With all due respect ,the founders would not recognize the nation today . It is indeed post -Constitutional regarding the constraints they placed on the government . The opening premise that founders used was to limit society's power over each individual. Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

So your against liberty because it represents change to you? You would rather evict legal citizens then chase illegals from your boarders as all comers are welcome here?

---

I'm not evicting anyone. It's their choice to stay or go.

I saw this somewhere --

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I'm not evicting anyone. It's their choice to stay or go.

I saw this somewhere --

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

---

And no where does it say to just come anytime you want. On any boarder immigration must be controlled. If you don't then you may find yourself short of resources and then your stuck with nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

With all due respect ,the founders would not recognize the nation today . It is indeed post -Constitutional regarding the constraints they placed on the government . The opening premise that founders used was to limit society's power over each individual. Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.

---

I am sure this was there intention, but( as you say) it doesn't seemed to have worked out that way.

However, this does not negate the fact that liberty and social contract are very much interwoven. As I said, the Founders would have understood this idea very well.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

I can't agree with this. The reason is that liberty stands alone. Once you get into the creation of classes with and without rights then you have division. Liberty is not about division. A society can create laws on the consequece of actions without stepping on the rights of anyone. Liberty is at the heart of freedom. It allows a person to choose what they will and do as they please. It doesnt come without responsibility. But to enjoy liberty it has always had a price to pay. Right now in America too many have decided that the price is too high. It is the root of what is screwing up this country. That is why we stand so divided.

---

Actually it is all about division. Namely, the distinction between positive and negative liberty.We cannot live in a democratic society without a continual playoff of positive and negative liberty.

It is difficult, if not impossible to create a law without it having some impact one some individual(s) or groups in society. Liberty can never be about individuals doing as they please. Not within a democratic society at least.

"Liberty standing alone" is one of the reasons you are experiencing problems.



Tut

Impicit in the social contract is a surrender of some natural liberty in exchange for legal rights .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Actually it is all about division. Namely, the distinction between positive and negative liberty.We cannot live in a democratic society without a continual playoff of positive and negative liberty.

It is difficult, if not impossible to create a law without it having some impact one some individual(s) or groups in society. Liberty can never be about individuals doing as they please. Not within a democratic society at least.

"Liberty standing alone" is one of the reasons you are experiencing problems.



Tut

---

How is it about division by law? To me there are 2 types of law. One being that which are laws meant to govern a society. And second would be laws meant to rule a society. The later ruling class of laws are those that infringe on liberty. The former are laws in which a socieity can grow.

Example:

Making a law against stealing to me is a law meant for governing a society.

Making a law against speech such as hate speech is a law meant to rule a society. It negates ones liberty.

Liberty is a very precious commodity that requires delicate upkeep. If we are not all mindful it will die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Impicit in the social contract is a surrender of some natural liberty in exchange for legal rights .

---

Hi Tom,


I think you are saying that in a state of nature men have certain rights prior to there being a organized society. Once society is organized then there is a necessity to give up some of these rights. This would be a type of explanation found in Locke's 'Second Treatise of Civil Government'

I'm not actually 100% sure what you are actually getting at.



Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.

---

I think we have gotten beyond confiscation of individual property, don't you Tom. The general welfare is a concept that has failed to take root.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

How is it about division by law? To me there are 2 types of law. One being that which are laws meant to govern a society. And second would be laws meant to rule a society. The later ruling class of laws are those that infringe on liberty. The former are laws in which a socieity can grow.

Example:

Making a law against stealing to me is a law meant for governing a society.

Making a law against speech such as hate speech is a law meant to rule a society. It negates ones liberty.

Liberty is a very precious commodity that requires delicate upkeep. If we are not all mindful it will die.

---

Hi Dad,

I didn't actually say that positive and negative liberty was necessarily about division by law.

I am not sure about the distinction you are making between laws that govern a society and laws that rule society. Your example of free speech suggests to me that you are making a distinction between natural rights and the rights granted by organized society. The idea is that because some rights are natural and existed before an organized society, the society has no rights to take them away.

Again, I am not 100% sure as to what you are saying.


Tut

The society makes the rules, it is cost of being under the protection of the society. Sure there is a trade off, I can no longer kill my neighbour when he offends me, but I know society will avenge me if he kills me. You cannot have the dichotomy where you can have the right of individual action but deny that right to others. We have those who proclaim liberty is the right of individual action, unmodified, unconstrained and those who proclaim liberty is what remains when all rights of individual action are extinguished, the truth is somewhere between, and is what is reasonably allowed by society, but it is in flux

Liberty, right of freedom, In the US Constitution, this was written during a time that men still owned slaves. So did the writers of our Constitution men for black people to be "free" if so why did they not pass those laws to free them. Women did not have the right to vote, in most, hold office and had little rights. So where they free. I don't see it.

The issue is that the US is a Republic, not a democracy, The "Liberty" is that of society, not the actual individual. The person or individual is free in only as much as society allows though the morals that are acceptable and the laws placed on them.

Most of the wording comes from English Common Law and goes back to the idea of freedom from the Magna Carta that gave rights to the landowner and the freeman.

The issue as it does with most Old English is that we put modern ideas and meanings on words that when written were far from the meaning we try to give them.

Rewording things has long been a common use to provide or change the prospective. The Communist party, in specific the Fabian movement of it, that believes in change from within, a revolution using a governments own laws, changed its name and even its advertising to be "democratic" not communist many years ago. We see tax go to investment, we see liberal go to progressive.

We now look at liberty, not as a oppression of a society but as a individual person.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think we have gotten beyond confiscation of individual property, don't you Tom. The general welfare is a concept that has failed to take root.

---

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant .

Quote:

---

I think you are saying that in a state of nature men have certain rights prior to there being a organized society. Once society is organized then there is a necessity to give up some of these rights. This would be a type of explanation found in Locke's 'Second Treatise of Civil Government'

---

Yes ,that is how the social contract was defined by Locke We give up some rights to the government in exchange for the security the government can provide ;but natural rights are not surrendered .

Quote:

---

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant

---

.
But it is entitled to promote the general welfare and in fact this is a right enhrined in your Constitution, this right existed before it was though prudent to elaborate various other rights

Quote:

---

promote the general Welfare

---

,
I know you hate the though of government operating in this area, Tom, but it was part of the very ideas that created your country, the general welfare, and idea that was right up there with liberty and pecularly enough tranquility. How much tranquility have you seen lately, has this aspect been forgotten?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant .

---

Yes, this is the basis of the theory. But in the end it is still a theory regarding the origins of society. Some people accept the theory and others reject it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombder55

Yes ,that is how the social contract was defined by Locke We give up some rights to the government in exchange for the security the govenment can provide ;but natural rights are not surrendered .

---

It isn't quite that simple when it comes to modern times. Locke did argue that all men are created equal in terms of the rights they naturally have. Locke also wants to say that such rights existed before there was an organized society to grant such rights.

Today you will find that this doctrine is widely interpreted as saying that each individual is to be afforded equal treatment when it comes to the law. 'Due process', is an obvious example of how it works. But in the end it is still a balancing act on the part of the legal system.


Tut

Quote:

---

It isn't quite that simple when it comes to modern times.

---

The erosion of liberty is easily justified in modern times . At what point do you slip into a soft tyranny in exchange for what are called positive rights ;and who's rights are gored (specifically property rights ) to guarantee the distribution of those positive rights ? And are positive rights God given ,or natural rights... or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian behemoth to enforce them ?

Tell me Tom did those who wrote your constitution and conferred all those rights on you consider the possibility that people would be living cheek to jowl in your over populated cities. Did they envisage the situation where armed gangs roam the streets because of these rights? Did they envisage the situation where the freed slaves would have to fend for themselves? Where the general welfare is ignored because of these rights, of course they didn't

They created a governing document that could adequately address 21st century issues. They created a "Republic ,if you can keep it "(Benjamin Franklin) . We were warned that the system will collapse when the public realizes they can' vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury'. We are fast approaching that point if we haven't already crossed the Rubicon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The erosion of liberty is easily justified in modern

---

I think anyone ( such as myself )who puts forwards the statement. "It isn't that simple", does so because it actually isn't that simple. We live in a changing and complex society because most advanced civilizations do advance towards complexity. Dealing with this complexity is an ongoing problem. I think you know my thoughts on going back to an idealized time in history in order to save the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tombder55

At what point do you slip into a soft tyranny in exchange for what are called positive rights ;and who's rights are gored (specifically property rights ) to guarantee the distribution of those positive rights ?

---

As far as I can see there is no actual point we can define. What is soft tyranny to one man is another man's opportunity. Soft tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tombder55

And are positive rights God given ,or natural rights ...or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian behemoth to enforce them ?

---

That is a difficult question to answer. Some people would argue that all rights are artificial. That is, the only reason we have rights is because there is an organized society that grants us those rights. They reject Locke's idea that there can be a state of nature whereby individuals naturally possess certain rights prior to their being an organized society to grant such rights.

On that basis they would also argue that the "Hobbesian behemoth" is exactly the same as every right we have in,'or out of society' They are all a creation of the state.


I DON'T support this view for a number of reasons, but the reason I mentioned it is because, of your question,"Are positive rights God given, or natural rights... or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian Behemoth?"

My answer is that it is not a legitimate question because to answer the latter part of your question in the affirmative would be to draw a false dichotomy.

Tut

Give up Tom your strawman is on fire