When His Values Are Not My Values
I am hearing this a lot this week about the argument that people who come into this country need to subscribe to the 'values' of this country, and that we need to protect them. Well let's talk about that for just a second.
As I see it, the only official 'values' of this country as a corporation are its supposed adherence to due process of law and human rights; this is applied universally to all citizens and documented with legislation like the Charter. But when it comes to cultural values however, that is quite different.
There are tens of millions of people in this country and it's illogical to assume that there is a shortlist of values that each of us could hold that should be the same. Thinking about the country like that is thinking in collective terms rather than seeing individuals and that can cause us to easily overlook people and their uniqueness.
If a certain value that a person holds isn't held within the majority, why shouldn't that value (if peaceful) still be respected? The smallest minority is the individual and if we purport to champion any sort of collective values then it should at the very least be the value of adhering to respecting individual liberty and basic human rights.
I see a slippery slope to where we are trying to restrict people's personal values when they don't align with ours and when we want to infringe upon a person's liberty or prevent them from doing something because we don't like what they value, then we are hypocrites to what we say it is that we stand for.
Our views of value are subjective and so long as someone is living their life in a peaceful way that isn't violating the liberty of another person, then who are we to say that their values are wrong? Or should we really get into the business of trying to tell people what language they can speak, what they can eat, what they can wear, or what holiday's they can celebrate and so on? Because that sounds like the collective road of valuing fascism.
Agree completely.
On the other hand, when moving to another country it's generally best to try to fit in as much as possible, without sacrificing your own principles. It's not a moral imperative, I don't think, but simply wise.
i agree with that, but sometime what we thinking not same with the other
When you say "this country as a corporation" are you alluding to US CODE: Title 28 - 3002 15a? "(15) "United States" means —
(A) a Federal corporation;"?
Second is there really an argument out there that says people should align themselves with our cultural values? (*when I speak collectively like that...I only do this because that's normally how people talk. I've personally stopped using our and we (as in "we the people") as I see the blatant collectivist ideology which attaches itself to such drivel)
I understand the logical expectation that we all MUST come to an agreement on basic MORAL values...(i.e, don't hurt people or take their stuff), but CULTURAL?
You've got great stuff man. Glad I'm a follower!
yes like that, that's how I meant it. And they are trying to form one, conflating the two into one overall 'value': moral/cultural ... perhaps this is because they're always looking for a new excuse to use force ? lol :D thanks for the feedback !
New and improved force...Now works more effectively than ever!
Any law that has as its aim, anything but the protection of life, liberty and the right to own property is moving into the real of judging motives, or creating "crimes against the state" neither of which is something that can be effectively enforced equally. I agree, any value that is peaceful and does not interfere with the rights of another is no one else's business and should be respected. I don't think we ever stop to think where our own "values" come from, let alone anyone else.
i'm pretty sure natural rights are our values. the law of the Constitution is, natural rights, derived from natural philosophy, which is what physics used to be called. human rights are privileges allowed by governments and international bodies such as the UN. we have natural rights by merit of existence in the natural world. humans agree or disagree on privileges. natural rights just are.