Political Matrix Question #1

[N.i.K.]

I'm kicking off a new series. Every three days, I'll post a new poll about the Political Matrix Questions, and see where the forum stands on the issue. When the series is complete, I'll uses the mode of each response to gather a sense of where the forum is politically.

Today, the question is whether or not you believe that "the right to individual autonomy is important, even if it threatens collective security."

Go.

[Governor Scott]

Usually agree, and this is a critical issue to me.

[Jbrase]

Agree

[Redalgo]

Usually Agree

[Senator Snowstalker]

Neutral; it depends on what you are doing that's potentially harmful and the difference in power between the two. For instance, there's a difference between a couple having sex and a corporation sending its manufacturing plant to an Indian location where wages are 15 cents an hour.

[MilesC56]

Disagree.

[realisticidealist]

Usually disagree.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Disagree.

[Reginald]

This is a great idea!

Usually Agree

[Californian Tony]

Usually agree.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Agree (critical issue).

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Agree (critical issue).

[dialectical fetishist]

Usually agree.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Agree (critical issue).

[freefair]

Usually Agree.

[white trash heroes]

Disagree, having a strong sense of community - a "collective" to call your own whether it's family, tribe or nation[-state] is your only hope for freedom. I doubt there's even such thing as an inherent "right to individual autonomy," unless you're totally alone. There's just people that can defend themselves, and those that can't. Groups with power and those without. Those that look out for their interests and those that don't. Or to put it another way:

"Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you."
-The Gulag Archipelago

[Hatman]

Neutral - a balance is needed

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Option two.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Usually agree.

[RedPrometheus]

Usually agree.

[MOPolitico]

I have considerable difficulty responding to general philosophical statements like this, so could someone provide me with a scenario in which individual autonomy actually threatens collective security?

[Governor Scott]

I have considerable difficulty responding to general philosophical statements like this, so could someone provide me with a scenario in which individual autonomy actually threatens collective security?

Basically what this question asks you is, do you value the community more than the individual, or the individual more than the community?  Do you put moral weight on the individual's ability to self-govern, or should you be guided by external forces like government and society?  I suppose one scenario that this question could apply to is taxes: should we surrender some of our autonomy (our complete ownership of money) in exchange for security, or should we not?

To understand which side generally agrees with what, check out the comments and Political Matrix scores of the posters here.  It's probably too much to explain in one post, though.

[Redalgo]

I have considerable difficulty responding to general philosophical statements like this, so could someone provide me with a scenario in which individual autonomy actually threatens collective security?

Some examples of political subjects where individual autonomy and collective security come into conflict are rights or entitlements to: free speech, privacy, protest against the government, due process in law, practice ones faith, affiliate with groups of ones choice, not be conscripted, decide not to let soldiers use ones home in a time of war, to be in a minority group without being persecuted or marginalized from participation in civic life, sympathize with or assist enemies of the state, pollute the environment, operate heavy machinery while under the influence of drugs, drive an automobile while talking on ones cell phone, peaceful support for the overthrow of the government, low or non-existent taxes, individual access to welfare benefits when in need, etc.

[MOPolitico]

Thanks, guys. I consider society a collection of individuals working together to accomplish things that can be done better collectively than individually, so while society is justified in preventing people from doing things that might endanger the welfare of others, it must first be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the encroachment upon individual freedom will indeed improve the collective, and the encroachment must not curb certain basic rights. In other words, it depends upon the situation. I guess that my answer to the question should be "neutral", then?

[ModerateCoward]

Option 1.