At the heart of the RKBA struggle...

[ArfinGreebly]

The Individual

While I am normally a fan of the "Greatest Good" computation, I have to say that I've never met an implementation that wasn't broken.

Any policy which "benefits the community" but which, somehow, fails to benefit its members, is fatally flawed.

From my own observations, I find that (generally) when individuals are permitted to act for their own benefit, they will, sooner or later, form organized activities founded on "enlightened self interest."

The trouble pretty much starts when an individual or a small collection of individuals acting as a group, determine that they can bias this "self interest" thing in their favor if they can convince enough other individuals to agree to let them dictate policy and exert control over those individuals for "the common good."

The effects of collective control can be minimized by instituting guarantees of individual right and freedom, but even so, over time, those who view collective "welfare" as their mission will act to curtail individual right and liberty as much as possible.

Individuals understand that an organized group will prevail and thrive better than the individuals separately. Still, if the organization ever becomes onerous to the liberty of the individual, it has exceeded its usefulness.

The "welfare" of the "community" in the context of our country and its culture is best served by the strict preservation of individual right and liberty, not by the subordination of the individual interest to that of the community.

It's easy to make arguments that individual nutjobs should have their liberty abridged to the degree they threaten the "community." Not so. Their liberty should be abridged to the degree they threaten individuals.

My conclusion then is that the "greatest good" is best served by the strict preservation of individual right, liberty, and freedom.

 

[DWARREN123]

A communist statement. The community is not more important than the individual, the community is made up of individuals.

 

[geekWithA.45]

CFriesen, I write in haste.

The simpler one first:

Quote:
Quote:
They died for a country founded upon and dedicated to your right to live and die how you choose. And the neighbor, Bill, Manuel and Shaneequa.

That's quite different than dying for a country.
357wheelgun, geekwitha.45:

Do you agree that this is the case?

I tend to agree with that. A common trope of the Left is that dying for nationalism, which they assert is arbitrary and random based on the circumstances of one's birth is irrational. That may or may not be the case, but America is exceptional. Although it is a nation in the "soil" sense, that's not its defining characteristic. It's defining characteristic transcends mere soil, being the dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal, are endowed of their creator with certain unalienable rights, and so on and so forth.

What happens where there is a disconnect between individual perceptions of what constitutes the rational creation of positive sum operations?

For instance; who can be said to be engaged in the rational creation of positive sum operations, those in vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, or those who enlist?

Or are they both?

I don't think either case is about sums. They are each expressing their prerogatives (to speak or enlist) in pursuit of happiness, er, positive sums.

As for the "summiness" of war itself, the general case is that the war is designed to prevent the massively negative sum situation of direct, catastrophic terrorist action in CONUS. Whether you believe this to be a positive or negative sum depends on how you assess the threat. If you believe that the threat is real and high, then you'll tend to come down on positive. If you believe that the threat is created/trumped up, then you'll tend to come down on the negative sum side, based on the theory that we're wasting resource shadowboxing.

I believe that history will decide. As it stands, the case that there is a threat is much more credible than the case that there isn't. Where there is room for debate and discussion is the magnitude and form of the ongoing threat, but this line of discussion wanders too far afield towards OT.

 

[bruss01]

A democracy exists so that everyone has a voice and that the will of the majority is implemented.

A republic exists to protect the rights of minorities by insuring the law reigns supreme over political expediency.

A democratic republic, theoretically, represents the best of both worlds. Yes, the needs of the "community" should be served, but not at the expense of the rights of the minority being sacrificed. And, as Ayn Rand noted "The individual is the smallest minority".

The will of the majority may not supercede the rights of the individual.

 

[Ithaca37]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

Isn't this really a social Darwinist (eugenics) philosophy? You know, euthanasia for the disabled and elderly because they drag the rest of us down. I don't see any real person with a conscience can believe that statement is true and accept all its implications.

 

[JCF]

I have to say that this is genuinely one of the most instructive and influential discussions I have been witness to in this forum. I have abstained from discussion in the legal section for some time, but I like the way it has evolved.

I wonder; following upon the observation that our social welfare and advancement is contingent upon individual determination of productive self-interest and the facilitation and pursuit thereof, and in view of the fact that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of those decisions are materially less influential in the process of advancement of good than is an assurance that the decisions are indeed those of the individual... how might one respond to those who would contend, in parallel to 357wheelgun's personal response to the scenario of the sexually abused child, "I support, as an individual decision, the implementation of strict gun control policy. I do this not because I feel it advances benefit to anyone else, but rather because I could not live with myself if I did not, and it would thus be a detriment to my individual welfare. My failure to do so, and the resultant detriment to me, would represent an overall detriment to my society as well. As such, my support of strict gun control policy is of benefit to me and, thus, to society"

 

[357WheelGun]

Despite the fact that both parties are acting out of what they may rationally perceive to be their own individual interest, and with confidence that doing so will ultimately further their community as a result, and despite the fact that they may be convinced of the fact that the actions of others, those opposed to them, may indeed be a subtractive sum operation?

I'm not sure why you slipped in the phrase, "with confidence that doing so will ultimately further their community as a result". The "community" is properly a secondary consideration that is subjugated to the individual, and that's if the "community" is considered at all.

Specific examples of individual actions may indeed be "negative" for society as a whole, however over time the "positive" actions outweigh the "negative" ones.

One of the paradoxes of existence is that in order to move forward, an entity (be it an individual or a community) must also allow the possibility to regress. Robert Pirsig spoke of "Dynamic" and "Static" patterns of value. "Communities", by definition, are static patterns of value as it is not possible for a community to remain cohesive unless it latches onto a static pattern of value. The individual, however, is not restricted by this and is free to pursue dynamic Quality.

The problem with a "community" is that it will always be resistant to truly new ideas. As Pirsig points out, "Just a biological immune system will destroy a life saving skin graft with the same vigor with which it fights pneumonia, so will a cultural immune system fight off a beneficial new kind of understanding with the same vigor it uses to destroy crime." He goes on to explain that, "Static, social and intellectual patterns are only an intermediate level of evolution. They a good servants of the process of life. But if allowed to turn into masters, they destroy it."

The main thrust of Pirsig's thought is that advancement comes only through Dynamic Quality, which is available only to an individual, and that the same freedom necessary to allow individuals to pursue Dynamic Quality cannot help but allow for the possibility of regression as well.

 

[357WheelGun]

how might one respond to those who would contend, in parallel to 357wheelgun's personal response to the scenario of the sexually abused child, "I support, as an individual decision, the implementation of strict gun control policy. I do this not because I feel it advances benefit to anyone else, but rather because I could not live with myself if I did not, and it would thus be a detriment to my individual welfare. My failure to do so, and the resultant detriment to me, would represent an overall detriment to my society as well. As such, my support of strict gun control policy is of benefit to me and, thus, to society"

Very honestly, I would commend that person's honesty and would gladly drink with them. I'd let them know that I disagreed with them, and if they were willing, I'd happily discuss the issue back and forth with them. Of course I would work against them because I believe differently, but I strongly subscribe to the idea that "honorable men can differ".

I agree, this has been a very interesting discussion and I've really enjoyed the thinking that this has gotten me to do. Cheers to all involved.

 

[Old Dog]

Excellent discussion, folks. Arfin's remark

My conclusion then is that the "greatest good" is best served by the strict preservation of individual right, liberty, and freedom.

is on the money.

Consider that those in the anti-RKBA camp stridently trumpet the numbers of children dying by firearms each year ... by their logic, we should thus then ban automobiles, unattended swimming pools and ponds, household cleaning agents and all those other things that kill far more children every day than guns.

Where do my rights end, and the collective rights for the good of the community begin?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Where do my rights end, and the collective rights for the good of the community begin?

There is no such juncture. Your rights end only where they bump up against another individual's rights. All any community has is what ever power is granted to those who have been chosen to administrate any functions the people wish to be handled on a common basis, such as the defense of the community, adjudication of any miscreants in the community, and the construction of any needed roads.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[AndyC]

I haven't read the entire thread, but my comment would be best encapsulated by the first statement in my sig-line.

 

[JohnBT]

"Do you swear allegiance to a flag?"

Pledge. It's the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Bellamy's original version, and intent, is instructive. Note that it says my flag, not our flag, the flag or any other collective flag. My flag.

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

 

[JCF]

...I strongly subscribe to the idea that "honorable men can differ".

Indeed. They can.

 

[JCF]

Pledge. It's the Pledge of Allegiance.

My apologies. I had always understood the act of offering an oath and a pledge in equivalent context. Opinions obviously differ. Please be assured I was referring to the same act you are. If less precisely.

Mr. Bellamy's original version, and intent, is instructive. Note that it says my flag, not our flag, the flag or any other collective flag. My flag.

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Quite. However for the sake of discussion I had referenced the pledge in its contemporary permutation. Much in the same way I am predisposed to recognition of the Constitution in its current state of evolution.