• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"rights for the rulers" versus "rights for individuals"


New member
Jun 3, 2010
Reaction score
Political Leaning
The conventional political spectra are corrupted.

Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community)."

According to wikipedia and other mainstream outlets the opposite ends of the political spectrum are either left-wing and right-wing or freedom of the individual vs communitarianism. A real political spectrum however would be freedom of the individual vs freedom for the rulers. As can be seen in de facto communist and socialist regimes, these are not regimes for the benefit of the whole community, they are primarily aimed at the benefit of rulers, meaning the government and a select few privileged ones in the community. It is the same with "social democracy" (meaning the current system in western countries), with the difference that there are a lot of privileged ones in the community instead of just a few privileged ones like in the communist countries. This ends when the "social democracies" have to declare bankruptcy because of over-spending and can't rely on cheap foreign slave labor anymore.

Or to put it more simply. A corrupted political spectrum would have Bush vs Obama.
A real political spectrum of rights for the individuals versus rights for the rulers would have a modern day Jefferson(Jefferson by the way even in his pre-industrial days wanted a restriction against monopolies in the Bill of Rights which is a good indication that he not only would crack down on big government but on big corporations as well. He was also even in his day against slavery as can be seen in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence before Congress "modified" it - see Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson) vs Bush/Obama. Bush and Obama do have some differences but they have in common that they believe in the rights of the rulers instead of the rights of the individuals. As can be seen in their support for offensive wars, torture of suspects, surveillance state, federal police state, bailout of wallstreet, destruction of small banks, bailout of multinational companies, destruction of small businesses, support of factory farms, destruction of family farms, and the list goes on forever.

Xee-A Twelve:  The End of Common Law

"Throughout history, there are basically two political philosophies. The first believes in rights for the rulers. While many names are used to describe this group, at the time of the American Revolution, followers of this doctrine were referred to as Tories. The second believes in the rights for individuals. Again, there have been many different names for them, but during the Revolution, the followers of that doctrine were called Whigs. Whig and Tory principles can be compared to Light and Dark, however, not all who spout Whig principles are working for the Light, but for selfish interests instead."
by Steffan Stanford
I think this is all grossly oversimplifying the topic. So much that it's pretty much a useless exercise. Labeling an individual "left" or "right" paints a broad category and implies a lot of beliefs they may not actually have.
Top Bottom