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

[loosecannon]

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 libertarianism is partial anarchy. Libertarians want all the benefits of living in a free society with none of the responsibilities.

It didn't have to be this way and probably wasn't always this way, but that is how the popular libertarian movement has evolved, or crept. Thanks Koch Bros!

 

[loosecannon]

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.

there is always a conflict where your rights end and another person's rights begin.

Take your mother asking you to turn down the heavy metal and you turning it up and pretending you can't hear her.

The founders wrote the document to address those ordinary and perpetual conflicts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

**** 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?

 

[snjmom]

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.

I don't think our framers would recognize much of the world we live in. Starting with our definition of harm. Like the surround sound analogy, you leave out where the demarcation point is. Is your right to breathe unharmful air the definer of my right to smoke, drive a vehicle, burn my yardwaste? What good is a surround sound system that doesn't disturb the neighbors? And if your wife is a whore in truth, does that negate your right to react?

Rights are in constant conflict. The RootTone for the massive proliferation of law and regulation. The simplified agrarian life of natural right and manifest destiny and God on your side are gone. They aren't coming back.

Without a massive human extinction event.

 

[Bern80]

because libertarianism is partial anarchy. Libertarians want all the benefits of living in a free society with none of the responsibilities.

Ummm no. That would be liberals. Liberterians understand quite clearly that standing up for freedom also means standing up for allowing people the freedom to make mistakes.

It didn't have to be this way and probably wasn't always this way, but that is how the popular libertarian movement has evolved, or crept. Thanks Koch Bros!

I think you might want to look at what modern libertarians actually stand for before you proclaim how you think it is. Watch some Stossel or something.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'm pleased to see that 83% of say no.

 

[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.

there is always a conflict where your rights end and another person's rights begin.

Take your mother asking you to turn down the heavy metal and you turning it up and pretending you can't hear her.

The founders wrote the document to address those ordinary and perpetual conflicts.

Using a parent/child is a bad example seeing as how they don't have the same legal standing. We'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to think freedom is the ability to exert any action you desire on anyone or thing. That isn't what a truly free society is.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

**** 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?

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

 

[loosecannon]

because libertarianism is partial anarchy. Libertarians want all the benefits of living in a free society with none of the responsibilities.

Ummm no. That would be liberals Liberterians understand quite clearly that standing up for freedom also means standing up for allowing people the freedom to make mistakes.

It didn't have to be this way and probably wasn't always this way, but that is how the popular libertarian movement has evolved, or crept. Thanks Koch Bros!

I think you might want to look at what modern libertarians actually stand for before you proclaim how you think it is. Watch some Stossel or something.

Libertarianism today is mainly the product of a carefully crafted and well funded Koch Bros propaganda campaign. Spanning almost 30 years. You would likely have never heard the term "libertarian" otherwise.

I was dead on, that movement wants all the rights of citizenship with none of the responsibility.

It didn't have to be this way, but it is.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

there is always a conflict where your rights end and another person's rights begin.

Take your mother asking you to turn down the heavy metal and you turning it up and pretending you can't hear her.

The founders wrote the document to address those ordinary and perpetual conflicts.

Using a parent/child is a bad example seeing as how they don't have the same legal standing. We'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to think freedom is the ability to exert any action you desire on anyone or thing. That isn't what a truly free society is.

of course not, but that is what "freedom" is. You seem to have a lot of trouble staying on topic. To you free society = freedom.

That is like thinking that ass=piece of ass.

 

[boedicca]

"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

That is not subject to the NEEDS OF THE MASSES.

What it means is that individual liberty has a boundary which ends where it infringes on the liberty of another.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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?

There, ya see how easy that is?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The government of equal protection has turned into the government of equal stuff.
They aint done yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

#121: Libertarians want all the benefits of living in a free society with none of the responsibilities.

All of us, including the libers, are members of the social compact; as such, we are governed by majoritarian rule subject to the Constitution.

This will not change.

 

[snjmom]

Not equal stuff. A floor below which a decent society will not allow it's members to fall.


Huge difference.

We Americans have been so successful at it that we have lost sight of what a world without governmental interference in the natural distribution of resources looks like.

Millions of these,

in order to support one of these.

That's a truly free market without wealth redistribution. Americans mistakenly believe that they will always be the second.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"we are all individually entitled to the unaleinable, undesputable, irrefutable, undeniable, self evident, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so as long as we do not take the lives, liberties, or ability of others to pursue happiness."

you answered your own question

That is not subject to the NEEDS OF THE MASSES.

What is means is that individual liberty has a boundary which ends where it infringes on the liberty of another.

A post that needs to be seen again

 

[JWBooth]

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

"The masses are asses." ~ Hamilton

 

[JWBooth]

Not equal stuff. A floor below which a decent society will not allow it's members to fall.


Huge difference.

We Americans have been so successful at it that we have lost sight of what a world without governmental interference in the natural distribution of resources looks like.

Millions of these,

in order to support one of these.

That's a truly free market without wealth redistribution. Americans mistakenly believe that they will always be the second.

La vida es muy pinche.

 

[Bern80]

Libertarianism today is mainly the product of a carefully crafted and well funded Koch Bros propaganda campaign. Spanning almost 30 years. You would likely have never heard the term "libertarian" otherwise.

I was dead on, that movement wants all the rights of citizenship with none of the responsibility.

It didn't have to be this way, but it is.

Being a libertarian, I can tell you you're simply wrong on this one. I'm serious. Listen to some of today's libertarians like John Stossel, Tucker Carlson or Jason Lewis, Ron Paul and tell me they don't espouse personal responsibility. I am familiar with some of the modern libertarians, but the Koch's aint one of them so I kinda doubt that's who the modern libertarian is taking his queues from.

How you can't see that as the defining characteristic of today's progressive liberal, not libertarians, is beyond me. Hell, personal responsibiity isn't even in a liberal's dictionary. I don't see any liberals in the health care debate standing up and saying 'hey if we want the cost of health care to go down we all need to take better care of ourselves.' It's liberals who are constantly engaging in class warfare against the rich, instead of standing up for personal responsibility and saying 'know what, if I want more money, it's my responsibility to figure out how to get it and not government's role to redistribute it to me.' Maybe you're just really confused.....libertarian, liberal.....they are similar words I guess. Libertarians don't like personal responsibility and liberals like you espouse it? What a ******* joke you are.

 

[editec]

S(h)ould Individual Liberty Be Subject To The Needs Of The Masses?

Gee, that's a hard one.

Should an individual's freedom to blow though a stop sign by subject to the needs of every other driver on the road?

Only a socialist or nanny-state liberal thinks they should, I guess.

We strong individuals know that any limititation of our GOD GIVEN right to do whatever the **** we want is an affront to LIBERTY.