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

[JakeStarkey]

The fun of attacking "moral relativism" and those who "pervert original intent" allows oneself to set up as an authority of judgment, much like a judge in the Judean hills before the coming of Saul, Davd, and the rest. And you have the language down well, too.

However, I agreed with you about amending, yet you ignored me that it is the Right who have been trying to amend the Constitution these last thirty odd years. Your real argument, I believe, is that the "Judge" is not longer absolute as in old Israel, but works with others within a recognized charter situation to reach an equitable goal.

I still get a kick the you are an uber-democrat libertarian who is quite willing to practice the tyranny of the majority.

Weeellllll, not gonna happen any time soon.

 

[Sallow]

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?

You've got a clause and an amendment. You want more taxes?

States and cities can of course set their own taxes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is not true nor is it accurate. The SCOTUS(The Court) does not "define" rights. The function of the SCOTUS is to provide a forum for redress on matters of the US Constitution. The Court does not decide what rights we have. The US Constitution PROTECTS rights we already have. The US Constitution limits the power of the government. The Court decides on cases based on interpretation of certain parts or a part of the Constitution.
The Court is not a final arbiter nor does it "have the last word" on the rule of law. The Court is but one of the three branches of federal government.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the rights of one are ALWAYS in conflict with the rights of another. I see no such thing. You must live a very stressful life in your constant hand wringing over whose rights you step on.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. the problem is: Who determines the needs of the masses?

 

[thereisnospoon]

"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."

The issue here is not "political behavior", however it deals simply with the fundamental existence of the right of government to take the property of one for the enrichment of another.......Before you respond that does not reference "taxation"...

 

[loosecannon]

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.

That is not true nor is it accurate. The SCOTUS(The Court) does not "define" rights. The function of the SCOTUS is to provide a forum for redress on matters of the US Constitution. The Court does not decide what rights we have. The US Constitution PROTECTS rights we already have. The US Constitution limits the power of the government. The Court decides on cases based on interpretation of certain parts or a part of the Constitution.
The Court is not a final arbiter nor does it "have the last word" on the rule of law. The Court is but one of the three branches of federal government.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the rights of one are ALWAYS in conflict with the rights of another. I see no such thing. You must live a very stressful life in your constant hand wringing over whose rights you step on.

The SC frequently decides what rights you have and don't. Example: their rulings on the rights to bear arms have upheld the right to bear arms. And have struck down the state's powers to restrict that right.

It is self evident that our rights always conflict with one another. Example, my right to pursuit of happiness conflicts with your property rights regarding your pool at midnight. Examples are literally everywhere if you are capable of perceiving them.

And the court is indeed the final arbiter of the constitution and our rights contained therein. Neither congress nor the president can pass laws effecting our rights that trespass across the decisions of the SC. Well they can pass them, but the court can dismiss them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

you formed and opinion, expressed it here. Your opinion received a response which explains in each case how the OP's post applied. Now you are interjecting a separate issue, the greater good....At no time is collectivism or groupism mentioned in the OP.
I think you have stumped yourself. You don't like the message expressed by the OP because it calls into question the basis of confiscation and redistribution of wealth under threat of government sanction.
If you want to at least appear to be intelligent, it is best to read and comprehend the issue at hand and discuss ONLY that issue within the boundaries of the thread.

 

[loosecannon]

DO NOT edit the posts of others....
Now....Rights CAN be in conflict with others, but that is not absolute.
For example, I have the right to use my property in any manner I choose(within law or ordinance) so as long as that use brings no harm to others....I can blast my surround sound at full volume as long as it does not disturb my neighbors.
Your use of the "paradigm analogy" fits the liberal template of the world being all grey matter and no right or wrong.
Yiu pop off a lot of examples which are non sequiturs.
These examples (public porn, child seductions, etc.) are prohibited by legislative action and quite frankly are unacceptable to community standards.
In any event, your response is obfuscation.
The issue here is not rights in as much as the actions or deeds one can or cannot take. The thrust of the OP is the objection to the confiscation of the property( under threat of government sanction) of one for the enrichment of another.
I can further gather from the OP that the objection to this transfer is the manner in which government offers the "donor" no choice on how his property is to be used. We accept the fact that government in a perfect world is duty bound to administer it's decisions in the best interests of the people. We know government does not meet that obligation.
The most galling aspect of this is that there are those who place blind trust in government to do the correct thing and demand all to act in kind.
You will not deflect or otherwise hijack this thread with unrelated commentary. Stay on point or be silent.

fuck you.

I quit reading your post after the first sentence, dickhead.

 

[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."

The issue here is not "political behavior", however it deals simply with the fundamental existence of the right of government to take the property of one for the enrichment of another.......Before you respond that does not reference "taxation"...

It is when the OP attempts to use it for a justification of the thread, by beating Liberals with his hammer. He need not have said anything, as both partys use the GWC, there is no favorites here.

 

[loosecannon]

It had already been answered before you asked.

The term you are looking for is PROTECTED free speech.

If you try to assert your point without the word PROTECTED placed before "free speech" you are absolutely 100% wrong. And your explanations are nonsense.

False. Very false. Exceptionally false. False with Epic Fail on top.

The freedom of speech does not contain any of things that are not part of it.
This is a truism, and cannot be shown otherwise.
You are arguing against this truism and will, therefore, always be wrong so long as you continue to do so.

Therefore, restricting things that are not part of the freedom of speech - like libel and slander - does not, as a corollary to that truism, restrict the freedom of speech.

You may continue to be wrong, as demonstrated, at your lesiure.

You really are frustrating.

You tried several times to challenge what I had said first by confusing the meaning of the word "speech" with the meaning of the term "free speech".

Then I eventually did you a favor and pointed out that you would have been correct were you not then confusing the term "free speech" with the term "protected free speech".

"speech", "free speech" and "protected free speech" all have different meanings. But apparently you have no idea what any of those terms means.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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,...The Framers never intended for freedom of speech to be absolute.
Believing that ( free speech is absolute) defies all logic and common sense.
Of course there are limits.
You can walk up to your neighbor and tell him his wife is a whore. You have that freedom. Your neighbor may take exception to that and use his fist to drive you into another area code.
Legally ,you did nothing wrong. Morally, and this is where it gets sticky, you were a disaster area.
Now let's say you labeled your neighbor's wife a whore but out of earshot of your neighbor and within the privacy of your home....You have the right to say that. You harmed no one. There is no conflict there.
If conflict is in the equation, you created that conflict by confronting your neighbor and expressing your opinion of his wife.
Now for the last time, we're off this track. Let's get back to discussing the fallacy of our welfare state.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

here is an example of when a particular issue is opened for discussion, instead of participating and debating the merits of their position on the issue, the liberal will attack the person who began the discussion.
After all, if you question the reasoning behind it or wish discussion of the issue supported, you must therefore oppose it.
The simplest of example....
Me: "Can you tell me why a+b=C?"
Other guy:....."Do you have a problem with that? Just accept it as it is and do not question."
Instead of answering the query, the respondent attacks the one asking the question.

 

[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,...The Framers never intended for freedom of speech to be absolute.
Believing that ( free speech is absolute) defies all logic and common sense.
Of course there are limits.
You can walk up to your neighbor and tell him his wife is a whore. You have that freedom. Your neighbor may take exception to that and use his fist to drive you into another area code.
Legally ,you did nothing wrong. Morally, and this is where it gets sticky, you were a disaster area.
Now let's say you labeled your neighbor's wife a whore but out of earshot of your neighbor and within the privacy of your home....You have the right to say that. You harmed no one. There is no conflict there.
If conflict is in the equation, you created that conflict by confronting your neighbor and expressing your opinion of his wife.
Now for the last time, we're off this track. Let's get back to discussing the fallacy of our welfare state.

Fuck you.

 

[loosecannon]

>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.

you formed and opinion, expressed it here. Your opinion received a response which explains in each case how the OP's post applied. Now you are interjecting a separate issue, the greater good....At no time is collectivism or groupism mentioned in the OP.
I think you have stumped yourself. You don't like the message expressed by the OP because it calls into question the basis of confiscation and redistribution of wealth under threat of government sanction.
If you want to at least appear to be intelligent, it is best to read and comprehend the issue at hand and discuss ONLY that issue within the boundaries of the thread.

fuck you, dickhead.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

you should simply start you own thread. Rather, you've decided based on your dislike of the message within the OP's idea, to hijack this thread.
The OP used no straw man argument. He simply asked a question based on his thesis.
And please stop the "greater good" nonsense. Next thing you're going to tell us is we have no right to redress the taking of private property without just compensation for "the greater good"....
Greater good....when politicians roll out that one, watch your wallet and your daughters....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

you formed and opinion, expressed it here. Your opinion received a response which explains in each case how the OP's post applied. Now you are interjecting a separate issue, the greater good....At no time is collectivism or groupism mentioned in the OP.
I think you have stumped yourself. You don't like the message expressed by the OP because it calls into question the basis of confiscation and redistribution of wealth under threat of government sanction.
If you want to at least appear to be intelligent, it is best to read and comprehend the issue at hand and discuss ONLY that issue within the boundaries of the thread.

fuck you, dickhead.

He walks home sniveling and dejected. His parting shot one of desperation, a profane statement used to illicit a predetermined response......Not gonna happen.
Thank you for coming. Please drive carefully and arrive home safely. Good night.

 

[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?

you should simply start you own thread. Rather, you've decided based on your dislike of the message within the OP's idea, to hijack this thread.
The OP used no straw man argument. He simply asked a question based on his thesis.
And please stop the "greater good" nonsense. Next thing you're going to tell us is we have no right to redress the taking of private property without just compensation for "the greater good"....
Greater good....when politicians roll out that one, watch your wallet and your daughters....

Fuck you, dickhead. I won't be reading your posts again.

 

[loosecannon]

you formed and opinion, expressed it here. Your opinion received a response which explains in each case how the OP's post applied. Now you are interjecting a separate issue, the greater good....At no time is collectivism or groupism mentioned in the OP.
I think you have stumped yourself. You don't like the message expressed by the OP because it calls into question the basis of confiscation and redistribution of wealth under threat of government sanction.
If you want to at least appear to be intelligent, it is best to read and comprehend the issue at hand and discuss ONLY that issue within the boundaries of the thread.

fuck you, dickhead.

He walks home sniveling and dejected. His parting shot one of desperation, a profane statement used to illicit a predetermined response......Not gonna happen.
Thank you for coming. Please drive carefully and arrive home safely. Good night.

Fuck you, dickhead.

 

[Bern80]

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.

There is no conflict there. Your rights end where mine begin. This is not a difficult concept. To take away someone elses freedom is to take away your own freedom. You don't have the right to take away my freedom to improve your life. The framers of the constitution recognized that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

natural rights definition