What is the proper balance? Privilege v Individual Rights

[the]

Lets start off with some definitions:

privilege
The sweet end of the inequality stick.
It could be postulated that the act of enjoying privilege is inherently immoral, as in a world of scarce resources it necessarily comes at the cost of multiple others, whose wellbeing is thereby decreased.

right
Guaranteed to all Americans by the constitution (or input your country's particulars), but slowly being taken away through social aid programs, censorship, and bannings.Bill: I don't smoke, but i do believe that it is the right of an adult citizen of this country to smoke if they so choose, and that it is the right of any privately owned company to choose if they will allow a person to do so.
Ted: Yeah, and why should a privately owned company not be allowed to hire or fire anyone for any reason they want.
Bill: And what about trying to censor the internet, or the censorship of radio, tv, and print. Why is it not the choice of the company what they allow on their networks?
Ted: Indeed, and let's not get started on the patriot act.


What as a society should we be more focused on Privilege or Individual rights? Where does one end and another begin? What can we do to fix the problem as you see it?

As you can see I've included this graphic to validate my question, but there is an actual survey going on right now at: https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/a-question-of-privilege

 

[muir]

The following are very simplistic terms and are only intended as a snapshot. people who identify with some of the broad ideas below may have different ideas of how they would define things or do things, but its a starting point for further exploration:

''Anarcho-capitalists'' do not like government. They believe in little or no government and they believe that the market should decide what stays and what goes. Many will describe themselves as 'libertarians' which when not being corrupted by the corporate media actually means that they believe that an individual should be able to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. Anarchist capitalists believe that competition finds what works and what doesn't. they believe that government should only exists to carry out certain tasks such as enforce contracts.

anarcho-capitalists hate the fact that the economy is controlled centrally by the federal reserve bank working with the government. They also hate all the restrictions placed by government.

''State capitalists'' believe in a strong government and a centrally controlled economy. They don't believe that the markets should rule but rather that the central banks and the government can manipulate the markets. So for example when the banks failed the government used taxpayer money to bail out the banks. The anarcho-capitalists on the other hand argue that the banks should have been allowed to fail.

''Anarchist socialists'' anarchist socialists are like anarchist capitalists in the sense that they also do not trust government and believe that government will always try to expand its power and its control over the citizenry. Anarchist socialists may not even believe that we should have money but rather that we should all contribute something to a community store from which everyone can then draw what they need. They believe in cooperation and that everyone in a community should have a say in the decision making process. They do not believe that anyone should be coerced into doing anyhting that they do not want to do. Many will also identify as 'libertarians' menaing that they believe people can do what they want as long as they don't hurt others

''State socialists'' believe in centrally controlled, planned economies where the government controls many if not all aspects of peoples lives. This form of socialism will vary from other forms of socialism which believe that the workers should own in common the means of production and should run them themselves. In a state socialist system the central power (government) will control the workers and the means of production. The state might reach deeply into peoples lives and may define many things that they can and can't do.

So there are a couple of main themes here. One is the centralisation v's decentralisation theme. The more centralised power is the more control it will have over peoples lives. This will limit their personal freedoms and can become stifling. The more decentralised things are the more freedoms the individual has.

However government can be a double edged sword. Government can control but also protect

If you have a system of unfettered capitalism such as anarcho-capitalists wish does that then leave people at the mercy of powerful groups with no government to protect them?

if you then introduce government will the powerful groups then not use their power and influence to subvert and control government and in the end control the people again?

If you adopt socialism but let the government run things then the government itself becomes the powerful group that then can oppress the people

So in my opinion the option that offers the best freedom from government oppression, the most personal power to individuals and also to workers and the best protection from the formation of powerful groups (which always occur in capitalism and are called monopolies) is anarchist socialism (also called: anarchist-communism or libertarian socialism)

At the moment we have seen the rise of monopolist capitalists that call themselves ''too big to fail'' and we also have a centrally run economy run by the central banks which in turn are controlled by the monopoly capitalist groups. These groups have now become so powerful that they in fact control government.

So at the moment we are getting the worst of both worlds in that we have capitalism which is dominated by large corporations and we have centralised control where the government and central banks are controlled by the monopoly capitalists

This is seeing more and more of our freedoms taken away and we have less and less say in the decision making process and also our wealth is being eroded in a number of ways as the monopoly capitalist power groups change the laws to suit themselves

 

[the]

Its hard to say because government should be the balancing factor; but I dont think human are ready to be that impartial (will they ever be?) or the system just doesnt work period. I like the concept/philosophy of non-aggression but life is violent by nature. There is something to be said about physical communication, even for punching someone in the mouth. I also like the concept of tribalism.

Life is all just blurred lines. Labeling yourself as an-cap, liberal, etc is just a starting point. People should just get into the habit of laying all thier views right out there. I think every generation needs an 'out with the old, in with the new' attitude, when it comes to the social contract I didnt sign shit.

 

[Gaze]

Kinda depends on what we perceive the role of society or government to be. If the primary value or priority value is pursuit of personal interests and happiness then anyone can say that their personal philosophy is superior and works, even if it doesn't. If it's all about what works for the individual but doesn't work for the masses, there's going to be a problem. If it's all about what works for the masses but cares little for individual wants or needs, then that's also going to be a problem. If the goal is actually what works for everyone that could mean more or less government depending on how things are, current resources, policies, and where we want to be future wise. But claiming only one philosophy can give everyone what they want is asserting a generalization about the benefits of one philosophy for everyone without considering whether it really works for everyone. Of course, the anarcho-capitalist is just going to find everything to support their feeling that the little or no government is ideal. Whether or not this is the case is less important than the belief that they are right and that their beliefs are true. Same goes for someone who believes communism is the ideal system of governance. Doesn't matter if loss of individual rights or choices is an issue, if everyone is made to believe that it's best if the government decides what is best for all with few regulations or restrictions on actions.

 

[the]

Kinda depends on what we perceive the role of society or government to be. If the primary value or priority value is pursuit of personal interests and happiness then anyone can say that their personal philosophy is superior and works, even if it doesn't. If it's all about what works for the individual but doesn't work for the masses, there's going to be a problem. If it's all about what works for the masses but cares little for individual wants or needs, then that's also going to be a problem. If the goal is actually what works for everyone that could mean more or less government depending on how things are, current resources, policies, and where we want to be future wise. But claiming only one philosophy can give everyone what they want is asserting a generalization about the benefits of one philosophy for everyone without considering whether it really works for everyone. Of course, the anarcho-capitalist is just going to find everything to support their feeling that the little or no government is ideal. Whether or not this is the case is less important than the belief that they are right and that their beliefs are true. Same goes for someone who believes communism is the ideal system of governance. Doesn't matter if loss of individual rights or choices is an issue, if everyone is made to believe that it's best if the government decides what is best for all with few regulations or restrictions on actions.

What do you see the roll of society or government to be?

 

[muir]

Kinda depends on what we perceive the role of society or government to be. If the primary value or priority value is pursuit of personal interests and happiness then anyone can say that their personal philosophy is superior and works, even if it doesn't. If it's all about what works for the individual but doesn't work for the masses, there's going to be a problem. If it's all about what works for the masses but cares little for individual wants or needs, then that's also going to be a problem. If the goal is actually what works for everyone that could mean more or less government depending on how things are, current resources, policies, and where we want to be future wise. But claiming only one philosophy can give everyone what they want is asserting a generalization about the benefits of one philosophy for everyone without considering whether it really works for everyone. Of course, the anarcho-capitalist is just going to find everything to support their feeling that the little or no government is ideal. Whether or not this is the case is less important than the belief that they are right and that their beliefs are true. Same goes for someone who believes communism is the ideal system of governance. Doesn't matter if loss of individual rights or choices is an issue, if everyone is made to believe that it's best if the government decides what is best for all with few regulations or restrictions on actions.

Some of these ideas are really about a hands off approach; this then leaves room for people to express themselves

This is why i advocate ideas along the lines of anarchist communism....i'm just using these labels as a way to get a handle on ideas, but what i a really saying is that i believe in peoples freedom to not be oppressed whether it be by private or public interests

 

[Gktr]

I suppose I would be referred to as a Titoist anarcho-communist.

In my opinion, the idea that there's a balance to be found between privilege and individual rights is a false dichotomy. As I see it, the role of society is to create a balance between the community's protection of an individual's personal rights and an individual's duties toward the community. For example, the right to own personal propety is not naturally existent - without the protection offered by the community, someone bigger and stronger than you might come along and take your stuff away. Your duty, in return for this protection, is to make sure that everyone else has all the necessities they need to get through life as comfortably as possible. The right to own can not exist without the duty to provide: if people are starving and in need food, or they really need some of your possessions, it would not be unethical for them to forcefully obtain whatever it is you have that they don't.

This duality exists both with and without a government. With a government, the protection is administered by a legal system through the use of a police force. As long as people are generally happy with the way they're being led, things are well and dandy, but if their needs are not met, there will eventually be an uprising. One of the reasons I believe it's necessary to abolish the state is that if a public entity becomes too large and powerful, it'll be impossible to successfully rise up against it. When implemented on a large enough scale - when it's nations rather than villages, even a fully functioning democracy is automatically oppressive. In Western countries the oppression is usually quite benevolent and people's lives aren't at stake, but when you're being governed by the will of a small majority, a large minority will have no say at all.

The same problem exists on the labour market. Unionism was meant to be an effective solution to the issue of capitalism and worker's rights existing simultaneously. Workers would form a trade union in order to achieve higher pay and better working conditions through coercion, but in places where the unions became too powerful, they developed into an oppressive force themselves, making it impossible for employees and employers to negotiate non-standard contracts even if both parties could reach an agreement.

Generally speaking, I'm in favour of increased decentralization and local governance as an alternative to centralized national governance. Ideally, decisions should be made by the people they impact. That way, the relationship between duties and rights will always be fully transparent, and the consequences of the decisions made will be obvious to everyone involved.