Forum Post: When do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 7:43 p.m. EST by Infowar
(295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
My answer is never.
I say that we should vote on if we even care about each other. Like just a simple vote that gauges how many people believe others should starve or be homeless, or whether they deserve to even be employed if they will work hard. Sometimes, with all the Republicans running around yelling about about their crazy ideals, I don't really know what the answer to that kind of vote would be.
To imply i don't care for people is juvenile.
When we watch Star Trek movies.
Bentham actually said it originally i believe but i don't prescribe to him. It is an old philosophical question asked many ways.
Never, the few are the many.
The Revolution has a new theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89PlNkk0eY&feature=related
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here!
In a nation of individualism, does the politics of need have a moral standing at all on a national level?
Maximization of individual liberty is my philosophy. The maximum jursiditcuion of law enforcement should be protection of individual liberty's. A right is something that can be guaranteed not granted! I can guarantee you that you can fend for yourself as long as no one stops you, thus encroaching on your liberty. That action would be a call for government intervention!! A right is unalienable, it will last even if your government is broke, thus making things such as health insurance not a right but a want. Laws should only be made to protect your right to fend for yourself, not to take for your want.
I don't disagree with you. I would like to present the definition of rights that I find to be most useful and see what you think about it. A right is the legitimate authority to act. It is something possessed by all members of a given group such that in the exercise of this legitimate authority, one may not violate the rights held by the others in the group. In the case of Individual rights, the group consists of every human being. Thus, the rights possessed by human beings are not granted, but realized. It is only when government realizes that these rights exist independent of its whim that men will be truly free.
Satisfaction of the needs of any group at the expense of any other group is always wrong. Democracy was not discovered by America, nor was America the first to implement it. What made America special was that it was a country based on individual rights and on a government with limited powers, such that it could not violate those rights, specifically the right to life. The right to life means: The right to provide for one's own life. It does not mean the right to live at the expense of anyone else. The Declaration of Independence (which stated to the world our reasons for separating ourselves from Great Britain) stated that every individual is granted by their creator (which means by the fact that they exist) the right to life (and because of the specific nature of that life), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It went on to state that government exists to protect these rights. That was the only legitimate reason given for the establishment of government. This has been forgotten. People have become so used to focusing on whether or not something is constitutional that they have forgotten what purpose that constitution exists to fulfill.
The idea that one group may exist (by force) at the expense of another is called tyranny.
The United States Government is not established on the values stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is governed on the principles of the Constitution. The establishment of popular rule is what America is. OW is not representing the needs of the many, it is representing the needs of a few.
I know that the Declaration of Independence is without legal import. If anybody's needs are to be represented, its principles must make their way into our system of government. Otherwise it will be the will and whim of the powerful, who will become and stay rich by exploiting everyone, for nobody will have any rights.
Lol Read much MSM? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051805/Declaration-Independence-illegal-claim-British-lawyers.html ...The declaration was legal let me assure you ... want a war about it?
My comment was not on the legitimacy of the Declaration of Independence, legal or otherwise; merely on the fact that it is not recognized as having any legal significance in our court system (go figure, the country which pioneers the idea that rights are above government interference ignores the document which proclaims this to be so).
Yea i would agree until we go back to our founding documents we can expect little freedom!
Yes i agree wholeheartedly , it is tough to grow up and fend for yourself. Especially because so many people have been raised with their mouth to the proverbial tit.
The needs of the many ALWAYS outweigh the few, if the majority needs one thing and the few need an opposing thing it is in the best interest of the country to satisfy the many. That's what's called a Democracy AKA The United States governmental system.
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/euthanasia/background/euth/Euthanasia.html An interesting read on the topic of euthanasia. If you don't get why i am pointing you to this page is because euthanasia has been a "greater good" debate for some time now.
brilliant tread tittle, says it all
i figured it was a good debate that fits the context.
Nobody NEEDS anything. You work for what you WANT.
as humans there are many things we need in order to grow, food, drink and shelter are the bare minimum, but positive interaction with other humans, love etc... that's just as important in the long term
You need food and water if you want to live.