Rights are not prescribed by government, they can only be described by government. They are innate in our character as Gods creation. The states very existence is a breach of our rights in the first place. We don't consent to the state governing us, like we do when Christ becomes our governance, for example. The responsibility lies on the individuals to defend themselves and others, but we should aware that that most often means defending against the incursion of the nation state against peaceful individuals.
I like what you are saying, generally. In my view, though, I worry whenever we start using the words "rights" and "individualism." Those are words of deep meaning and magic, and we must be cautious.
Yes, for sure, there is a species of hyper-individualism at work today. But I would be tempted to frame it more as atomized, rootless narcissism. The reason I say that is because i like to preserve the term "individualism" as, generally speaking, the opposite of "collectivism." (Collectivism in turn, being distinct from "community," with the former being forced and the latter being chosen. Collectivism is very evil.)
I have noticed this issue in conservatives like Ben Shapiro, too. In critiquing this exact same phenomenon that you are, they too decry the excessive focus on "the individual." I understand the critique, but without caveats, we risk assailing the individual human person from both ends—both from this end, and from the end that the left does it: "the individual does not exist or is a subunit of the collective, and must subordinate to (what we say is) the will of the collective."
One of the biggest caveats, then, is that we have utterly lost sight of what is, and is not, a "right." In essence, a right is anything you want to do that does not initiate force upon another. Thus, each and every individual human person has a right to
• seek a job…but not to be given one at another's expense
• enjoy equal opportunity…but not to be given equality of outcome at another's expense
• seek medical care from a doctor…but not to force that doctor to provide treatment at the point of a gun
• etc.
In other words, many of the things that today's rootless, narcissistic, hyper-atomized individuals are claiming as rights are NOT rights at all. So, not only are they me-me-me focused, they are claiming "rights" that require that others be subjected to violence (pay my student loans with the sweat of your brow, use my pronouns or lose your job, etc.).
I think these things are worth mentioning in the context. The defense of individualism (against collectivism) and REAL RIGHTS (against force and violence) is absolutely justified. I just hope that in the course of critiquing this phenomenon of rootless narcissists claiming fake rights we do not conflate that behavior with a genuine defense of the legitimate rights of the individual human person.
Rights are not prescribed by government, they can only be described by government. They are innate in our character as Gods creation. The states very existence is a breach of our rights in the first place. We don't consent to the state governing us, like we do when Christ becomes our governance, for example. The responsibility lies on the individuals to defend themselves and others, but we should aware that that most often means defending against the incursion of the nation state against peaceful individuals.
I like what you are saying, generally. In my view, though, I worry whenever we start using the words "rights" and "individualism." Those are words of deep meaning and magic, and we must be cautious.
Yes, for sure, there is a species of hyper-individualism at work today. But I would be tempted to frame it more as atomized, rootless narcissism. The reason I say that is because i like to preserve the term "individualism" as, generally speaking, the opposite of "collectivism." (Collectivism in turn, being distinct from "community," with the former being forced and the latter being chosen. Collectivism is very evil.)
I have noticed this issue in conservatives like Ben Shapiro, too. In critiquing this exact same phenomenon that you are, they too decry the excessive focus on "the individual." I understand the critique, but without caveats, we risk assailing the individual human person from both ends—both from this end, and from the end that the left does it: "the individual does not exist or is a subunit of the collective, and must subordinate to (what we say is) the will of the collective."
One of the biggest caveats, then, is that we have utterly lost sight of what is, and is not, a "right." In essence, a right is anything you want to do that does not initiate force upon another. Thus, each and every individual human person has a right to
• seek a job…but not to be given one at another's expense
• enjoy equal opportunity…but not to be given equality of outcome at another's expense
• seek medical care from a doctor…but not to force that doctor to provide treatment at the point of a gun
• etc.
In other words, many of the things that today's rootless, narcissistic, hyper-atomized individuals are claiming as rights are NOT rights at all. So, not only are they me-me-me focused, they are claiming "rights" that require that others be subjected to violence (pay my student loans with the sweat of your brow, use my pronouns or lose your job, etc.).
I think these things are worth mentioning in the context. The defense of individualism (against collectivism) and REAL RIGHTS (against force and violence) is absolutely justified. I just hope that in the course of critiquing this phenomenon of rootless narcissists claiming fake rights we do not conflate that behavior with a genuine defense of the legitimate rights of the individual human person.