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

[JakeStarkey]

Garbage----everything has consequences. Are you claiming we are now not free to do anything?

No... I am 'claiming' that your equation of 'freedom' to 'whatever I am physically capable of doing' has absolutely no rational basis and is therefore unsound.

How can you possibly claim it has no rational basis when it happens daily ? People do whatever they damn well please whether it is legal or not. They even do things that interfere with the rights of others on a daily basis. We have a system in place to try to inhibit people taking advantage of those freedoms but it in NO way stops them from exercising them. If I CAN do it, I have the freedom to do it. Life is permission.

Absolutely wrong. You simply don't under "free" and "freedom." You don't undertand "self restraint" either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hardly----I am free to do it if I am willing to fight the consequences that society tries to impose on me.

No... you are -capable- of doing it.
You're equating "freedom" to "whaever I am physically capable of doing".
If you were -free- to do it, there'd be no consequences.

Garbage----everything has consequences. Are you claiming we are now not free to do anything?

That is precisely what he is claiming.
We are free to pursue liberty and happiness. We are not free to do as we please.
There are limits to our freedoms. The Framers sought to limit the excesses and tyranny of government by proclaiming our rights come from God.
The US Constitution limits the power of government. We as human beings see the fault in absolute freedom and enact laws to "protect the sheep from the wolf".
In effect total unabated freedom is equivalent to anarchy.
So no, our rights are not absolute. any sane logical person knows that. This should not even enter into the discussion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Garbage----everything has consequences. Are you claiming we are now not free to do anything?

No... I am 'claiming' that your equation of 'freedom' to 'whatever I am physically capable of doing' has absolutely no rational basis and is therefore unsound.

How can you possibly claim it has no rational basis when it happens daily ? People do whatever they damn well please whether it is legal or not. They even do things that interfere with the rights of others on a daily basis. We have a system in place to try to inhibit people taking advantage of those freedoms but it in NO way stops them from exercising them. If I CAN do it, I have the freedom to do it. Life is permission.

That is a rather cynical view of the wold....No Dill, we do not do what ever we please legal or not.
Most law abiding people exercise what we adults call "self control".
Criminals are prone to doing as they please because they act without considering the consequences of their actions. Or they are just evil to their core.
Now please. You are arguing both sides of the issue. Pick one. Thanks.

 

[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.

BZZZZZT!!!!

Wanna try, again, Pube????? Ya' made a bit of a hard-Right-turn, there.

Your initial-question was: "Should Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses?"

Then, like magic, it turned-into: "...they rely on the theft of liberty from one group of citizens and the granting of non existant privilages to another."

Obviously, consistency is not your strong-point.

*

Regarding your initial-question: "Should Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses?"....."conservatives" ALREADY replied with a resounding YES!!!

It was called Homeland Security....and, QUITE-a-few "conservatives" insisted we probably need to give-up a few Constitutional Rights, in the interest of national-security.....and, anyone who suggests they never heard-of-this is either a liar....or, some 'Bagger who just (recently) discovered Politics.​

Non-sequitur.....

 

[dilloduck]

No... I am 'claiming' that your equation of 'freedom' to 'whatever I am physically capable of doing' has absolutely no rational basis and is therefore unsound.

How can you possibly claim it has no rational basis when it happens daily ? People do whatever they damn well please whether it is legal or not. They even do things that interfere with the rights of others on a daily basis. We have a system in place to try to inhibit people taking advantage of those freedoms but it in NO way stops them from exercising them. If I CAN do it, I have the freedom to do it. Life is permission.

That is a rather cynical view of the wold....No Dill, we do not do what ever we please legal or not.
Most law abiding people exercise what we adults call "self control".
Criminals are prone to doing as they please because they act without considering the consequences of their actions. Or they are just evil to their core.
Now please. You are arguing both sides of the issue. Pick one. Thanks.

I didn't suggest we act on our freedom. I merely pointed out that we have it and were born with it. Don't confuse cynicism with reality.

 

[dilloduck]

No... you are -capable- of doing it.
You're equating "freedom" to "whaever I am physically capable of doing".
If you were -free- to do it, there'd be no consequences.

Garbage----everything has consequences. Are you claiming we are now not free to do anything?

That is precisely what he is claiming.
We are free to pursue liberty and happiness. We are not free to do as we please.
There are limits to our freedoms. The Framers sought to limit the excesses and tyranny of government by proclaiming our rights come from God.
The US Constitution limits the power of government. We as human beings see the fault in absolute freedom and enact laws to "protect the sheep from the wolf".
In effect total unabated freedom is equivalent to anarchy.
So no, our rights are not absolute. any sane logical person knows that. This should not even enter into the discussion.

Sorry---I have the freedom to inject anything I wish into the discussion. Do you choose to believe that no one would excercise their freedom to be kind and compassionate ? We are now so "protected " from the wolves that we must live in this nice confining pen.

 

[Freedomlover]

Here is a legal definition of the term unalienable. It is from a legal dictionary that can be found at OneLook Dictionary Search.

unalienable adjective absolute, actual, certain, definite, fixed, imprescriptible, inalienable, incapable of being surrendered, indefeasible, inviolable, lawful, prescriptive, privileged, rightful, unalterable, unimpeachable, untransferable
Associated concepts: unalienable rights

So, after reading this, you can judge for yourself how much the Federal government, and some State governments have indeed violated the principles of unalienable rights over the past seventy five years. A good example of a violation of these rights is afirmative action. Another would be the redistribution of wealth, which is the policy of the current administration.

 

[Freedomlover]

There is an old saying that if followed by the people of a free society would make things a whole lot better.
"One person"s freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

 

[Publius1787]

There is an old saying that if followed by the people of a free society would make things a whole lot better.
"One person"s freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

I faind it telling that some dont understand what you mean by that popular phrase.

 

[snjmom]

There is an old saying that if followed by the people of a free society would make things a whole lot better.
"One person"s freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

I faind it telling that some dont understand what you mean by that popular phrase.

Is the poke in the nose the only harm acknowledged? What about their eyes and ears? Are you advocating that a free society is one in which the only acknowledged harm is physical violence and everything else is allowed? Or only theft and physical violence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the posters here clearly redefine (inaccurately) the classic liberal princiles of freedom and liberty.

 

[editec]

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?

Because many people who CLAIM to be libertarians are complete morons, that's why.

There ARE libertarians whose opinions are fact based, subtle and worthy of our consideration.

Sadly in a place like this their voices and opinions are diluted by the ignorant drivel that some of the self proclaiming libertarians (who don't know jackshit about political science) THINK that term represents.

Much of my POV jibes with libertarianism, too, but I refuse to label myself as such because of all the baggage that the idiots pile on to that label.

I mean how fucking stupid does one have to be to think that we can have a society without having SOME limits on individual freedom?


Now I know perfectly well that the founder of the California Libertarian party understands that since I used to regularly write to the guy.

Libertarianism is NOT another world for RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN OR ANARCHIST, but most of the cryrto authoritarians and (clueless lovers of liberty, too) think it is.

The meanings of the words liberalm conservative, libertarian, socialist, and nationalist have all been destroyed by the propagandists.

This was NOT an accident. It was a well thought out plan that has been in place for at least the last twenty five years or so. (Read CLEAR CHANNEL, read allowing monopolies in the media, among other examples of how that was done)

When you destroy the meanings of political science words, you make it nearly impossible to discuss poltical issues rationally, and you advance the ease with which political PROPAGANA gets a pass.

 

[Freedomlover]

It baffles me that you seemed to immediately assume the quote refers to some sort of violence. It does not! It merely says that you have the right to pursue your individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, but that does not give you license to act in such a manner that it negatively impacts another person who is pursuing those same guaranteed rights. For instance, you have the right of free speech but that does not mean you can say things about someone else that are false and perhaps not expect to be sued for libel. Do you understand now?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fuck you, dickhead

Not only are you extremely frustrated by my posts as witnessed by your futile attempts to draw me into a juvenile pissing contest, you also cannot resist reading my posts. Why is this?

fuck you, dickhead. I am ignoring your content and boycotting you because you are a XXXXXXX. Not because you ever say anything that matters, dickweed.

Yet you read on.....
This always comes down to the same result.
A liberal, unable to come forward with substantive addition to the discussion reverts to name calling in an attempt to silence his opposition.
Gee, cannon, you gonna start in on family members or something else sinister.
The fun part is you are seething with anger. You cannot stand that I stay above your level of nonsense.
You will not like me. The more you hate me ,the more you will learn.
You'll learn by the numbers. Holding onto an irrational position is foolish. Expressing that position is dumb.
BTW, you'd better take care in your words. You've been flagged by the mods already.
Looks like you might be getting a time out. Ahh boy.
Using such language....Tsk tsk......Lifebuoy......Yuk!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservatives do the same thing, thereisnospoon.

Name calling merely means someone is losing a discussion, or that someone is sick in the head.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

Garbage----everything has consequences. Are you claiming we are now not free to do anything?

That is precisely what he is claiming.
We are free to pursue liberty and happiness. We are not free to do as we please.
There are limits to our freedoms. The Framers sought to limit the excesses and tyranny of government by proclaiming our rights come from God.
The US Constitution limits the power of government. We as human beings see the fault in absolute freedom and enact laws to "protect the sheep from the wolf".
In effect total unabated freedom is equivalent to anarchy.
So no, our rights are not absolute. any sane logical person knows that. This should not even enter into the discussion.

Sorry---I have the freedom to inject anything I wish into the discussion. Do you choose to believe that no one would excercise their freedom to be kind and compassionate ? We are now so "protected " from the wolves that we must live in this nice confining pen.

You may have the capability to post as you wish. Other posters have the right to find your post to be unacceptable.
See where we're going here?
If you wish to discuss compassion, start another thread.
What "pen" is that?...The restrictions of political correctness? On that, we agree.

Yes, our rights and freedoms are being incrementally removed and replaced with law and order liberalism.

 

[snjmom]

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

Haven't you just described an unregulated free market?

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is an old saying that if followed by the people of a free society would make things a whole lot better.
"One person"s freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

Kudos to you for a brilliant post!
Here in the South, natives southerners as a matter of tradition hold private property rights as the number one priority of life. To a Southerner, land and property are of paramount importance...As a result wee battles among neighbors over loose dogs, noise complaints, etc.
The offending person usually plays the "it's my land and I'll do what I want."....
What they don't understand for instance is while they do indeed have far reaching rights to enjoy their property, that enjoyment ends at their property line. Sound travels. Eyesores are visible beyond the boundaries of one's lot, etc.
This essentially debunks the premise that one has the right to do as they please and others have the right to try to stop them.
Capability and rights are two separate things. Very different, indeed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No... I am 'claiming' that your equation of 'freedom' to 'whatever I am physically capable of doing' has absolutely no rational basis and is therefore unsound.

How can you possibly claim it has no rational basis when it happens daily ? People do whatever they damn well please whether it is legal or not. They even do things that interfere with the rights of others on a daily basis. We have a system in place to try to inhibit people taking advantage of those freedoms but it in NO way stops them from exercising them. If I CAN do it, I have the freedom to do it. Life is permission.

Absolutely wrong. You simply don't understand "free" and "freedom." You don't understand "self restraint" either.

Edit: and apparently I need to proof more closely.