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

[thereisnospoon]

You imply "survival of the fittest". That means the strong can take advantage of the weak with impunity so as long as law does not punish the offender.
Your outlook on the world is barbaric.

Haven't you just described an unregulated free market?

That's for another thread on another day.
I'm not going to discuss capitalism in this thread.
For the record, we do not have unregulated capitalism. Case closed. Not discussing it here.

 

[snjmom]

Freedom is a market, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

thereisnospoon has not made a convincing argument for his type of society. The Founders created a country based on the Rule of Law, not the rule of man. Those who argue for the order argue against life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

thereisnospoon has not made a convincing argument for his type of society. The Founders created a country based on the Rule of Law, not the rule of man. Those who argue for the order argue against life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

You see jake here lies the problem with your posting style. When did thereisnospoon say the Founders did not created a country based on the Rule of Law. If you would quote the post it would help stop you from being misleading.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Rights aren't "natural", they're a result of our banding together to form governments for mutual protection. In the "natural" world you're ONLY right, if I'm stronger than you, is to wait patiently while I feed off YOUR kill leaving you the scraps I can't finish. You seem to be reading something into the Constitution that just doesn't exist. It's similar to those who claim some sort of "original intent" in the document, when anyone who knows its origins realizes that there were in facy many "intents", giving us a rather short and vague document that requires a SC to settle constitutional issues.

Out of context. You imply "survival of the fittest". That means the strong can take advantage of the weak with impunity so as long as law does not punish the offender.
Your outlook on the world is barbaric.

Example ??????????????????????