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

[Bern80]

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.

Someone has clearly not picked up on the theme of the thread. Scroll up a few posts ed. It's not hard at all.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Balderdash.

Such third world extremes of masses living in poverty with a small elite living in luxury are the result of totalitarianism and kleptocracies, not free markets.

 

[Publius1787]

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[/url]

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.

Alexander Hamilton. I was hopeing that someone brought that up! Lets see what did Alexander do? Well, for one, he left the Constitutional Convention in protest with his his other delegates and when he returned alone he had no vote in the process (all delegates needed to be present to have a vote). Before that, however, he was a part of the monarchist party and advocated for lifetime appointments for the president and senate members. He also campaigned against a Bill of Rights because he thought it limited the power of the federal government. Though it was true that he was on the comitee on style in the Constituional Convention every attempt of his to word the constitution in a manner of which gave unlimited power to the federal government was immediatly shot down as shown in James Madison's published Notes on the Constitutional Convention. Not to mention that Alexander Hamilton never objected to James Madisons Federalist # 41 before the constituion was ratified though they were meeting on a regular bacis. With that being said, would Alexander Hamilton, with his obvious unlimited view of how the federal government should have been, result to extraconstitutional measures and claim as if they existed there all along? Absolutly! The record is perfect clear on this.

LOL! That was a stretch. And now you biasly pick who is a signer of the Constitution? LMAO!!! He every much a father as Madison, even though you don't like it. And his view of the operation of the GWC was shortly carried out after the signing, as I am sure you are aware.

So I will ask you the same question that I ask everyone who advocates your position. If Article One Section Eight gives Congress such broad authority (never heard of before until FDR threatened to pack the courts because they were shutting down his extraconstituional legeslation) then why did they enumerate the 17 powers of Congress? Good luck with that one because no one to date can answer that question. Why? Because it points out the largest hole in your arguement; The fact that the states that were so jealous of their own power that they would have never given such broad authority to the federal government. And thats why they enumerated the 17 powers of congress. If you were right then they would not have had to enumerate anything but the first paragraph.

I also see you havent voted yet.

The GWC was used numerous times before FDR, and you might dig into your question, even though it does nothing to nullify my position. The president can be impeached, but has no connection to the GWC.

George Washington - 1790

"Hamilton, with Randolph’s and Jefferson’s opinions before him, spent a week working out what became one of his masterful state papers. He carefully refuted the arguments of Randolph and Jefferson and made a powerful case for a broad construction of the Constitution that resounded through subsequent decades of American history. He argued that Congress’s authority to charter a bank was implied by the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that gave Congress the right to make all laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its delegated powers. Without the such implied powers, Hamilton wrote 'the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed without government.' That may have been Jefferson’s ideal, but it was not Washington’s. On Feb. 25, 1791, the president signed the bank bill into law."

President Lincoln, congress passed the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against you. Personally, as a Liberal, I would end all Federal Government spending, and give the citizens the power to fund their government issues as they please.

I have allready addressed Hamilton. You have provided nothing to refute the facts of Hamiltons circumstances and why he would advocate for such a position. Furthermore, you, like everyone among the hundreds I have asked that question to, failed to answer it. Why? If you are right about Article 1 Section 8, then it should be a simple task to asnwer such a direct and straight foward question. But you have failed to do so, just like all thoes who Madison asked the same question to failed to do so. Moreover, Artical 1 Section 8 was never viewed as such a broad authority as it is today, until, FDR intimidated a conservative Supreme Court in to bowing to his wishes through deamonising them in Fire Side Chat #9, with the hopes that the desperate American people of the Great Depression would give him support in stacking the Supreme Court, because they were blocking the largest welfare legeslation ever seen in the United States.
If you really want to view a great example of how congress felt about the issue in the early 19th century you should look up the debates when Savanna Georgia burnt down as annotated in the book and free online resource, "The Founders Constitution". Congress, though they wanted to help, voted down the legeslation because it was not covered under Article 1 Section 8, and they could not take money from one state in order to bail out another.
So heres what we have. I have explained Hamiltons obviously rediculous views on government, lack participation in the Consitutional Convention in protest, lack of a vote in the convention, Ideas of his monarchist party in the convention, and the fact that his attempt to change Article 1 Section 8 was shot down (something I can provide better detail on upon request). Furthermore, I have also provided you with the explained view of the constitution in this reguard as defended by the Federalists in "Federalist #41". Finally I have asked yo the same question that no one in thei history of the debate on this issue has been able to answer. Thus I will ask you one more time.

If Congress has such broad authority under Article 1 Section 8 then why did they specifically enumerate the powers of congress?

I dont mean to be rude and I dont mean this as an insult, but to hold your view without being able to answer that question is to abandon all reason in favor of ..... well, what? I think you need, as I do, to do some hard studying of this issue and be objective of the facts. One of the best books I have been able to find on this subject is called "To Provide for the general Welfare" by Theodore Sky. He writes the facts, adds analasis, but comes to no concludsion. It is an incredably fair and objective work on the issue.

Oh, by the way, Lincoln Suspended the writ of habeious corpus without the permission of congress, he raised armies without the permission of congress, he jailed the press who critisized him, and a whole slew of other unconstitutional measures. While Lincoln was a great standard of "natural law" before the war, during and after he abandoned all of it! Lincoln does not help your case.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Something tells me not only that you do not have an understanding of the American definition of liberty, but you also did not read the op.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

I think thats why, knowing Jefferson, he included them both. Do you agree?

 

[Publius1787]

"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.

You do understand that I deliberatly put that there for that very reason?

 

[konradv]

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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

Oh no Many of us are well aware of the effort to turn as many as possible into this

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Intresting! Very! So our rights are granted by governments? Thus our rights aren't unaleinable? If you had read ALL of my OP carefully, though it looks like youve taken a snippit from it, I laid out the very point of where our rights end thus clearing up exactly what you are speaking about above. The U.S. Constitution was never intended to restrict our UNALEINABLE rights in the effort to protect the guy who is not as prosperous as others. Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness; thats it. It was never intended to advocate for life, less liberty for some and extra rights and privilages for others, and the guarentee of happiness. Strength has nothing to do with it. And if our rights arent unaleinable and are granted by the mercy of government then the government can also take them away. I see you voted "somewhat". There is no difference between "somewhat" and "yes". Because if they can "somewhat" take your rights then they have the power to compleatly take your rights. Because there will never be a definition of where that "somewhat" will end. And if government is the granter of rights and there is no such thing as a natural right, then government has the power to determin if you have any rights at all and which specific rights can be sacraficed for nonexistant rights. There is a reason that entitlements are not called rights though natural rights must be taken in order to create entitlements and welfare programs. Our individual unaleinable natural rights were not dfined but reckonised as self evident truths so that no one could take them away; not even the vote of the majority, which is why we have the Bill or Rights and we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Our rights are so self evident, they are so mush of our natural property, that even the founding fathers knew that government did not have the authority to vote them away because they werent property of government to begin with.

Scraps? What do you mean by "scraps"? This sounds to me like the Karl Marxian idea as private property as theft. I suppose that instead of "living off of the scraps" of employers you would tax such employers in order for them to live off of the scraps of government with the stipulation that they fail to earn money. The Founders never intended for such a lack of incentive to chase prosparity. This is not only evendent in the debates that took place as recorded in James Madisons Notes on the Constitutional Convention but the voting rights of the states as well. You see, they knew that if thoes who did not have property were allowed to vote (which is a privilage, not a right, as thoes who dont own property do not pay taxes "representation without taxation") it would create a false constiuency of supporters that will vote the unalenianble right to private property away from thoes that have it to thoes that dont. They viewed it as a way of corrupting the voting base and thus should not happen as it will create a bunch of polititions who would gain their support by giving out more welfare than the next.
However, placing all of that aside, if the Founding Fraimers wanted congress to have such a broad power under Article 1 Section 8 then why did they specifically enumerate the powers of congress? Nevermind, I know you will not answer that question as no one in the history of this debate who holds such a position has or could.

Please read these quotes. And dont tell me that their only one quote taken out of context because I will swamp you with many many more!

Thomas Jefferson: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it."

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

Benjamin Franklin: I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer

 

[Publius1787]

So I will ask you the same question that I ask everyone who advocates your position. If Article One Section Eight gives Congress such broad authority (never heard of before until FDR threatened to pack the courts because they were shutting down his extraconstituional legeslation) then why did they enumerate the 17 powers of Congress?

I have asked this innumerable times and have never received a sound response in return.

If the Hamiltonian interpretation is sound, then only the first and last powers granted to Congress are necessary; that the people that wrote, debated and ratified the Constitution found it necessary to include those other 16 clauses indicates that the interpretation is unsound.

Hamilton, like many modern liberals, self-servingly argued whatever position that best suited him at the moment, and, on the topic of general v enumerated powers, contradicts himself. As such, his view on the issue cannot, for anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty, have any use in determining the intended effect of any given part of the Constitution.

This leaves Madison.

No one in the history of this debate has been able to answer that question. Its amazing how many people are waiking up to that question, as first asked by James Madison in federalist #41, and unless someone who holds the view opposit of ours can answer it then they will NEVER have a legitamate argument based upon fact and reason. There is another great awakining among us and it has proved just how great our constituion and form of government works!

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams -

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Again, you offer no effective response.
Again, my point stands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

**** 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 ****. Not because you ever say anything that matters, dickweed.

Wow. What a child.

 

[dilloduck]

The constitution doesn't protect free speech, it protects speech.

I'm sorry -- I thought you understood the meaning of the term "free speech".
Pleases allow me to be more clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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.

Limited freedom sounds like an oxymoron to me. What I interpret to be my freedoms are in eternal conflict what you intepret to be yours.

 

[Intense]

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

"The masses are asses." ~ Hamilton

So was Hamilton.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Limited freedom sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Only if you do not understand the nature of freedom.

What I interpret to be my freedoms are in eternal conflict what you intepret to be yours.

Show this to be true.

 

[Publius1787]

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 ****. Not because you ever say anything that matters, dickweed.

Wow. What a child.

Why do we even give him the time of day? If his way of arguement is by avoiding the topic and the facts, through namecalling and profanity I dont see a reason to respond to him at all.

 

[dilloduck]

The constitution doesn't protect free speech, it protects speech.

I'm sorry -- I thought you understood the meaning of the term "free speech".
Pleases allow me to be more clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

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.

Limited freedom sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Only if you do not understand the nature of freedom.

What I interpret to be my freedoms are in eternal conflict what you intepret to be yours.

Show this to be true.

the "nature" of freedom ?
are you sure you are not referring to someones defintion?

 

[Intense]

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.

We have your word for it? What Country is the first picture from? What is that Country's position on Inalienable Rights?

What Country is the second picture from. What is the percentage of Private Capitalism to State Capitalism? Free Market to Monopolies? Private Property Good.... State control over all Property Bad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution doesn't protect free speech, it protects speech.

I'm sorry -- I thought you understood the meaning of the term "free speech".
Pleases allow me to be more clear:

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.

Only if you do not understand the nature of freedom.

What I interpret to be my freedoms are in eternal conflict what you intepret to be yours.

Show this to be true.

the "nature" of freedom ?
are you sure you are not referring to someones defintion?

No. I am not.
Freedoms are limited by their nature in that they exist so long as they do not run afoulf of the freedoms of others - my right to swing my fist ends just as it hits your nose.

Thus, my freedom to swing my fist has a limit; it never conflicts with your right to not be assaulted by the fact that my freedom ends before your nose is struck.

Now...
Show that what you interpret to be your freedoms are in eternal conflict what I intepret to be mine.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm sorry -- I thought you understood the meaning of the term "free speech".
Pleases allow me to be more clear:

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.

Only if you do not understand the nature of freedom.


Show this to be true.

the "nature" of freedom ?
are you sure you are not referring to someones defintion?

No. I am not.
Freedoms are limited by their nature in that they exist so long as they do not run afoulf of the freedoms of others - my right to swing my fist ends just as it hits your nose.

Thus, my freedom to swing my fist has a limit; it never conflicts with your right to not be assaulted by the fact that my freedom ends before your nose is struck.

Now...
Show that what you interpret to be your freedoms are in eternal conflict what I intepret to be mine.

I am free to do whatever I damn well please and you are free to try to stop me. If you create a scenario stating that I am NOT free to do something I am free to do it anyway. I am free to break any made made law that you try to impose on me and there are even man made laws that protect me in doing so. You MUST follow a set of laws to attempt to punish me for exercising my freedom or I can walk away from punching you in the nose scott free.
are you sure you're not confusing freedoms from what is legal ?