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

[Publius1787]

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?

 

[loosecannon]

"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

 

[Publius1787]

"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

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.

 

[loosecannon]

"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.

 

[Publius1787]

"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.

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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".

 

[Publius1787]

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

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".

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.

 

[loosecannon]

"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.

XXXXXXX No altering other posters quote

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.

 

[loosecannon]

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

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".

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.

 

[Sallow]

"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

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.

Bullshit.

Read the Constitution.

I will help out here:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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.

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 rights and privilages to another?

First of all I reject your term "nonexistant unnatural rights". So I deleted it from your post

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.

None of these things fall under the definition of "free speech" and so restricting them does not act against the right to, well, free speech.

 

[Publius1787]

"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.

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 rights and privilages to another?

First of all I reject your term "nonexistant unnatural rights". So I deleted it from your post

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.

>inciting violence, revolution, acts of terrorism / inciting is one thing. Committing is completely different.

>any attempt at seducing children / Children are understood to be too young to make adult descisions. Therefore suducing children is a violation of rights.

>conspiracy / comspiricy to do what? conspiracy to get together on the weekend and go bowling?

>criminal acts / criminal acts take liberty away from another against his will and thus is a criminal act.

>Public endangerment ("FIRE")/ Once again, a theft of liberty and thus it too is a criminal act.

>disclosing classified information / Forget your rights on this one you have allready voulintarily signed them away to be able to handle classified information.

>slander / speech too is and act and if you falsify information about another and it results in a lose of liberty than it is a crime.

>threats against public officials. Once again. A crime because it restricts liberty.

>lying to federal officials. A crime because fraud is obstruction of justice and thus it takes away liberty.

>public pornography / No loss of liberty there. Why is this a crime?

Most of all of the examples you submitted have nothing to do whith the topic of this thread. If you feel that someone has taken your liberty then you take him to a court of law to be compensated for your loss of liberty. Did you read the op? This is not in anyway what is under question here. I think you missed the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

1: The government can tax you and use the money prusuant to the powers specified in the Constitution, in accordance with laws pursuant to same

2: YOU do not have the right to his money; the government has the power to take some of it and spend it, as per the powers specified in the Constitution, in accordance with laws pursuant to same.

 

[Publius1787]

"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

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.

Bullshit.

Read the Constitution.

I will help out here:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

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

If that were true than why did they feel the need to enumerate the 17 enumerated powers of Article One Section Eight? If the government can tax and spend for whatever it pleases then why enumerate specific powers? Moreover, how can a government constitutionaly take from one citizen and give to another? Is that not specific welfare and not taxing for the purpose of the "general welfare"? Your arguement falls apart on a number of things that no doubt you cannot explain.

The Father of our Constitution: James Madison: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

The 5th Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Federalist # 41 explaining the constitution BEFORE it was ratified:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

[Bern80]

"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.

They aren't in conflicty at all. Your rights end where another's begin. Very simple. If society is meant to be composed of free individuals by definition the society can not be free if one chooses to use their freedom to take someone elses freedom. It is a paradox. The truly free society ceases to exist when that happens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federalist # 51 explaining the constitution before the constitution was ratified:

Liberals, especially those that want to justify the constitutionality of the welfare state, without which they would have virtually no political power, hate Madison and Fed#51.

 

[Bern80]

"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

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.

Bullshit.

Read the Constitution.

I will help out here:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

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

WOW....just......WOW. You actually posted it and that's still what you came away with? yes government can tax..........for the general welfare......not for whatever congress sees fit. General welfare; as in for the betterment of all. And if you take it a step further to how Madison said that article should be interpereted in the federalist papers government can really only tax for the listed enumerated powers in that clause.

To paraphrase 41 that the OP cited; Someone has to be being delibitealy obtuse to read Section 8 and think they have the power to tax for anything other than what is enumerated in that clause.

 

[Publius1787]

Federalist # 51 explaining the constitution before the constitution was ratified:

Liberals, especially those that want to justify the constitutionality of the welfare state, without which they would have virtually no political power, hate Madison and Fed#51.

Its actually federalist #41. Ive edited it for correction. But yes. As my signature says; Facts are stubborn things.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federalist # 51 explaining the constitution before the constitution was ratified:

Liberals, especially those that want to justify the constitutionality of the welfare state, without which they would have virtually no political power, hate Madison and Fed#51.

Its actually federalist #41. Ive edited it for correction. But yes. As my signature says; Facts are stubborn things.

Doh! I knew that.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't think anyone in congress has seen powers of congress, section 8, in a few decades.