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

[Bern80]

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.

Why do people seem to keep confusing libertarianism with anarchy?

 

[ThePatriot]

I am a strong disliker of taking from some to give to others, but what about racial profiling per say? Scientifically stereotypes are based on facts and it is fact that certain factions in the world are more determined to harm America than others. Why should this not be used as an advantage in airports for example. This would limit freedom for some in the name of others, but is it not a good cause?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

HUH?....Nixon was a big government California liberal....
Check your fire there, soldier. Before posting learn and mark the difference between political affiliation and ideology.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Amazing how difficult it is for you to grasp such a simple concept. I repeat YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS. Therefore you never had the freedom in the first place to deprive someone of their property. Oh yes, you could certianly make the choice to, but the action has made the society not free.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Individual liberty IS subject to the needs of the masses. The greatest political document ever created managed to balance the concept more than 200 years ago. The problem is that the left thinks the stodgy old Constitution needs to be upgraded and Stalin had a better idea.

False analogy and projected reality: it is the Right that have been trying to amend the Constitution the last thirty years.

Please provide examples.....Do yourself a big favor, do not start with the Patriot Act.
Don't mention wiretaps of foreign nationals either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Not necessarily so - many of their decisions do not involve an interpretation or application of the constitution to the issue at hand.

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.

This is correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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

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

1. Which is defined in a very general and broad sense.

The powers of congress are quite specific - 18 of them are laid out quite specifically.
There are a few others tucked in to a few other places that relate to other branches,, but the powers that it has on its own are all right there in Article I sec 8.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Likely because you know I am riight.

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".

There's no confusion here, on my part at least. I -certainly- know what -I- am talking about; had I known you had some strange condition that drives a petulant, pendantic need to use absolutely precise terminology, I'd have used that terminology. Fact of the matter is nothing I have said is wrong and we both know it.

And so, since you again have failed to address the point I made, and chosen to address me rather than my post, my point stands.

I stated a truism. You're arguing against it.
Because of this, I cannot help that your argument will always be wrong; you, on the other hand, can choose to stop being wrong. Its your call.

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

Common Law is not Relative. Circumstances change, not Value, Principle, and Ideal. It has nothing to do with standing on a soap box Jake, and everything to do with the abandonment of Reason.

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.

Amendment through due process is the lawful way to remedy injustices caused by the implementation of Principle and Ideal, when there is need to correct, and the ability is beyond the power or jurisdiction. My perspective has everything to do with 3 equal branches of Government. Not more equal, but equal. Judicial Review has it's role, it's necessary power, and It's limits. When it points out a flaw, through experience and reason it it for the Court to show the flaw for what it is and why. It should not act beyond it's authority. Where is the Redress if the Court errs? Currently there is none. a 5/4 split can turn our Republic on it's head. We are not an Oligarchy. It was not meant for a majority of 5 to Legislate from the bench. You talk about Tyranny? Why would you assume the Court so noble, when they divide down the middle so often on critical concerns? The relationship between Justice and Injustice has no bearing on how many supporters there are on either side of an issue, with the exception of a 75% or better majority, which when focused, Government must submit to.

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

I bet I'm a bigger fan of Thoreau than you are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Wow. The truth really -does- hurt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Really? Ok, have at it. Find cases where the Court decided what rights we DO NOT have.
Uh oh..road block......The Court in Roe v Wade opined that a woman has the right to reproductive freedom( already did) based on a right to privacy. Many legal scholars have written this opinion was incorrect. That constitutionally ,there is no absolute right to privacy. Additionally , the Court in Roe, overstepped it's authority by usurping the state's rights clause in the 10th amendment...In any event, the current Court or any subsequent Court may reverse Roe v Wade. This confirms that the Court does not "have the final word".
Use a different example.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So much so that his failure to embrace it indicates an inexplicable, deliberate need to fail.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I win!!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I win!!!!!

The MovieWavs Page - Monty Python: mp12.wav

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Likely because you know I am riight.

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".

There's no confusion here, on my part at least. I -certainly- know what -I- am talking about; had I known you had some strange condition that drives a petulant, pendantic need to use absolutely precise terminology, I'd have used that terminology. Fact of the matter is nothing I have said is wrong and we both know it.

And so, since you again have failed to address the point I made, and chosen to address me rather than my post, my point stands.

I stated a truism. You're arguing against it.
Because of this, I cannot help that your argument will always be wrong; you, on the other hand, can choose to stop being wrong. Its your call.

you were 100% wrong and you serially obstruct being corrected. It must suck to be you.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

I win!!!!!

The MovieWavs Page - Monty Python: mp12.wav

Fuck you, dickhead.

 

[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.

I win!!!!!

fuck you, dickhead.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Really? Ok, have at it. Find cases where the Court decided what rights we DO NOT have.
Uh oh..road block......The Court in Roe v Wade opined that a woman has the right to reproductive freedom( already did) based on a right to privacy. Many legal scholars have written this opinion was incorrect. That constitutionally ,there is no absolute right to privacy. Additionally , the Court in Roe, overstepped it's authority by usurping the state's rights clause in the 10th amendment...In any event, the current Court or any subsequent Court may reverse Roe v Wade. This confirms that the Court does not "have the final word".
Use a different example.

Fuck you, dickhead

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Amazing how difficult it is for you to grasp such a simple concept. I repeat YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS. Therefore you never had the freedom in the first place to deprive someone of their property. Oh yes, you could certianly make the choice to, but the action has made the society not free.

Limited freedom is limited freedom.

Your freedom is limited because it continually conflicts with the freedoms of others.

Those are simple, immutable facts. I can't help it if you are not intelligent enough to understand those facts.

Therefore you never had the freedom in the first place

gee, that is what I have been saying for days, give that kid a cookie!

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am a strong disliker of taking from some to give to others, but what about racial profiling per say? Scientifically stereotypes are based on facts and it is fact that certain factions in the world are more determined to harm America than others. Why should this not be used as an advantage in airports for example. This would limit freedom for some in the name of others, but is it not a good cause?

Trust me. Profiling is alive and well.
It's more covert.
Profiling....This word got an ugly reference based on cases brought by drug and cigarette smugglers along I-95 and the NJ Turnpike.
State Troopers and other Law enforcement "profiled" certain type vehicles, being driven in a certain manner, plated from certain states, driven by certain types of people.
The profile rate was nearly 100% accurate.
Some of these criminal defendants were represented by civil rights attorneys working pro bono on behalf of the defendants. They charged that these "motorists" were being targeted by race only. It worked. For a while. Once the dust settled and the media went on to another cause, the police went right back to profiling again. They just do it more carefully.
I can guarantee you if you decide to go to Virginia to pick up a couple dozen cases of ciggies to sell them in New York, you'll do something while you're traveling to attract the attention of Law Enforcement. They know. They know just by looking at you as you pass by or they pass you.
You have been "profiled".