Man's
relationship to the State has been a point of discussion ever since the Enlightenment, when such
thoughts were able to be explored for the first time in human history. The philosophers of this
time (Locke, Montesqie) and even into our own time (Rand) argue that individuals have rights,
and that it is the function of government to safeguard them.
Possessing
rights implies that one may do as one wishes, as long as ones' actions do not impact the rights
of another individual. Laws exist to insure that rights are preserved; governments create and
maintain such laws.
If individuals are safe, then the society is safe.
"Social" safety is only a function of individual safety. Therefore, as post #4 states,
there really is no conflict between what is good for the individual and what is good for
society.
The conflict comes about when the percieved "social"
safety is threatened, and the response is to curtail individual activities. It is the erosion
of indivudual rights that allow governments to wrongfully expand their power at the cost of
individual liberty and freedom.
And for those who would argue that
individuals must be curtailed for the "greater good," I refer you to a quote by
Benjamim Franklin: "Those that would sacrifice a little liberty for safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety."
No comments:
Post a Comment