Should Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Publius1787, Jan 11, 2011.

?

Should Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs of the Masses?

  1. No

    81.3%
  2. Yes

    3.1%
  3. Somewhat

    15.6%
  4. Mostly

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Unsure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Sould Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses?

    Fundamentaly, the above question is the main difference between a modern liberal and a modern conservative. Though it shouldnt be a suprise to anyone that the idea of America was founded on the premise that we are all individually entitled to the unaleinable, undesputable, irrefutable, undeniable, self evident, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so as long as we do not take the lives, liberties, or ability of others to pursue happiness. Yet at the same time we have passed laws in the name of the "common good" that acheives a form of specific extraconstitutional welfare at the expense of the liberty of others. In fact, whatever the program whether it be Obamacare, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Student Financial Aid, WIC, Public Housing, or a whole slew of others, they all have one thing in common; they rely on the theft of liberty from one group of citizens and the granting of non existant privilages to another. Thus, liberals in congress and progressive republicans, take the stance that we are only entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ONLY so as long as our neighbor is sucessful in the exersize of his natural rights and his pursuits. Though our Founding Fathers, like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, made it clear that the purpose of goverment is to defend our natural rights, the U.S. government of today is used more to take the rights of many to provide nonexistant rights and privilages to some or viceversa. This debate has been going on for years and never really took hold in any signifigant amount until FDR's New Deal and furthered by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. However, looking back was all this a great idea? Is the pursuit of a larger welfare state going to end by stripping everyone of their liberties in the effort to plan a scociety and economy? Is it Constitutional at all? Should Individual Liberty be Subject to the Needs of the Masses?
     
  2. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    "we are all individually entitled to the unaleinable, undesputable, irrefutable, undeniable, self evident, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so as long as we do not take the lives, liberties, or ability of others to pursue happiness."

    you answered your own question
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    I fail to see how that answeres my question in one way or the other. Upholding everyones natural rights and liberties does not include the theft of natural liberties in order to give unnatural privilages to others. Let me explain.

    1. I have the right to think and thus ....
    2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
    3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
    4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
    5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
    6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
    7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

    You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to. Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  4. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    "I fail to see how that answeres my question in one way or the other. Upholding everyones natural rights and liberties does not include the theft of natural liberties in order to give unnatural privilages to others. Let me explain."

    Your rights are always in conflict with other people's rights. It is unavoidable.

    You are simply defining your terms so as to create your paradigm. Other people define their terms differently and arrive at different paradigms.

    You operating on the assumption that your definitions and paradigm is absolutely true while any conflicting set of terms is therefore wrong. As if anything about the constitution or social rights was that black and white.

    BTW we actually have a supreme authority tasked with working this all out.
     
  5. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Exactly what example do you care to submit where it is OK to restrict the natural rights of one group of people in order to grant nonexistant unnatural rights and privilages to another?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  6. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,096
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,479
    Anyone that understands what "liberty", "Freedom" and "rights" really are also understands that, even when fully exercised, none of these things cause harm to anyone.

    Thus, there can be no conflict with the "needs of the masses".
     
  7. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    I agree. But this is the fundamental difference between an modern true conservative and a modern liberal/progressive. It eats at the heart of the devide. However, I beleive that no one can possibly defend such a position where unaleinable rights may be sacraficed for the specific needs of a few. Thus, here we are in this thread. It should be intresting.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  8. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    First of all I reject your term "nonexistant unnatural rights". So I deleted it from your Quote.

    But here's a short list I gleaned from a duplicate thread:

    >inciting violence, revolution, acts of terrorism

    >any attempt at seducing children

    >conspiracy

    >criminal acts

    >Public endangerment ("FIRE")

    >disclosing classified information

    >slander

    >threats against public officials

    >lying to federal officials

    >public pornography

    That is a list just off the top of my head of forms of speech that are already prohibited in the USA.
     
  9. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    Unfortunately it takes a SC to define the exact definition of your rights expressly because your rights are always in conflict with the rights of others and the powers of the federal government and states.
     
  10. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Bullshit.

    Read the Constitution.

    I will help out here:

    The government can tax you..and use the money as the congress sees fit.
     

Share This Page