The Secular Balance: Individual Rights vs. Social Rights in a Democratic Society

]

In the debate over individual rights vs. societal rights, many argue that societal rights often take precedence over individual rights in democratic societies. However, this article argues that it is essential to recognize the value of individual rights for the overall well-being and coherence of a society. This balance is crucial for maintaining a free and just democratic government.

Individual Rights as the Foundational Pillar

The core purpose of a democratic government is to secure individual rights. To understand this concept fully, we must first examine what individual rights entail. 'Individual' signifies a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. Legal rights, on the other hand, are entitlements to something, whether it be concepts like justice, due process, ownership of property, or some interest in property (real or personal).

Every governmental institution, whether federal, state, or local, has a primary purpose of securing these legal rights for individuals. Therefore, it is misleading for a judge to inform an accused individual that their victim is society. Society is an abstract notion, and there is no justification for reducing individuals to mere components of a collective entity. Protecting individual rights ensures that people can live freely and pursue their own interests without fear of tyranny or oppression.

Social Rights: Beyond Abstract Concepts

The term 'social rights' can be ambiguous, as not everything done 'for the greater good' is inherently beneficial. In the United States, for instance, societal rights often revolve around the idea of collective welfare, but this can lead to the imposition of rights on individuals that undermine their freedom. The distinction lies in the fact that individual rights are concrete and inherently essential, while social rights can be fluid and often imply a certain level of coercion.

Society is made up of individuals with individual rights. While it is commendable to help each other, the responsibility to assist should not come at the cost of eroding personal freedoms. When people are forced to support those who opt out of contributing, it creates an environment of dependency and resentment. This is a significant argument against the expansion of social rights at the expense of individual rights.

The Importance of Personal Responsibility

Notable figures like John F. Kennedy emphasized the importance of personal responsibility in maintaining freedom. In his quote, 'we should ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country,' he underscores the idea that individuals should take responsibility for their own liberty and productivity. This also means ensuring that each person takes care of their own responsibilities, which is truly the most a person owes to society.

Governmental institutions and policies should be designed to support individuals in fulfilling their responsibilities and ensuring their own welfare, rather than becoming a source of dependencies. It is crucial to uphold individual rights to prevent the creation of a system where some are forced to bear the burden of others, leading to a breakdown of a free and just society.

Conclusion: Balancing Act for a Free Society

Every democratic society strives to balance the rights of its individual citizens with the collective good of society. While social rights may have merit, they must not supersede the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. It is essential to maintain a clear distinction between the two to ensure that a society remains free and just. In a world increasingly governed by abstract notions and collective needs, it is the individual who provides the foundation for a prosperous and stable democracy.