Phil Lee
Member
A "collective right" means what?
Does anyone know who holds a "collective right" and who may exercise it?
If the holder of a "collective right" is society (people collectively), it may only be exercise through the assent of government. In the parlance of Constitutional construction, only powers (enumerated or implied) may be exercised through government. So, if the "collective right" to arms requires government assent for its exercise, we aren't talking a right, but a power.
Actually, some are talking about treating the vague notion, "collective right", as if it is concrete and has an existence apart from the original notion of right held by individuals. They are using a technique of propaganda known as reification and specifically hypostatization (presuming that whatever can be named or conceived abstractly, must actually exist).
Marx was a big proponent of reification (Karl not Groucho) -- it seems that his intellectual descendants are alive and well on THR.
Does anyone know who holds a "collective right" and who may exercise it?
If the holder of a "collective right" is society (people collectively), it may only be exercise through the assent of government. In the parlance of Constitutional construction, only powers (enumerated or implied) may be exercised through government. So, if the "collective right" to arms requires government assent for its exercise, we aren't talking a right, but a power.
Actually, some are talking about treating the vague notion, "collective right", as if it is concrete and has an existence apart from the original notion of right held by individuals. They are using a technique of propaganda known as reification and specifically hypostatization (presuming that whatever can be named or conceived abstractly, must actually exist).
Marx was a big proponent of reification (Karl not Groucho) -- it seems that his intellectual descendants are alive and well on THR.
Last edited: