The I in CIRCLE stands for Individual and signifies that all rights reside at the individual.  This may seem so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated but recent events make me think otherwise.  It should be obvious yet almost all discussion occurring now on what is the right thing to do neglects the rights of individuals.  Our world has become so infatuated with grouping individuals in order to simplify the problem that we run the risk of placing rights at the group level.  And by doing so, we take them away from the individual.

First, why is this distinction important?  Well, I’m very glad you asked.  From my viewpoint, individuals are dynamic and groups are static.  Individuals’ priorities change through life and change once certain desires are fulfilled.  They go from being employed to unemployed.  Renters to homeowners.  Single to married.  And, in many cases married to single.  Unemployed to employed.  Homeowners to renters.  We are beings that have the ability to adapt to the situation we are placed into and we typically find ourselves in various situations through our life.  Groups, on the other hand, do not change.  Pro-lifers are, by definition, not going to become pro-choicers.  The middle class, as a group, will never become the affluent group.  Christians will never, as a group, become agnostic.  When we attempt to depict a problem at the group level, we fall into the trap of looking for a static solution, forgetting that we are a mobile and evolving society. 

Secondly, it tends to complicate and divert the process away from the real issue.  Think of “Joe the Plumber.”  As much time was spent talking about his lack of a plumber’s license as was spent on his concern, as an individual, of individual liberty.  Our nation wanted to encapsulate him into a known category so that sides could be drawn and judgements passed rather than identifying him as an individual looking for assurances that his individual liberties were sacred to a particular candidate.  Let’s look at the discussion on gay marriage.  For sides to be taken, we have had to lump people into two groups; pro-gay rights and pro-whatever they call it.  Looking at the issue from a different perspective where you couldn’t label the group (therefore unable of providing it rights above those of an individual) the question would logically come down to “is there anything wrong with letting two consenting adults share their lives as one?”  All the current arguments (‘gays may try to turn me into one of them’ or ‘it starts us down a slippery slope where  someone tries to marry a goat’) fall to the side as it is now all about arbitrarily restricting the rights of some individuals.  When we ask the question as stated above, the first question that should come back is “does allowing their action impede the rights of others to pursue their goals and desires”  If the answer is no, then the discussion ends.  Life goes on.  Emotion is taken out of the equation.  Logic and rational thought prevail.

There are many other examples, too numerous to offer up here.  But please think about this:  The next time you get in a debate, see if the person wants to apply rights to a group of people and, therefore, reduce the rights of the individual.  They may say that it is for the common good, but applying arbitrary and static restrictions on some so that more benefits can flow to others is never good.  It elevates some above others (which leads to fascism) and removes an individual’s identity, making the elimination of their rights easier to justify.

2 Responses to “Individual Rights vs Group Rights”