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

[JWBooth]

fuck 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.

Quite often threads over a dozen posts long degenerate into this.

 

[Intense]

You guy''s do realize that the man that gave us the concept of "Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness" tied that in to the Two Great Commandments. "Love God with all of the Strength of Your Being" and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. Government as we recognize it here, is by the consent of the Governed. We decide as a whole what we are willing to put up with. We establish a Federal Government to maintain the Structure and the Peace, to implement Justice through due process, created to serve the need of the society as a whole, by consent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am free to do whatever I damn well please and you are free to try to stop me.

Send a threatening e-mail to [email protected]
Walk into a shopping mall and shoot all the little old ladies.
Barge into a sorority and rape all the blondes.

You're equating "freedom" to "whaever I am physically capable of doing".
This premise is unsound.

 

[Publius1787]

You guy''s do realize that the man that gave us the concept of "Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness" tied that in to the Two Great Commandments. "Love God with all of the Strength of Your Being" and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. Government as we recognize it here, is by the consent of the Governed. We decide as a whole what we are willing to put up with. We establish a Federal Government to maintain the Structure and the Peace, to implement Justice through due process, created to serve the need of the society as a whole, by consent.

The purpose of government is to provide thoes essential services to sustain life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Thoes are the only needs of scociety as they are self evedent unaleinable truths. Anything else is a restriction of liberty and thus counterproductive of sustaining life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are a country of nagative liberties not positive ones.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o[/ame]

 

[dilloduck]

I am free to do whatever I damn well please and you are free to try to stop me.

Send a threatening e-mail to [email protected]
Walk into a shopping mall and shoot all the little old ladies.
Barge into a sorority and rape all the blondes.

You're equating "freedom" to "whaever I am physically capable of doing".
This premise is unsound.

Hardly----I am free to do it if I am willing to fight the consequences that society tries to impose on me. ( I'm also free to do anything I am mentally capable of doing to ). Since you are free to try to stop me it works out quite well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Intense]

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?

Everything has effect, thought, word, and action. Try using Conscience to determine what is within your right of free will. What is Necessary, what is optional, what truth has greater weight or depth, importance. That is part of why we have Courts to serve Justice and sort out.

 

[Intense]

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.

There is Value, Ideal, Principle, which do motivate and determine both action, remedy, even sometimes, compromise, in resolution. Where that fails, the courts will decide for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

That's really quite simple:
There's no sound argument to support the premise that you are free to do whatever you have the physical capacity to do.

 

[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.

There is Value, Ideal, Principle, which do motivate and determine both action, remedy, even sometimes, compromise, in resolution. Where that fails, the courts will decide for you.

They do not however determine what my natural God given freedoms are. They cannot stop me from acting, thinking or speaking. They can ONLY make attempts at inhibiting me. Courts merely represent the masses trying to subdue my freedoms because they happen to think that it works out better for the whole.

 

[Intense]

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.

There is Value, Ideal, Principle, which do motivate and determine both action, remedy, even sometimes, compromise, in resolution. Where that fails, the courts will decide for you.

They do not however determine what my natural God given freedoms are. They cannot stop me from acting, thinking or speaking. They can ONLY make attempts at inhibiting me. Courts merely represent the masses trying to subdue my freedoms because they happen to think that it works out better for the whole.

Exactly. There are times when it is justified, and there are times it is Tyranny, be it the Tyranny of the Majority or the Minority, is insignificant to what is Right or wrong. That is also when unintended consequence comes into play, when bad decisions are made and enforced. Sometimes the responsible Parties pay the price, sometimes the whole society. What is Paramount is that Justice be served.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"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

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.

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to.

Aw, jeez......it magically-changed....again....to issues of Property.

​

 

[Intense]

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.​

The Thread Title remains the same. Both concerns are born of John Locke's Philosophy, and are related in general principle. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness includes Private Property under the Pursuit of Happiness. There are twe schools on this the English, "Life-Liberty-Property" and the French adaptation, Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness". Jefferson being partial to the French, went with that. It's all related. What is not related is the Government picking winners and losers, redistributing wealth, just because they can. It is usurped Authority. Want to talk safety net, I'm with you, by the consent of the Governed, not because a Extra Constitutional Authority demands it. See the distinction???

 

[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

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.

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to.

Aw, jeez......it magically-changed....again....to issues of Property.

​

Liberty is just the transfer of different forms of property. The post you quoted shows the property of thought transformed in to physical property. It is impossible to speak of liberty without speaking about the property of the individual.

 

[Publius1787]

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.​

The Thread Title remains the same. Both concerns are born of John Locke's Philosophy, and are related in general principle. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness includes Private Property under the Pursuit of Happiness. There are twe schools on this the English, "Life-Liberty-Property" and the French adaptation, Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness". Jefferson being partial to the French, went with that. It's all related. What is not related is the Government picking winners and losers, redistributing wealth, just because they can. It is usurped Authority. Want to talk safety net, I'm with you, by the consent of the Governed, not because a Extra Constitutional Authority demands it. See the distinction???

Jefferson was also a little worried about the thought of property as it related to slavery. Thus, the pursuit of happiness. If I am not mistaken one of the drafts did include the word "property".

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Where's the paper work for this social compact?

The social compact that he speaks of is widly considered self evident, beyond despute, unaleniable. See Cicero, Locke, Jefferson.