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

[JakeStarkey]

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".

Actually it is and always has been the United States Constitution.

Libertarianism will never be strong or vile enough to corrupt the document and the American social compact.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where's the paper work for this social compact?

IT's called "The Communist Manifesto".

Actually is the United States Constitution.

Libertarianism will never be strong or vile enough to corrupt the document and the American social compact.

Libarianism is not wanting to change the constitutin but your buddies on the left are.

 

[loosecannon]

I am not afraid of anything. But the mere presence of robbery as a component of modern society suggests a continual conflict between the freedom of one in conflict with the freedom of others.

Except that it isn't as no individual has the freedom to forcibly take the rightful propery of another. The conflict here is not between the rights of two individuals to own property, but between the rightful property owner that he who would abdrige that right.

The need for laws and law enforcement also bear testimony to this continual conflict.

Yes... because government exists to protect the rights of its people from those that would abridge those rights; this is a perpetual need because there will always been those who seek to abridge the rights of others.

thanks for concurring.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

I grasp it, I just realize that that concept is your opinion and not a real fact. You do not decide what privilege exists or doesn't.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

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.

 

[loosecannon]

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".

No it's called our law.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

So far it's been a lose-lose for all involved.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loose Cannon, Soggy, has eviscerated Publius1787's lame argumentation.

 

[Intense]

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.

I grasp it, I just realize that that concept is your opinion and not a real fact. You do not decide what privilege exists or doesn't.

We each decide for ourselves Individually where and when to focus time and energy. The Government may tax, not enslave. The Government may even try to addict you, but that is your choice. Privilege, is an abuse to Equality between persons, a corruption of Principle to effect outcome, which was an unrealized diversion from True Value and Ideal. Do we learn from what works, imitating it and advancing, or do we obstruct it and punish it? We were built on Discovery, Exploration, Invention. Do we support an environment that rewards or Obstructs the advancement of what advances the quality of life? Control has it's limits too. Those limits should be honorable, those powers, by consent, with valid necessary purpose, subject to review. **** Hamilton and His End Justifying the means. It is a license to Tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I grasp it, I just realize that that concept is your opinion and not a real fact. You do not decide what privilege exists or doesn't.

We each decide for ourselves Individually where and when to focus time and energy. The Government may tax, not enslave. The Government may even try to addict you, but that is your choice. Privilege, is an abuse to Equality between persons, a corruption of Principle to effect outcome, which was an unrealized diversion from True Value and Ideal. Do we learn from what works, imitating it and advancing, or do we obstruct it and punish it? We were built on Discovery, Exploration, Invention. Do we support an environment that rewards or Obstructs the advancement of what advances the quality of life? Control has it's limits too. Those limits should be honorable, those powers, by consent, with valid necessary purpose, subject to review. **** Hamilton and His End Justifying the means. It is a license to Tyranny.

You write so well, but the rule of man through libertarian philosophy is equally "a license to Tyranny". The balance is in the middle.

 

[shintao]

IT's called "The Communist Manifesto".

Actually is the United States Constitution.

Libertarianism will never be strong or vile enough to corrupt the document and the American social compact.

Libarianism is not wanting to change the constitutin but your buddies on the left are.

Ahh shucks, you found out it from Rushkie.

 

[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."

Your rights are always in conflict with other people's rights. It is unavoidable.

You are simply defining your terms so as to create your paradigm. Other people define their terms differently and arrive at different paradigms.

You operating on the assumption that your definitions and paradigm is absolutely true while any conflicting set of terms is therefore wrong. As if anything about the constitution or social rights was that black and white.

BTW we actually have a supreme authority tasked with working this all out.

XXXXXXX No altering other posters quote

First of all I reject your term "nonexistant unnatural rights". So I deleted it from your Quote.

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.

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.

 

[shintao]

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

Boy, that is really a weak case, seeing as there is no proof of a god. How about sticking with the laws of nature, like gravity is a law of nature and a right that cannot be taken from you, unless they shoot your arse into space.

 

[Intense]

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.

Out in space Major Tom/Jake.

Unalienable Right comes from God, not man. It is recognized by Men and put into Law and defended. The Encroachment of Authority, which we were warned about back then, has long since broken free of it's leash and collar. People like you, forgetting Purpose, help enable that very Usurpation Jake. The Mechanism is not of more value for It's reason for being, It's purpose Jake. It has abused it's Justification, by ignoring and corrupting applied principles abandoning it's charge, for self interest, with your help. You and people like you embrace moral relativism, and pervert original intent. The Amendment Process, by design, is a mechanism to correct course and fine tune. You characterize it as the Enemy of the Republic, I see it as our only hope to reestablish Justice, and defend what is fair and just. You support the Nation of Men who corrupted the Law Jake. Those corruptions are open festering sores Jake. The abuse of Enumerated Powers, the Misuse of the General Welfare Clause, the abuse of the Commerce Clause, the abuse of Judicial Review. The three branches have been transformed into a three headed hydra, a parasite, that has outgrown it's host. The Solution? A return to American Federalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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.

 

[Intense]

Boy, that is really a weak case, seeing as there is no proof of a god. How about sticking with the laws of nature, like gravity is a law of nature and a right that cannot be taken from you, unless they shoot your arse into space.

We each have the right to speak for ourselves, on our own terms. Deal with it.

 

[Sallow]

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.

2.

More like he's probably getting my money. I pay more in taxes then some here get as an annual salary.