The abstraction called “society” has been the tool of socialists and communists, indeed of every method used to consolidate power at the expense of the individual human reality. This is easily demonstrated:
You can have a person without a society, but you cannot have a society without a person.
This demonstrates that individuals are more foundational than societies. In the realm of natural rights, this means that a society has no rights because it is an abstraction, not a fundamental reality. Let me explain.
There can be a tree without a forest, but there cannot be a forest without a tree.
While it seems a contradiction to say that a forest is not a reality, the “truth” of that “reality” exists at a level above the reality isolated by the can/cannot statement. A forest is a clear abstraction that disappears when the antecedents of that abstraction are removed.
This shows that the human mind (whose dominance depends on its ability to form and utilize abstractions) instinctively feels and acknowledges these kinds of abstractions even though they have no self-existence. It is this perception that a forest is as real as a tree that makes dealing in groupthink seem as valid as “individual-think”. “Social justice” is perhaps the quintessential example.
Any political dictum that addresses the abstractions “society”, or “demographic”, or (your abstract choice) is founded upon an idea rather than upon the objects of its effects – individuals.
Laws that address abstractions often ignore the antecedents of those abstractions and in so doing fail to recognize the reality they eventually impact – people. Their having standing at law is a fundamentally flawed concept.
Perhaps this is a key to restoring freedom in America. It certainly has the potential to kill groupthink and could illuminate and clarify jurisprudence at the SCOTUS.
From a practical standpoint, I have no significant training in law, so I won’t embarrass myself by trying to suggest an implementation of this insight. Perhaps someone will catch the vision.
