I have another theory...

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by modernpaladin, Jan 2, 2021.

?

Which is more authoritarian?

  1. I lean left, I view the undermining of the rights of the individual as more authoritarian.

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  2. I lean left, I view the undermining of the rights of the collective as more authoritarian.

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. I lean right, I view the undermining of the rights of the individual as more authoritarian.

    5 vote(s)
    35.7%
  4. I lean right, I view the undermining of the rights of the collective as more authoritarian.

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  5. I lean dead center, I view the undermining of the rights of the individual as more authoritarian.

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  6. I lean dead center, I view the undermining of the rights of the collective as more authoritarian.

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...that much of the partisan divide in this nation is stemming from a divide in the fundamental perception of the legitimacy of power.

    Care to help me test the theory?

    Which is more authoritarian (and/or dictatorial and/or tyrannical)? The undermining of the rights of the individual, or the undermining of the rights of the democratic collective?
     
  2. Lucifer

    Lucifer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,694
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They both are as they are tied to each other.
     
  3. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't aware there was a different set of rights for each.

    I think your question may be flawed.
     
  4. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think he is asking if it's okay to force an individual to do something in order to protect the community. Does the individuals right to choose to wear a mask supersed the right of the community to be safe from that person?
    I think an individuals right to life supersedes another individuals right to wear what they want.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  5. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think I was having trouble with the term "collective" in this poll. Nevertheless, I do think that the "collective" -- defined as an identified segment of society -- IF PRESENTED WITH AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, should be protected above all, even if that means that the rights entailed in an individual's preferences are suppressed in the process.

    It's tricky!

    Example: the best medical minds have determined that we should all wear masks during this pandemic. I'm OK with that, even though some individuals are all upset over the government telling them they have to wear a mask.

    But, I would be very opposed to some hyperliberal crackpot trying to take away American citizens' constitutional right to defend ourselves with lethal force -- personal firearms -- because so many in the radical Democrat faction view firearms as a great danger to everyone in the country.

    That's the difference as I see it, anyway.... So, yeah, I wear a mask (and nitrile gloves) everywhere I go in any public building. But I would never approve of the confiscation of any firearms owned by a law-abiding citizen in 'good-standing'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
    DennisTate, cd8ed and LoneStarGal like this.
  6. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the problem is a bit simpler than that...
    Maybe "the rights of the individual" are not in any danger at all and have never been....
    that's just a smoke screen to cloud the real issue....
     
  7. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    can't have one without the other.

    OTOH, temporary infringement of an individual's rights in order to protect the collective rights of all citizens is appropriate.
     
  8. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No danger at all? How do you feel about gun control?
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How long is 'temporary'? Is there a limit?
     
  10. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean like how long a national emergency like a global war, or internal rebellion or a pandemic might last?
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. I mean how long can one of those be used to justify the infringement of individual rights, and more to point, how long is too long? Is there a limit?
     
  12. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes, the limit would be the resolution of the underlying rationale for the infringement in the first place.

    OTOH, I do remember republican partiality to authoritarianism. You remember this little gem? Imagine if trump had 2007 National Defense Authorization Act powers granted a president to declare martial law.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So there's no objective limit... we can 'temporarily' cancel individual rights for as long as some people are in danger?
     
  14. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not "some" - the majority of citizens. You know those individual rights? they are both granted by and limited by the state in the common interest of the nation and its people.

    Its not individual up, its state down.
     
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, so a majority of citizens have to be in danger before the cancelation of individual rights is justified.

    Very interesting. Thx for some objectivity! And no, I'm not being facetious.
     
  16. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What gun control? Any more guns and ammo...and my father-in-law will need a bigger house....
    this idea of your gun rights being taken away is an illusion brought on by special interests not reality.
     
    AZ. and Sallyally like this.
  17. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would you support or oppose a new 'assault weapon' ban in the US?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  18. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A danger lasts for as long as it lasts, in theory. That said, a LOT of despotic governments rule for many years with a continuing 'national emergency' supposedly going on.

    This is part of why I wrote earlier in this thread, "It's tricky!"

    A situation like the one we have right now with this virus is also tricky. As of December 30th, North Dakota had the most COVID cases on a per capita basis, and, Vermont had the least. But you never hear anything all about either of those states. Meanwhile, California is completely swamped with the disease, and people have to be put out in places like the gift shops of hospitals because there is no room for them anywhere else. Is this an overriding emergency? Some would say "no", but some would emphatically say, "yes".

    Link: https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...anked-by-confirmed-covid-19-cases-july-1.html
     
  19. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Assault weapons" are not designed to hunt wild game...they are designed to kill humans.
    Seems logical that if you want one you must be planning on doing just that.
    Since the Trump supremacist hoards will not rest until they can manipulate this country into another civil war,
    might as well arm everyone to the teeth and get it over with.
    Like the good book says..."the meek shall inherit the earth." if there is anything left that is.
     
  20. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the meek in that regard are more likely to be insects or bateria.
     
  21. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It sounds like you support an assault weapons ban ...while telling me theres no threat of restrictions to our gun rights. is that accurate?
     
  22. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point...thank you much
     
  23. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I used to agree with a ban...but now? Like I said earlier...the Trump horde (I misspelled it last time sorry)
    will never be satisfied until they instigate another civil war here....so why not just arm everyone to the gills and get it over with?
    That's what you want right? That's why you "think" you need an assault weapon correct?
    There's no civil war here now...so you must be planning on starting one..no?
    What are you waiting for??
     
  24. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think I need a semi-automatic rifle right now. But just like with fire extinguishers and homeowners insurance, I may need one later. And no, I'm not planning to start a civil war. But if someone else does, I also don't plan to let them determine its outcome for me. And neither should you. If we let the people who want a civil war bad enough to start one be the only ones fighting it, the rest of us are F'd.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2021
  25. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many fire extinguishers do you have....how many homeowners policies do you have....the chances of a civil war are probably
    no higher than your house catching fire and yet I don't see you posting any threads about fire prevention.
    Stop trying to scare folks into buying assault weapons. If you honestly believe you will not die if you have one...that's your choice.
    But as far as I can tell the sky is not actually falling.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2021

Share This Page