Posted on 06/06/2007 8:05:15 AM PDT by tpaine
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLLECTIVISTS AND INDIVIDUALISTS
1. A collectivist believes that rights are derived from the state.
An Individualist believes that rights are intrinsic to each human being.
2. A collectivist believes the state may perform acts that are forbidden to individuals.
An individualist believes the state may do only what individuals have a right to do.
3. A collectivist believes individuals may be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number.
An individualist believes individuals must be protected from the greed and passion of the greater number.
4. A collectivist believes coercion is the best way to bring about positive effects in society.
An individualist believes freedom-of-choice is the best way to bring about positive effects in society.
5. A collectivist believes laws should apply unequally to benefit one group over another.
An individualist believes laws should apply equally to all groups so that everyone is treated the same.
6. A collectivist believes government should be an aggressive force for solving problems, providing sustenance, and directing human activities. That government is best which governs most.
An individualist believes government should be a defensive and protective force, limited to safeguarding the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. That government is best which governs least.
THE CREED OF FREEDOM INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM-OF-CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom.
If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.
” Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.’
No. Constitutional amendments are not subject to judicial review. The court can invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution, but constitutional conventions and ratified constitutional amendments are outside the jurisdiction of the court.
The function of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution — as amended.
The 18th was 'reviewed'. You are wrong.
The court can invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution,
Correct.
but constitutional conventions and ratified constitutional amendments are outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Wrong.
In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the Supreme Court heard lengthy arguments that the 18th was unconstitutional.
Afraid to explain their decision, they refused to comment, and simply rejected the issue. - A very unusual case.
The function of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution as amended.
Read much? Article III section 2 says different. Any case "arising under this Constitution" is the applicable wording.
” Read much? Article III section 2 says different. Any case “arising under this Constitution” is the applicable wording.’
Can you not keep snideness out of your responses?
And ‘this Constitution’ means what? Everything but the amendments? Only the first ten amendments?
An amendment is an amendment. The newly amended Constitution is then the basis for USSC operations. The USSC can be overridden by amending the document it must enforce. But the amending process is so tedious and all-encompassing that it acts as a check on changing the constitution into something abhorrent. But it’s not a perfect check, as the Volstead Act proved.
Saturday bump.
.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is fantastic!
Brilliant post!!
HUh!
No way! We get ideas from certain collectives that create a stronger individual big difference.
Marines are stronger due to their training,but they are individually stronger not collectively,also big difference.!!
If an individual puts the needs of others ahead of his own he does it on an individual basis not on a collective basis, these are the strongest of all individualists.
When individualists join groups they do so as individualists standing on their own. They join groups from a common good standpoint but on an individual basis, and depending on no one but themselves.
Monday bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.