- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Why is it more moral for a society to grant rights to the individual at the expense of the group? And vice versa.

Posted by: Frenchy on December 27, 1999 at 13:40:35:

In Reply to: And why not? posted by Stoller on December 25, 1999 at 12:27:48:

: : But I don't consider them to be experts in anything. They have political opinions, so what? Ask yourself this; "Have the experts always been right"? There are too many examples of the experts predicting X and then Y happens. Their menu features a main course of loss of personal freedom. They don't admit it, won't accept it, deny it. Fine. Their the experts. All I know is that where ever their ideas have been tried you wind up with less freedom and more tyranny.

: As someone else without a college education, I can appreciate your dislike at being talked down to by 'experts' of various persuasions.

LOL! Strange, I don't feel like I'm being talked down to, except in the sense of a used car dealer trying to hustle a rube, except the used car salesman doesn't know the rube knows cars.

: Nevertheless, I don't want to live in the stone age.

: Experts have been very handy people. Fertilizers, tractors, and winter wheat (to use three examples you put forward in another post) were made possible by experts. Agricultural experts.

: And there are many other types of experts equally handy.

I of course agree with all the above. The stuff hits the fan when we come to morality. Then all hell breaks lose. Why is it more moral for a society to grant rights to the individual at the expense of the group? And vice versa.

: HOWEVER: What you and I seem to have in common is a distrust for ONE PARTICULAR TYPE of expert. The government expert.


: Whether it's a boss at work or a 'representative' in Congress, THIS expert always calls the shots.

I expect the boss at work to call the shots. It's distasteful, irritating, infuriating, often unecessary, galling to be part of that machinery, but I don't see how you can realistically get around it. The alternative is that we all trundle back to the pre-Industrial era, a ride I'm not prepared for. Sorry.
But I sure wouldn't mind seeing gov't cut down some. Maybe a lot. I don't believe how much I distrust my own gov't anymore. If anyone had told me 20 years ago how much I'd dislike my gov't I'd've told 'em they were nuts. HA! Look at me now. I'm ready to celebrate Timothy McVeigh Day.

: Why not just let the PEOPLE call the shots? Fair and square---majority rule. In the workplace and outside. After all, people live in BOTH places.
Ain't gonna happen. Majority rule would really really suck, the reason why is because the masses can't govern themselves. I just don't think they can, or even want to. I think it's better that we stick with a representational democracy based on the Constitutution and the Bill of Rights interpretted as originally intended.

: With job rotation, everyone will become a government expert.
B_R_R_R_R_R_R_R__R_RKzK_KK_K_K_K_K_K__K_K_K_!!!! Wrong answer! Ain't gonna happen.

: As far as the REAL experts go---the experts we truly need to keep technology humming---how about letting all the people USE their expertise---but DIRECT that expertise?

: And, while we're at it, why not train even more people to be expert in different things? We'll only have more useful inventions to make life better for everybody.

: As much as I dislike experts, I know ignorance is a deadend.

: Power To The People!

Forced labor from the experts and a thousand factions telling the experts in which direction to go.
Doesn't sound workable to me.
Of course, I could be wrong....

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup