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

[shintao]

"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.

While I appreciate the debate, you are much to biased to be the one holding it, and appear unknowledgable of political behavior between the left and right, and seem to scream ignorance to it over and over again in your posts.

Here is an example,

"Fundamentaly, the above question is the main difference between a modern liberal and a modern conservative."

 

[loosecannon]

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.

The constitution doesn't protect free speech, it protects speech. Any form of speech that is prohibited is an exception to the principle of free speech an example of speech that is not free.

I know, your head is spinning and you might throw up over the deck rail....

 

[loosecannon]

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. Commiting is compleatly 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 togather 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 falsefy 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.

IOW I stumped you. Those are all valid examples of your rights to speech being limited by the greater good, or infringement on the rights of others. I can name 1000s more examples as virtually all rights are continually in conflict with the rights of others. And of course those conflicts are arbitrated by laws, prohibitions and penalties.

 

[shintao]

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.

Oh, come now, pulling "hate" out of your hat and slapping it on the wall. I love all my founding fathers, however you won't find the Federalist papers in the Constitution, so obviously they were just one opinion among all the signers to our sacred document. To say otherwise is to expose your ignorance and bias as the OP has. Perhaps you will become more well read in what other founding fathers have had to say, or what the common citizens had to say.

 

[loosecannon]

They aren't in conflicty at all. Your rights end where another's begin. Very simple. .

That is the point where the continual conflict occurs. To pretend that conflict is not a continual struggle is to refuse to recognize reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution doesn't protect free speech, it protects speech.

I'm sorry -- I thought you understood the meaning of the term "free speech".
Pleases allow me to be more clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The constitution protects the freedom of speech.
This freedom, like all others, has limits. All of the things you mention fall outside those limits, and so to prohibit them in no way restricts the freedom of speech.

 

[Bern80]

While I appreciate the debate, you are much to biased to be the one holding it, and appear unknowledgable of political behavior between the left and right, and seem to scream ignorance to it over and over again in your posts.

Here is an example,

"Fundamentaly, the above question is the main difference between a modern liberal and a modern conservative."

While we appreciate the response, it really is nothing more than an excuse for your inability to come up with an objectively credible counter arugment.

 

[Bern80]

They aren't in conflicty at all. Your rights end where another's begin. Very simple. .

That is the point where the continual conflict occurs. To pretend that conflict is not a continual struggle is to refuse to recognize reality.

I can understand how you might look at it that way. What you don't understand is that what your looking at is not a conflict. It's a paradox. It is two things that can not exist simultaneously. You are afraid that someone will use their freedom to take away someone elses. That is where you see the conflict right? If society is comprised of a group of individuals that are all free, thus making the society free, then the moment freedom is used to usurp another's freedom the society is no longer free. I can do whatever I want as long as it does not affect you doing whatever you want. There is no conflict there with the concept of freedom.

 

[loosecannon]

The constitution protects the freedom of speech.
This freedom, like all others, has limits. All of the things you mention fall outside those limits, and so to prohibit them in no way restricts the freedom of speech.

and so to prohibit them IS a restriction on freedom of speech. Please consult the mobius strip.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution protects the freedom of speech.
This freedom, like all others, has limits. All of the things you mention fall outside those limits, and so to prohibit them in no way restricts the freedom of speech.

and so to prohibit them IS a restriction on freedom of speech. Please consult the mobius strip.

No.... because those things fall -outside- the freedom of speech.
Thus, restricting them does NOT restrict the freedom of speech.

 

[loosecannon]

They aren't in conflicty at all. Your rights end where another's begin. Very simple. .

That is the point where the continual conflict occurs. To pretend that conflict is not a continual struggle is to refuse to recognize reality.

I can understand how you might look at it that way. What you don't understand is that what your looking at is not a conflict. It's a paradox. It is two things that can not exist simultaneously. You are afraid that someone will use their freedom to take away someone elses. That is where you see the conflict right? If society is comprised of a group of individuals that are all free, thus making the society free, then the moment freedom is used to usurp another's freedom the society is no longer free. I can do whatever I want as long as it does not affect you doing whatever you want. There is no conflict there with the concept of freedom.

I am not afraid of anything. But the mere presence of robbery as a component of modern society suggests a continual conflict between the freedom of one in conflict with the freedom of others. The need for laws and law enforcement also bear testimony to this continual conflict.

Use the example of a bear: the bear considers ALL food to be food he has a right to eat. He does not recognize the idea of "your food" and you don't recognize that all food is his food.

You are speaking in hypotheticals. I am speaking about the real world. In the real world conflicts between where your rights end and other's begin is continual.

 

[shintao]

While I appreciate the debate, you are much to biased to be the one holding it, and appear unknowledgable of political behavior between the left and right, and seem to scream ignorance to it over and over again in your posts.

Here is an example,

"Fundamentaly, the above question is the main difference between a modern liberal and a modern conservative."

While we appreciate the response, it really is nothing more than an excuse for your inability to come up with an objectively credible counter arugment.

Counter argument to whom? A blinded biased ignorant poster. Might as well debate the wall, it doesn't listen either.

 

[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.

While I appreciate the debate, you are much to biased to be the one holding it, and appear unknowledgable of political behavior between the left and right, and seem to scream ignorance to it over and over again in your posts.

Here is an example,

"Fundamentaly, the above question is the main difference between a modern liberal and a modern conservative."

I love it when people come up with a claim but fail to provide support for their claim. If I am wrong or biased in some manner please point out why. Is that not the major difference between a modern conservative and modern liberal? Furthermore I dont think that complaining about the thread itself gets you anywhere in the topic at hand.

 

[xotoxi]

"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.

Is marriage to another person a natural right and liberty?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not afraid of anything. But the mere presence of robbery as a component of modern society suggests a continual conflict between the freedom of one in conflict with the freedom of others.

Except that it isn't as no individual has the freedom to forcibly take the rightful propery of another. The conflict here is not between the rights of two individuals to own property, but between the rightful property owner that he who would abdrige that right.

The need for laws and law enforcement also bear testimony to this continual conflict.

Yes... because government exists to protect the rights of its people from those that would abridge those rights; this is a perpetual need because there will always been those who seek to abridge the rights of others.

 

[Publius1787]

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. Commiting is compleatly 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 togather 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 falsefy 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.

IOW I stumped you. Those are all valid examples of your rights to speech being limited by the greater good, or infringement on the rights of others. I can name 1000s more examples as virtually all rights are continually in conflict with the rights of others. And of course those conflicts are arbitrated by laws, prohibitions and penalties.

I guess you could say that if it puts you in a position where you can sleep better at night. However, I still suggest you go back and read the op. Its not about compensations of lost liberty in the court of law. Its about taking the liberties of others for no other reason than to provide a service to a seperate group. You missed the point. Its OK. You got so caght up in the moment that you posted without reading the op like so many do under false assumptions. I forgive you. But now how about talking about something relevent.

 

[loosecannon]

The constitution protects the freedom of speech.
This freedom, like all others, has limits. All of the things you mention fall outside those limits, and so to prohibit them in no way restricts the freedom of speech.

and so to prohibit them IS a restriction on freedom of speech. Please consult the mobius strip.

No.... because those things fall -outside- the freedom of speech.
Thus, restricting them does NOT restrict the freedom of speech.

No form of speech falls outside of "freedom of speech".

Anything that falls outside of "protected free speech" (the term you are actually searching for) is speech that is not free.

The mere fact that there is a distinction between speech that is protected and speech that isn't illustrates that not all speech is free. Nor is all life and liberty free.

In fact ALL of your rights are either limited or non existent. You have no unlimited rights whatsoever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is marriage to another person a natural right and liberty?

Marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and so to prohibit them IS a restriction on freedom of speech. Please consult the mobius strip.

No.... because those things fall -outside- the freedom of speech.
Thus, restricting them does NOT restrict the freedom of speech.

No form of speech falls outside of "freedom of speech".

Ah. Just as no form of arms, including nuclear weapons and self-propelled artillery fall outside the right to "arms", as per the 2nd amendment.

Libel and slander are not part of the freedom of speech - your right to the freedom of speech does not include themas they harm others, and thus, prohibiting them does not reduce the freedom of speech in any way. All speech that is actually part of the freedom of speech -is- free.

 

[loosecannon]

I guess you could say that if it puts you in a position where you can sleep better at night. However, I still suggest you go back and read the op. Its not about compensations of lost liberty in the court of law. Its about taking the liberties of others for no other reason than to provide a service to a seperate group. You missed the point. Its OK. You got so caght up in the moment that you posted without reading the op like so many do under false assumptions. I forgive you. But now how about talking about something relevent.

Oh I got the point right away, you erect a strawman argument and then invite people to follow it toward it's only structurally permissable conclusion.

You call discussion within the confines of your strawman format relevant.

How bout this, I erect my own strawman argument: All rights are continually in conflict with the greater good and the rights of others and so all rights are limited by design of the framers to allow the courts and laws to arbitrate some compromise. IOW the greater good is the operating objective.

Fair enough? You wanna limit the discussion to being confined within my own pet parameters?