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

[loosecannon]

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.

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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?

Natural rights, I have never every heard that before, where are natural rights stated.

 

[mdn2000]

"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.

I have never heard of Natural Liberties, where does it say that?

 

[mdn2000]

"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.

Is this the only part that speaks of tax?

 

[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.

Is marriage to another person a natural right and liberty?

Of course. What? Are talking about same sex marrages? Go ahead. I dont care. None of my business.

 

[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.

I have never heard of Natural Liberties, where does it say that?

All liberties that you have upon birth. Rights that are inherent by the laws of nature and natures God. Ever heard of that?

 

[Publius1787]

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?

None of your examples show where liberty can be taken from one person and given to another in order to provide a nonexistant privilage. Thats what the op speaks of and thats what you have failed ..... no ....... refuse (willful ignorance) ..... to grasp. You can speak of liberties taken through crime and having that loss of liberty compensated in a court of law all day long but your still missing the point. The op is very clear. There is no strawman because I have raised no false issue. Nothing that you used as an example can be construed to support your point. Because no liberty is being takin away in order to give a non existant liberty to another. You speak of liberties lossed through crime and compensated for in a court of law. Big difference. And though you compleatly missed the point and failed to read and understand the op, here you are defending the indefencable.

 

[shintao]

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.

Let me help you out. Every conservative president since Nixon has advocated gun control or confiscation and suppression. The Brady Act, the largest antigun act in America comes from the conservative Brady & continues on through his wife's organization. That is the whole 2nd Amendment, so to make ludicrous claims about Liberal is fastidious at best.

As to the general welfare clause, Bush jr. introduced the largest welfare program since FDR with his Faith Based Charities, and then had the audacity to establish it's office in the White House. To lay some false claim as to liberal or conservative is frankly bullshit, but the rest of your debate is genious and I appreciate that.

My contribution to the GWC is from Alexander Hamilton, which is an opposing view to Madison.

"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."

"The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

Alexander Hamilton

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

I will agree there was a fear among the fathers to expanding government, but I also feel we would have fallen long ago if we had not expanded government to deal with our issues. Who would have thought for example that we would have US Troops under UN Command or stationed all over the globe spending trillions of your money.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Let me help you out. Every conservative president since Nixon has advocated gun control or confiscation and suppression. The Brady Act, the largest antigun act in America comes from the conservative Brady & continues on through his wife's organization. That is the whole 2nd Amendment, so to make ludicrous claims about Liberal is fastidious at best.

As to the general welfare clause, Bush jr. introduced the largest welfare program since FDR with his Faith Based Charities, and then had the audacity to establish it's office in the White House. To lay some false claim as to liberal or conservative is frankly bullshit, but the rest of your debate is genious and I appreciate that.

My contribution to the GWC is from Alexander Hamilton, which is an opposing view to Madison.

"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."

"The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

Alexander Hamilton

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures[/url]

I will agree there was a fear among the fathers to expanding government, but I also feel we would have fallen long ago if we had not expanded government to deal with our issues. Who would have thought for example that we would have US Troops under UN Command or stationed all over the globe spending trillions of your money.

Alexander Hamilton. I was hopeing that someone brought that up! Lets see what did Alexander do? Well, for one, he left the Constitutional Convention in protest with his his other delegates and when he returned alone he had no vote in the process (all delegates needed to be present to have a vote). Before that, however, he was a part of the monarchist party and advocated for lifetime appointments for the president and senate members. He also campaigned against a Bill of Rights because he thought it limited the power of the federal government. Though it was true that he was on the comitee on style in the Constituional Convention every attempt of his to word the constitution in a manner of which gave unlimited power to the federal government was immediatly shot down as shown in James Madison's published Notes on the Constitutional Convention. Not to mention that Alexander Hamilton never objected to James Madisons Federalist # 41 before the constituion was ratified though they were meeting on a regular bacis. With that being said, would Alexander Hamilton, with his obvious unlimited view of how the federal government should have been, result to extraconstitutional measures and claim as if they existed there all along? Absolutly! I'm sorry but there is a reason that Hamilton is not the father of our constitution and not a credible source on the wording or intent of the U.S. Constitution. The record is perfect clear on this.

So I will ask you the same question that I ask everyone who advocates your position. If Article One Section Eight gives Congress such broad authority (never heard of before until FDR threatened to pack the courts because they were shutting down his extraconstituional legeslation) then why did they enumerate the 17 powers of Congress? Good luck with that one because no one to date can answer that question. Why? Because it points out the largest hole in your arguement; The fact that the states that were so jealous of their own power that they would have never given such broad authority to the federal government. And thats why they enumerated the 17 powers of congress. If you were right then they would not have had to enumerate anything but the first paragraph.

I also see you havent voted yet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, within reason. And it already is.

 

[Intense]

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.

You will find allot of that here.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes, within reason. And it already is.

A power to grant congress extraconstituional powers that redistribute liberty "within reason" is the same as the power to grant congress the power to do the same "far beyond reason". It also gives the congress the authority to grant rights. And rights are not granted by government.

 

[shintao]

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.

Let me help you out. Every conservative president since Nixon has advocated gun control or confiscation and suppression. The Brady Act, the largest antigun act in America comes from the conservative Brady & continues on through his wife's organization. That is the whole 2nd Amendment, so to make ludicrous claims about Liberal is fastidious at best.

As to the general welfare clause, Bush jr. introduced the largest welfare program since FDR with his Faith Based Charities, and then had the audacity to establish it's office in the White House. To lay some false claim as to liberal or conservative is frankly bullshit, but the rest of your debate is genious and I appreciate that.

My contribution to the GWC is from Alexander Hamilton, which is an opposing view to Madison.

"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money."

"The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

Alexander Hamilton

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures[/url]

I will agree there was a fear among the fathers to expanding government, but I also feel we would have fallen long ago if we had not expanded government to deal with our issues. Who would have thought for example that we would have US Troops under UN Command or stationed all over the globe spending trillions of your money.

Alexander Hamilton. I was hopeing that someone brought that up! Lets see what did Alexander do? Well, for one, he left the Constitutional Convention in protest with his his other delegates and when he returned alone he had no vote in the process (all delegates needed to be present to have a vote). Before that, however, he was a part of the monarchist party and advocated for lifetime appointments for the president and senate members. He also campaigned against a Bill of Rights because he thought it limited the power of the federal government. Though it was true that he was on the comitee on style in the Constituional Convention every attempt of his to word the constitution in a manner of which gave unlimited power to the federal government was immediatly shot down as shown in James Madison's published Notes on the Constitutional Convention. Not to mention that Alexander Hamilton never objected to James Madisons Federalist # 41 before the constituion was ratified though they were meeting on a regular bacis. With that being said, would Alexander Hamilton, with his obvious unlimited view of how the federal government should have been, result to extraconstitutional measures and claim as if they existed there all along? Absolutly!

I'm sorry but there is a reason that Hamilton is not the father of our constitution and not a credible source on the wording or intent of the U.S. Constitution.

The record is perfect clear on this.

LOL! That was a stretch. And now you biasly pick who is a signer of the Constitution? LMAO!!! He every much a father as Madison, even though you don't like it. And his view of the operation of the GWC was shortly carried out after the signing, as I am sure you are aware.

So I will ask you the same question that I ask everyone who advocates your position. If Article One Section Eight gives Congress such broad authority (never heard of before until FDR threatened to pack the courts because they were shutting down his extraconstituional legeslation) then why did they enumerate the 17 powers of Congress? Good luck with that one because no one to date can answer that question. Why? Because it points out the largest hole in your arguement; The fact that the states that were so jealous of their own power that they would have never given such broad authority to the federal government. And thats why they enumerated the 17 powers of congress. If you were right then they would not have had to enumerate anything but the first paragraph.

I also see you havent voted yet.

The GWC was used numerous times before FDR, and you might dig into your question, even though it does nothing to nullify my position. The president can be impeached, but has no connection to the GWC.

George Washington - 1790

"Hamilton, with Randolph’s and Jefferson’s opinions before him, spent a week working out what became one of his masterful state papers. He carefully refuted the arguments of Randolph and Jefferson and made a powerful case for a broad construction of the Constitution that resounded through subsequent decades of American history. He argued that Congress’s authority to charter a bank was implied by the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that gave Congress the right to make all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its delegated powers. Without the such implied powers, Hamilton wrote 'the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed without government.' That may have been Jefferson’s ideal, but it was not Washington’s. On Feb. 25, 1791, the president signed the bank bill into law."

MinnPost - The first tentherist debate: George Washington weighs in

President Lincoln, congress passed the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against you. Personally, as a Liberal, I would end all Federal Government spending, and give the citizens the power to fund their government issues as they please. http://avgparty.blogspot.com/

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

Repeating the post that I responded to does nothing to address my response to that post; indeed, it is apparent you know you do not have an effective response and are simply avoiding the point.

Thus, my response stands; let me know when you can actually address what I said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"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.

You fail to understnd what loose cannon is talking about.

Once you allow little bitty doesn't seem that important rights to be chipped away then the real big rights are not so far away from goiing away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So I will ask you the same question that I ask everyone who advocates your position. If Article One Section Eight gives Congress such broad authority (never heard of before until FDR threatened to pack the courts because they were shutting down his extraconstituional legeslation) then why did they enumerate the 17 powers of Congress?

I have asked this innumerable times and have never received a sound response in return.

If the Hamiltonian interpretation is sound, then only the first and last powers granted to Congress are necessary; that the people that wrote, debated and ratified the Constitution found it necessary to include those other 16 clauses indicates that the interpretation is unsound.

Hamilton, like many modern liberals, self-servingly argued whatever position that best suited him at the moment, and, on the topic of general v enumerated powers, contradicts himself. As such, his view on the issue cannot, for anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty, have any use in determining the intended effect of any given part of the Constitution.

This leaves Madison.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sould Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses? <snip>

Man is not an island unto himself.

Each of us is part and has part in the social compact.

Libertarianism is nothing more than the rule of man, and we have seen where that has gone.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sould Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses? <snip>

Man is not an island unto himself.

Each of us is part and has part in the social compact.

Libertarianism is nothing more than the rule of man, and we have seen where that has gone.

Where's the paper work for this social compact?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sould Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses? <snip>

Man is not an island unto himself.

Each of us is part and has part in the social compact.

Libertarianism is nothing more than the rule of man, and we have seen where that has gone.

Where's the paper work for this social compact?

IT's called "The Communist Manifesto".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

man is not an island unto himself.

Each of us is part and has part in the social compact.

Libertarianism is nothing more than the rule of man, and we have seen where that has gone.

where's the paper work for this social compact?

it's called "the communist manifesto".

oh in that case i do not agree with nor have i signed such paper work