Republican phrase: Can someone explain what this means?

[Selwynn]

"I support individual rights not group rights"

I don't even understand what this means?

Firts of all, Republicans support every Coprorate "right" known to humankind, so I don't even get it. This totally confused me...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is code speak against

Civil Rights and the advancement of civil rights

[Selwynn]

2. If that's it, then what would "individual rights" look like...

as opposed to "group" rights?

[roguevalley]

3. Individuals would have the 'right' not to rent to blacks,

hire minorities and promote women.

[jenm]

4. wouldn't that mean

the individuals have the right to control their own bodies and behaviors? Like you know, smoking pot or having an abortion? Just asking...

[0rganism]

31. It would, were it consistent

However, this is codespeak. Codespeak doesn't have to be consistent, because it only references a subset of issues.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. bingo

they want back to at the very least pre 1965 America, preferably 1900.

Oh and to the rights of the individual to their own body, that is dealth with the rights of the unborn.

Once you learn code speak you know what they are talking about

[leftofthedial]

12. it also is code speak against labor

it means they oppose all groups except themselves.

[caledesi]

24. That's right. CodeSpeak! nt

[jbm]

5. I think it comes...

from the assumption that the goal of two opposing political parties(in the US anyway) should be to maintain a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. In theory,the republicans represent the rights of an individual,and the dems counter balance by looking out for the group. I suppose that actually IS what's happening,but somehow the balance has gotten totally out of whack..PLUS..if the repukes had an ounce of sense they'd realize that the individual is best served when the group is also protected. If they ever get that through their thick skulls we can move forward and make the world a great place to be for all!

on edit..I've also heard it referred to as maintaining the balance between equality(the lib side) and liberty(the con side),but I've never thought the terms 'conservative' and 'liberty' fit well together.

[mmonk]

7. It means they oppose civil rights legislation

that is particularly named or intended for a minority group.

[maine_raptor]

8. Selwynn : It's Plain Simple Easy to understand

Republicans support every Coprorate "right" known to humankind

Now deep within the dark bowels of my memory bank, I do recall a landmark Supreme Court decission that gave the same rights granted to individuals via the 14th Admendment to "Coporations".

So the Repugs do believe in "individual rights", they just have opted to support a different class of individuals.


Got It?!?!?!

[DieboldMustDie]

22. The concept of corporate personhood...

seems to date back to 1886 when:

<snip>
The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court - a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad - wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.

And in so doing, he - not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder - inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis’s headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.

What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled on this issue.
</snip>

see http://www.thomhartmann.com/restoredemocracy.shtml for more details.

[quaker bill]

9. It's a jingle

It has no practical meaning in reality. It is just something they are taught to say quickly and not think about deeply. It is code for the anti-homosexual, anti-affirmative action agenda.

What is entirely lost on these folks is that all acts of discrimination are individual. It is not a race of people that denied this job it is the individual qualified black applicant. When these individual acts occur with frequency the concept of racial discrimination arises. But the acts that perpetuate it occur one on one.

Thus supporting the rights of the individual may require a larger solution.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. I'll go mostly with that one.

It may have meant something when it was code for screwing unions, minorities, or any other group they don't like, but now it's just a cheesy sound bite.

It sounds good to some, and the listener will interpret it as he or she wishes. To their audience, there is no bad interpretation and it's an all-purpose slogan.

[7th_Sephiroth]

29. it means

All your base are belong to us, you are on the way to distruction.

[Booger]

10. Honerable in theory

I believe that true conservatives want the indivudual to succeed on merit and hard work. And I agree with that idea in general, if all the rules apply to everyone fairly.

But, I think we all know that how it works in reality is for Clarence Thomas and Condi to "succeed on their merits".

[PurityOfEssence]

11. It's the conservative credo: fuck other people

Individual rights is code for "me". Group rights is code for "you inferiors".

[Native]

19. I've heard variations on this theme from every Republican I've ever met

The neighbor who has no right to have another child because they're asking their church for financial assistance (that child should be taken away from them - who the hell do they think they are - what right do they have to another child when they can't afford to "adequately" care for the one they have). The article in the paper about the family that lost their home and all their belongings in a terrible fire (it's their own damn fault that they couldn't afford insurance). The child with cancer and no insurance because the father recently received a raise and is now making $15,000, so they no longer qualify for the state's health plan (why doesn't he get a 2nd job - what the hell is wrong with him). They hate the poor, they hate the French, they trash the environment, they live for their next significant purchase, their children are miserable, and they vote Republican.

[greekspeak]

13. My interpretation of the code

By "individual rights," they mean the rights of people to do what THEY consider "moral." Not gays, not pot smokers, etc. By not supporting "group rights," they mean minorities need to step aside and let the WASP males regain their hegemony.

[Dagaz]

14. It's right to work speech

It means that you are entitled to have a job without being part of a Union (if that's your choice).

[ForestsBeatBushes]

16. You had me until

...(if that's your choice).

Stop short of that phrase and that must be added to 11 & 13 for a complete definition (until someone else adds something too good to leave out)

[ForestsBeatBushes]

15. Messages 11 and 13 are THE WORD!

[Silverhair]

17. Here's the theory..

In an ideal world, with no discrimination, where everybody got off to an equal start, then if you ensured the everybody's indivual right were fully represented, then the results would be fair.
If each individual got their full rights, then any assembly of people, any group would have all of their rights.

But the Dem answer is that we don't live in an ideal world, but in one where there is discrimination against some groups. Sometimes it is serious and harmful, other times not. (In the not harmful caterogry - Have you ever noticed that on TV or in the movies, if a character is to be good guy religious he/she is ALWAYS a Catholic? They are never any of the Protestant faiths unless they are a bad guy.) One has to be blind not to see the inequalities.

The Reps solutions is to focus on the individual. The Dems solution focuses more on benefits if you are a member of a groups that is suffering from discrimination.

Hope I explained thing in a neutral manner.

[Yupster]

18. Republican argument against affirmative action

You have a fireman's exam.

The Republican voter says the 100 people hired should be the 100 with the highest test score regardless of their race or sex. Each individual should be judged based on his own score.

The Democratic voter says that different groups in the community should be represented including minorities and/or women regardless of who got what test scores. The good of society represented by the inclusion of all groups trumps a particular individual and his test score.

I think that's the argument of each side in theory.

[Ksec]

20. union and Labor bashing

So if a invidual is for a certain thing, its OK regardless if theres also groups for the same thing???

[Booger]

23. bad example

In this case, a firefighter should be the one who capable of carrying the load up a ladder, or a person back down the same ladder.

A nice example of theory, but not workable in reality. IMO

[Demobrat]

21. It means don't take my money

to pay for anybody else. In other words, every man for himself.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

27. uh oh

that might mean 'survival of the fittest' which would piss off the Repiglicans because it comes from (gasp) Darwin;

also, what about all them piggies who were 'born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple'? individualism, yeah, right

[MPFreeman]

26. Individual rights defined

Been lurking for a long while. This is my first post.

Here a descent description of Individual rights:

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own "INDIVIDUAL" life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generating action -- which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The concept of a right pertains only to action -- specifically the freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men or governments.

Thus for every INDIVIDUAL, a right is the moral sanction of a positive of his freedom to act on his own INDIVIDUAL judgment, for his own goals, by his own INDIVIDUAL voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own deffort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while the others dispose is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to life, and the right to property are rights to action, like all others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property , but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. A right to property is a right to gain , to keep , to use and dispose of property.

So if a person says they believe in INDIVIDUAL rights, and really means it, and actually understands it, he may truly stand in a principled manner against ideas that favor groups over individuals, or be violently opposed to the War on Drugs, or dislike the ideas of organized labor, government funded education, et. al., ad naseum.

Here's a helpful idea, when discussing something with a person, such as Individual rights, ask that person what 'they' think individual rights mean. It helps. Usually they mean, "Individuals that I like should have rights, not the poor, the rich, the (insert whatever)." I'd also ask this person what they mean by group rights?

It's my first post, Hi everyone.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi MPFreeman!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Iverson]

30. meaning: "I dislike minorities and gays."

Your text has a subtext. That code meaning is the reason for its existence.

Once you stop looking at the surface meaning, it becomes much clearer. It isn't even supposed to be technically accurate. That slogan is used to work exactly against efforts to stop discrimination against gays and lesbians. Equality gets reinvented as "special rights."

So relax; it's just jargon for people who hate.

[Speed8098]

32. It means they're delusional

The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few. :hippie: