Individual Rights vs the Common Good

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

Originally Posted by KevK

For many reasons:

1. If you build an addition to your house and it collapses and injures people, MY insurance has to pay for it and MY taxes have to pay for the EMTs to rescue them out of the rubble.
2. If you build an addition to your house and it burns, MY fire insurance rates will go up.
3. If you build the addition to your house and move your in-laws and their kids into it, MY school taxes go up.
4. If you build the addition to your house and I live next door and it ends up looking shabby and unprofessional, MY home is worth less.
I could go on but you get the picture.

So before the approval of building houses and government inspections did they all collapsed. No most people hired working prefessionals to do the work and they were held liable.
This is nothing more then the government looking for fees and other reasons to monitor your house size and tax assesment. Anyone living at a residence with children are required to register to go to school. We have people living in apartments with kids and they pay no school tax, why is that. Plus nobody knows who the hell lives at homes because we do census records only every 10 years. Just because the government says you can build something wont stop them from making it rainbow colors or building something crazy. Some people put large solar panels on their front lawn that is supported by the government and makes the neighborhood look like crap. Again this goes back to individual liberty and you want your neighbor to build items and use colors YOU will be happy with. Also, if their house burns why would your rates go up that makes no sense. Here is another thing I realized government inspections don't mean no fires, no building issues. If you build a crappy deck and it collapses dont be suprised. Insurance companies can send out inspectors for coverage and look for faulty building and elect if they want to cover the house or not. They do this now with home owners insurance.

[LibertyandJusticeforAll]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

You don't support the Constitution at all. Your accusations that I am a Marxist and Communist belie you lack of knowledge of either of those ideologies. What it does show, however, is that you are an "anarchist" - that you do not support the Constitution.

I support the constitution and in fact if we followed it better things wouldnt be what they are today. You have the illusion that maybe we are following it. The intent of the constitution was to restrict government not the people. The people use the government now to get things from other people, or the government uses it's power over people to control incomes and "PROVIDE" and promise FREE STUFF, like property and wealth. So now we have a large government spending the peoples money stealing from one group to give to another. I dont see this in the constitution and this idealogy BY our Framers is not the intent. In fact the told us not to do it. I'm a libertarian/conservative not an anarchist. Those who support bigger government which has given us parts of the communist manifesto makes me question one who believes in the income tax and other taxes and ideas of government functions. Things like national id cards, and real id, RFID chips don't sound like they should ever exist in this country but some think this is a good idea this is a facist idea. I also have reviewed your posts on topics and issues which are also liberal idealogy of government intervention on personal property and the big government welfare state. All of which are closer to the socialist and commmunist idealogy. Some people find ways to ignore or make the constitution so board the government has almost unlimited powers. Governement is to be limited not expanded. "free healthcare" is not constitutional and part of the framers ideas. Many other programs like social security, god and religion are also not to be government funded period. Same can be said of many 4th branch government agencies. So lets review the words of Marx and see what our government has become and idealogy of supporting socialism brings us closer to the communist ideas. Sprending socialism all over the world, neocon ideas of making the world safe for democracy. The idea we must take care of Africa, and the rest of the world makes us slaves to government power and its contining conquest to One World Government and the UN controling nations. Global Warming taxes, Carbon Taxes, Food Taxes doesn't sound like liberty to me and giving more control over our personal lives and our behaviors. This sets up more abuses and control of free markets and personal responisblity. Giving healthcare to illegal immgrants also seems to be something we "break the law" for political reasons. Follow the constitution restrictly and not so openly everyone can use government to FORCE a way of life on everyone else. Government is to be limited and most of these programs and taxes would be gone. We woudnt be supporting and defending half the world because it's not in the constitution. I support the constitution more then anything and I support most of all the ideas of limited government and the framers ideas on the functions of government and it's ROLE!!!! Governments role is not Craddle to Grave and that is not the idealogy of the Constitution and it's framers that is the socialist ideas and liberal ideas this country has distorted and created for class warfare and government dependance.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

I didn't mean to focus only on property rights.

What about the saggy pants laws for example? While I don't really like looking at the guys walking around in them (girls i do like ), that is there right.

Or is it interfering with other peoples right to enjoy the scenery undie free?

In fact, what about nude beaches? why arent all the beaches clothing optional?

Well, I understand the need for some restrictions, but I think most of them are a means of common sense and decency.

The line gets blurred in the decency issue most certainly. I don't think the founders had the intention of freedoms to be a blunt object that people beat each over the head with, yet I don't think it allows us to enforce policy that goes the other way as well.

Whats that old saying "Your rights end where mine begin". That is to say, there is a balance of individual rights in concern with people. Harm is an easy one to decide as if it harms another through the use of someones freedom, then it is obviously a conflict.

The question then becomes the issue of "offended" issues. People do not have the freedom to not be offended. So, in the issue of baggy pants, I would say that would be a violation of someones freedom to restrict them or institute a policy of dress code in that manner.

At the same time, I think there is a reasonable issue of cases like these where both sides can obtain their freedoms without infringing on the others in those blurred areas. A lot of times it is a matter of common decency. Ultimately if we had to establish a black and white position on the issue, I would side with the freedom to over any restrictions. People have the right in public areas, though they also need to understand that they are not free of opinions that might treat those actions negatively. If someone can wear baggy pants in public or go naked, they are also free to receive all comments that they might find distasteful for that action. That is, if you go naked in a public place, don't act offended if I call you a complete loon who is too stupid to realize when they should wear clothing. It goes both ways there.

That said, we are talking about public property and the freedoms established. In the case of all private property, peoples freedoms are severely limited. That is, they are completely at the discretion of the business owner or person who owns the property. That is not to say they lose all their freedoms as they certainly can not be taken prisoner or be forced to do anything (other than leave). They still have a choice as they can choose not to go to that business if they do not wish to follow its rules.

So if a sign says "no shirt, no shoes, no service", then the person has to comply or leave. It can be as limiting as requiring people to wear a tie and jacket or heck, there could be a requirement that a certain word can not be used, etc... All of those "freedoms" we have that are protected, are done so under public guarantee. Those freedoms to not allow someone to enforce another to accept their choice in freedoms.

There is an old saying "You have the freedom to speak, but you do not have the freedom to be heard". Which is to say, you can say all you like, but you can not force someone to listen as it would require the removal of their rights without their choice to do so.

Property is a big key in the exercise of many peoples rights. The restrictions can be fair if people have a choice when it concerns a private medium. The tricky issue is public areas as those ones get a bit touchy, though as I said, I would side with the complete freedom approach in those cases as I think it better suits the purpose of our protections. Freedom has responsibilities, some people just act irresponsible with them.

[sheeshed]

"Oh you mean making your own money and not stealing from you to give to your neighbor because he believes he is entitled to your money for the common good of equality...takes a huge chunk of my money to pay for the "common good" of people who need help...along with some who just want help, and some who shouldn't be here to begin with who are given help to stay here...on and on it go"

Why should we help the people who get high, waster our tax money on drugs/alcohol, immigrents who take our jobs etc. People who think they are entitled to abandon the people who need our help which yes largely relies on tax dollars is a selfish, true capitalistic ideal. Has our society lead us to live this mentality and truley belive it. Essentially this social darwinism (survival of the fittest) we lead us no where. It seems sympathy, compassion and equal oppurtunity to a healthy, sustainable life has vacated our society. This is what capitalism creates exploitation and "every man for him self"....the question is what happens when that neighbour who gets high, or the immigrent who replaces us at our job and so on, become us. Who will be there for us? Hopefully there will be people there for you, unlike the way your not there for the people who need help now.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

what, if any, individual rights should be curtailed or even done away with for the common good?

We make many exceptions already, what would you like to see more or less of?

For example, some people say they should be able to do anything on their property. Most people would disagree. (not many want a skunk farm next door).

Thoughts?

none.

[EinsteinsGhost]

It can't be a coincidence that the last time this thread was discussed, was before 2008 elections. This must be on a four-year cycle as well, especially considering that this was the bumper's first post.