“Society is not some ineffable organism; it is a complex nexus of interrelated institutions and processes, of volitionally conscious, purposeful, interacting individuals—and the unintended consequences they generate.”

Well what are Rights? Who decides what a right is and how many do we supposedly have?... and having rights, then who should regulate ME when I begin ruffling my neighbor's feathers which I'm known to do on occasion. HE doesn't appreciate that much, but I tend to forget about him sometimes when I'm wrapped up in my daily hunting and gathering.

We always stress the importance of tolerance, but tend to forget the most important ingredient of a tolerant people is mutual respect

Is it obvious the problem lies with me, the Ruffler, or us, or WE the people? Our general lack of self regulating has sent people like my neighbor and hordes of others to city hall and further up the legislative food chain in order to get their feathers un-ruffled. Unfortunately government struts it's own power and plumage a bit too much sometimes and NOW the PROBLEM Is that my OTHER NEIGHBOR...

who's done nothing wrong... is now getting his feathers ruffled by some government action due to my lack of respect for others.

Now his Rights are violated...though no one but him seems to care. What a vicious circle. It all basically boils down to respect. If we just applied a bit more thoughtfulness and self regulation and had a little more respect regardless of our own beliefs or likes and dislikes then we just might forgo the extreme temperance movements that want to apply the proverbial thumb screws to everyone.

R E S P E C T ...Sing It!

Here's ONE suggestion for ONE major ongoing debate dealing with FREEDOM, TOLERANCE, RIGHTS and RESPECT...

The much used Phrase... Oh THEY can JUST Change the Channel! OK Fair enough... but why CAN'T WE just change the channel the other way? NOW wouldn't that be just as easy and wouldn't doing that shut so many people the ( ) up.

How intolerant of me... yes and to suggest such a thing???

It makes simple sense. If you want debauchery and decadence 24/7 then why can't you dial it up as opposed to having it PUMPED uhhh you said Pumped through 24/7 and having the parents or whoever have to worry about STOPPING ALL of IT. You can go unblock it if you want it so badly...

it's there... it's legal... it's Our Right? to have it and it's SOooooo simple. DO THAT and WE free up so much time and energy that could be spent worrying about other needed issues.

That just touches on the human negligence of day to day and much needed respect. Lest we forget the more dangerous aspects of the human psyche and have our frivolous heads handed to us on a plate.

There are some rogue philosophers that stress the absence of inherent Rights, that they, along with morals are simply spooks in the mind and strength, ruthless ingenuity and the will to power will rule the day. Luckily people that think this way are not a majority

Here we can learn how the needed Rule of Law has protected the balance struck between the general will of society and the rights of the individual and understand why, unless we want to rely solely on our mutual respect (cough) or the survival of the fittest, we need some laws to level the playing field between the weak, the strong and the rude. Still, society itself in trying to be the protector and regulator can overextend it's own power. Below is a much better thinker...

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression"

 

Mill's view on social liberty and tyranny of majority (from On Liberty)

Mill believes that “the struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history.” For him, liberty in antiquity was a “contest... between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government". Mill defined "social liberty" as protection from "the tyranny of political rulers." He introduces a number of different tyrannies, including social tyranny, and also the tyranny of the majority.

Social Liberty for Mill was to put limits on the ruler’s power so that he would not be able to use his power on his own wishes and make every kind of decision which could harm society; in other words, people should have the right to a say in the government’s decisions. He said that social liberty was “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”. It was attempted in two ways: first, by obtaining recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights; second, by establishment of a system of "constitutional checks".

However, limiting the power of government is not enough. "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”

“The rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be protected against its own will.” By will of nation, he means the will of “the most active part of people [and] the majority.”

“The people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power.” He calls this type of power the “tyranny of majority” when the majority oppresses the minority by their decisions which could be harmful and wrong sometimes. As he writes, that tyranny of majority “is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.”