individuals do, one by one.
You folks know, don't you, that there has been quite a lot of tortured logic in this thread? Some of it is worse than the old "What you mean by IS stuff."
John
- Status