Jayne J Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I originally posted the thread about the American family, but my thoughts have taken a bit of a turn, and I wonder if I can amend my original question--What is the basic, essential unit of a nation, America or otherwise? Is it the individual, or the family (however you may define that)? I mean economically, socially, etc. Should the government create laws/change laws to uphold the individual over the family or otherwise? (Of course, ideally it would be neither, but we do not live in an ideal...) I didn't want to bog down the other thread, so I am spinning off... :bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The basis of the US government is individual rights. If you start eroding those rights to support "the family" (whatever that means) then you might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The basis of the US government is individual rights. If you start eroding those rights to support "the family" (whatever that means) then you might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage. TRUE FAX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You might want to look up Tyranny of the Majority for more on this line of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne J Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 I understand your position, and agree that individual rights are the basis of the American Consitution. I wonder though about issues which may not be clear cut. For instance, what about a father who does not want to pay child support. Does his individual right to his property and happiness trump the rights of the child and mother? Does society have no stake in preserving and protecting the rights of the family? While I don't oppose divorce itself, it often creates questions about individual vs. family rights, which makes me think that perhaps, societally if not governmentally, the family is/was considered a basic unit in itself. What do you think? (I apologise for my erratic focus--I am thinking on the fly here and that often gets dangerous...:) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I understand your position, and agree that individual rights are the basis of the American Consitution. I wonder though about issues which may not be clear cut. For instance, what about a father who does not want to pay child support. Does his individual right to his property and happiness trump the rights of the child and mother? Does society have no stake in preserving and protecting the rights of the family? While I don't oppose divorce itself, it often creates questions about individual vs. family rights, which makes me think that perhaps, societally if not governmentally, the family is/was considered a basic unit in itself. What do you think? (I apologise for my erratic focus--I am thinking on the fly here and that often gets dangerous...:) ) The rights of the mother and child have nothing to do with it. He has a legal responsibility to care for his child financially. That responsibility trumps his property rights. I think restricting divorce causes more problems than it solves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The basis of the US government is individual rights. Ahhh, but she didn't ask what is the basis of the US government. She asked what is the basic, essential unit of a nation. Nations don't have to have governments or governing documents ... for millenia they didn't. I do think that "the family" is the basic, essential unit of a nation. But I don't think we'd ever be able to agree on what "the family" is, because for hundreds of thousands of years (evolutionary version)/thousands of years (creationist version), what constitutes a family has been quite varied. So I think that creating laws to uphold "the family" would end up stepping on people's civil rights. For example, how would a law upholding "the family" affect adoptive families? Foster families? Gay/lesbian families? Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Ahhh, but she didn't ask what is the basis of the US government. She asked what is the basic, essential unit of a nation. I know she didn't, that's why I specified my answer. Nations don't have to have governments or governing documents ... for millenia they didn't. Governing documents have also been around for millenia, if you are counting codes, written law, etc. I do think that "the family" is the basic, essential unit of a nation. But I don't think we'd ever be able to agree on what "the family" is, because for hundreds of thousands of years (evolutionary version)/thousands of years (creationist version), what constitutes a family has been quite varied. Which is what I basically said in the other thread. I don't disagree with that. So I think that creating laws to uphold "the family" would end up stepping on people's civil rights. For example, how would a law upholding "the family" affect adoptive families? Foster families? Gay/lesbian families? Tara Right, this is what I'm saying. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The base is the individual. I don't believe the government sees marraige as the creation of a new, single entity, just two individuals agreeing to live together and support each other until death do they part. I can't see where any good would come of giving family units rights, or of binding people to family units (infringing upon their individual rights). While I don't think divorce is usually the best answer, I can't see where the government forcing people to live together would help at all. It would be like house arrest and I don't believe that would do anything positive for any family. Sure, Parent A didn't run off to become a rodeo clown, but now they're mean and surly grouching around the house all day, because the government won't let them leave... Families are as individual as the people that make them up. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for themself and their own well being, the same goes for family units. I don't believe the government has any control over the family or its health, but I'm sure there's plenty of ideas out there for how to legislate it :p The same way there's ideas for how to nanny the individual into responsible living. Neither would work, because it's up to the individual and the individual family unit to insure their own well being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne J Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) I am sorry--I am afraid I am not being very clear, so I will try again.:001_smile: I guess the crux of my question is not really governmental, but societal. (For the record, while I feel divorce is seldom the best situation, it should not be illegal. period. So forcing people to stay married is not an issue. ) Does society have a stake in maintaining stable family situations? There is the slippery slope of what constitutes a family, but for the moment lets assume that your honest definition of family is accepted as family. With the exception of single people and their pets, and including children and their parents, "natural" or otherwise, if children are born. So I include single parents, commited gay couples, married w/o children, married with children, adopted and blended families of all kinds, just to put those arguments aside. It seems that people are so focused on meeting their own percieved needs, that the responsibilities that go with the rights are shunted aside and society doesn't... You know what. Never mind. Although I started this thread, I don't really have a dog in this fight so I am bowing out. Hopefully gracefully. Thank you all for food for thought. Edited October 21, 2009 by urpedonmommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It seems that people are so focused on meeting their own percieved needs, that the responsibilities that go with the rights are shunted aside and society doesn't... You know what. Never mind. Although I started this thread, I don't really have a dog in this fight so I am bowing out. Hopefully gracefully. Thank you all for food for thought. Oooohhh...you do realize how many ENTJs love to debate here, right? We're not trying to pick you apart, we really want to know what you are asking, what you think and why! We're so opinionated AND curious that it scares people off but really, we're interested! On a *personal* level I think the problem is that we live in cities that are too large. In a small town the deadbeat dad who is a drunkard or the guy who beats his wife, etc has a lot of consequences to deal with. In a big city it's easy for it to go unnoticed and him to live a separate life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I have to choose the individual as the basic unit. Although families are important, they're important because they represent the interests of children who are too young to exercise their rights themselves. But, you are only a child for 18 years and you parent for about 20-25 more. Other than that, you only exercise your own rights, you don't exercise rights on behalf of someone else (except for a guardianship of an incompetent adult). For most people, the majority of their lives are spent as an individual exercising their individual rights even if they're married. Even joint property is held knowing that it would be divided in case of divorce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smrtmama Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The basis of the US government is individual rights. If you start eroding those rights to support "the family" (whatever that means) then you might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage. Couldn't have said it better myself! The group (or family) is not more important than the individual. One of the best parts about being American is that we, in theory, do not have subsume our individual identities into a groupthink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I sort of took the question to be asking 'what is the backbone of society: the family or the individual'. When I think about it, I'm inclined to say family (giving family a very broad definition). Every individual starts out in a family, the family is their foundation from infancy. To be a strong individual, it certainly seems a strong family life in the beginning would be, while perhaps not absolutely necessary, at least critical in the development of the strong individual. OTH, I think it takes strong individuals to make a good family - meaning people that are willing to sacrifice, take the backseat at times, work towards compromises, for the good of the family and those future individuals. So I guess I see the family as the cornerstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.