Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.
Source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/907467/posts?page=48
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 14, 2015
Author: robertpaulsen/misterwhite , tpaine
Post Date: 2015-09-14 11:02:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 2977
Comments: 28
Misterwhite is again trying his best to convince everyone at LF that he is a conservative. --- He is not, and never has been. This was well established years ago at freerepublic, as is evident by this remark he made back in 2003, here: - www.freerepublic.com/focu...c/907467/posts?page=48#48 >> You believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind. >> Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy. >> 48 posted on 09/22/2003 7:30:14 AM PDT by robertpaulsen Comments anyone?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
Seems perfectly obvious to me. Nothing but God is absolute.
Seems perfectly obvious to me. Nothing but God is absolute. Our constitution makes it clear that the rights of the individual reign supreme, - - as long as the individual does not violate the rights of others. Your opinions about God should not affect the rights of your fellow men.
I'll tell ya. That robertpaulsen is brilliant. I think he should put his thoughts into a book. Perhaps a chapter on the War on Drugs and why we don't want to end it. A chapter on the second amendment and the real meaning of "the people". A chapter on the commerce clause and the meaning of "to regulate". For starters. If he's reading this, I hope he does.
Individual rights have a privileged place, but they cannot be supreme, at least in part because they conflict with each other. Freedom on speech conflicts with national security, and with the need to prevent fraud. Freedom of the press also conflicts with national security, and with the need to prevent the pornographic exploitation of minors. Freedom of religion conflicts with basic human rights to life (no Aztec sacrifices, no honor killings). Gun rights conflict with the need for physical security in some places. The right of privacy conflicts with the need to stop crime. The right of property conflicts with the duty to provide resources for the operation of the state and its defense. And so it goes with issue after issue. Everything must be bound, because unbounded, any given liberty will be abused to the point of depriving everybody of the benefit of the rest of them.
Perhaps a chapter on the War on Drugs and why we don't want to end it. A chapter on the second amendment and the real meaning of "the people". A chapter on the commerce clause and the meaning of "to regulate". For starters. If he's reading this, I hope he does. misterwhite posted Bizarre...
Our constitution makes it clear that the rights of the individual reign supreme, - - as long as the individual does not violate the rights of others. Your opinions about God should not affect the rights of your fellow men. No, they do not conflict, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. So claim the Statists. -- Fraud harms others. Statism again. Get a new line.. Harming minors is criminal. Weird reasoning, in that no religion can justify murder. Please explain, - Ms Brady.. Criminal acts eliminate a right to privacy. Your Marxist philosophy is showing, comrade.. Our liberties are bounded by our constitution, which makes it clear that the rights of the individual reign supreme, - - as long as the individual does not violate the rights of others. Your opinions about God should not affect the rights of your fellow men
Comments anyone? Yup, I have a pile of comments, some or most, of which I don't have time to post here. First of all, what is a right? A right consists of an action that is wished to be done, or may wished to be done in the future by some individual or group that argues it has license to do. Where does one, or a group, get license? It is obtained through a variety of methods: through force of a popular trend, through conferrance by democracy, through conferrance by demogogues, through self conferrance, or by declaring they are (whoopee) God given. People have rights and societies have rights. People can be irrational and societies can be equally irrational in their establishment and imposition of rights. there as the rights demanded by the individual psychopath on one hand, and the rights demanded by psychopathic societies such as the Nazis on the other. Clearly the rights of either the individual of the society should be limited to action that are not obliviously or callously detrimental to the benefit of the whole survival of a good situation over time. Here we get into discussion of philosophy of science which I have been purposely avoiding at this site.
Seems perfectly obvious to me. Nothing but God is absolute ---- vicomte Both the Statists here, misterwhite and vicomte, are hoping this thread goes away, poor lads.. Must be sad to lack the balls to respond..
Firt of all, what is a right? You really should get input from Paulsen and the Comte, -- but we all know that they too simply don't have time to respond, due to acute cases of chickenshititist.
Must be sad to lack the balls to respond.. Hoping it goes away? I went away, because I was bored with the subject, and bored with your repetitious recitation of you opinion. I already know what you think. And I told you what I think. You feel the need to repeat it three or four times. I was content to make my point, go through one iteration of response, and let it be. As far as me being a "statist", the state is, and it isn't going away. Individuals within each state have a God-appointed duty, and that's what they should be doing through the apparatus of the state. The state, like gravity or tides, is neither good nor bad as such. It's simply a force. How men harness the force is what makes the difference. As far as lacking the balls to respond, I am not sitting quivering in fear at your scintillating logic. You're a veteran, an old one: on the front line in Europe in 1956, which was 7 years before I was born. I have a certain respect for age, and I don't want to get too nasty with old men because I don't think it's nice. It has slowly dawned on me that, as far as this website goes, I'm pretty young. That changes things a bit. Now I tend to see stubborn growling and anger as less a matter of principled stances and more a matter of the grousing and crotchetiness of old age speaking, and what good does it do to go and beat up on old retirees whom the world has passed long by? It is not fear or ballessness that causes me to not fully engage with some of the ridiculous things that get said to me, it is pity. You have a childlike faith in an inner ideal of what "rights" are in the American construct that you have probably held since childhood, and that you probably got reading the Reader's Digest. What good does it serve to fight with a very old man, a veteran, over his dreams? None. If that is lacking balls...well, then I guess I lack balls. I think of it more as having a heart. And that's where I'll leave this thread. Fight on in the good fight for your ideals, soldier. Someday you'll break through the lines to green fields beyond. Or you'll die trying.
You claimed: -- Please explain, - Ms Brady.. Criminal acts eliminate a right to privacy. Your Marxist philosophy is showing, comrade.. Our liberties are bounded by our constitution, which makes it clear that the rights of the individual reign supreme, - - as long as the individual does not violate the rights of others. Your opinions about God should not affect the rights of your fellow men. No, you failed to respond to the above exchange, -- because you had no rational answers. You made no response to my questions, because you had none, -- and you hoped I should just go away. You really have no idea how entrenched in statist philosophy your remark is, do you? Thanks for being so blind... You think you're nasty? -- You're a pussy, compared to most of the truely evil crackpots I've been contending with since '98, when in first started posting at FR. Sorry kiddo, but it's clowns like you and misterwhite that really need pity. I've read far more than you about the American Construct, that's for sure, despite your phony claims of educational attainments. -- Dream on that anyone here really believes your self aggrandizing fantasies. You do indeed. We all die, you clown. Feel free to slink away..
Yes he does. Individuals have rights and society is not allowed to infringe those rights (unless actual harm is done). A very simplistic philosophy for very simple people in a simple world. But in the real world, society has to deal with conflicting individual rights. One individual claims the right to play loud music while another claims the right to a good night's sleep. Ask numbnuts whose right should prevail and his answer will vary depending on whether he's the music lover or the sleeper.
I've read far more than you about the American Construct, that's for sure, despite your phony claims of educational attainments. -- Dream on that anyone here really believes your self aggrandizing fantasies. Numbnuts whitey, the coward, chimes in: -- That constitutional philosophy worked well for us until you prohibitionistic infringers gained political control. Loud musical noise can be separated from sleepers any number of ways, - so that nobody's rights are infringed. -- Stupid example, typical of misterwhites inability to debate the issues.
Source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/907467/posts?page=48 Read it and weep, sportsfans.
What a chillingly progressive statement, but I expect no less from a dyed-in-the-wool statist like paulsen/misterwhite. It's beyond absurd that this clown claims to be a conservative. Maybe he's just channeling Spock's communitarian views. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Yeah, he's a legend in his own mind. Perhaps a chapter on the War on Drugs and why we don't want to end it. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much misterwhite, aka numbnuts, believes that the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind. (#12) "I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind." Source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/907467/posts?page=48 GRANDISLAND, -- I'd like to see you defend misterwhite's take on this issue.
I'm not interested in defending another persons "take" on any subject. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
GRANDISLAND, -- I'd like to see you defend misterwhite's take on this issue. Obviously because you're a chickenshit. You can't even DEFEND your own silly takes...
If that's the case, in your mind, why ask me to defend White in the first place? Are you playing games? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No games… I'm showing you and misterwhite up for the phonies you are.
Don't be a tool. You need not convince white or I of your constitutional scholarness... you need to convince the rest of the country. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Keep laughing, --- we're at the point now where I don't have to convince anyone that you two clowns are fools. You're doing a fine job of that yourselves.
When you can't own a 50 caliber, or a hi-cap mag... or a thumbhole stock in that filthy state of yours, why is White or myself relevant to your chains? Stop dodging the crux of this article... you're servitude is willfull and welcomed. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind." -- Misterwhite Source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/907467/posts?page=48 Christ, what an oaf you are, - You don't even know what thread you're on. See above. You're so obsessed with calling Californians silly names because the state is infested with misterwhite type prohibitionists/authoritarians, that you've become deranged. Keep digging, -- your idiocy is becoming interesting..
There ya go... dodging the one fact that sucks the breath out of your credibility... the fact that your whole existence here or even on the defunct LP, your non stop complaining about statist type states, making fun of sheep... and you willfully, intentionally and purposely live in SheepVille.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The right to keep and bear arms stems from the right to protect yourself and keep a free nation. There are many who believe they shouldn't fight to protect for their freedoms for one reason or another. There are those who fear harm should they ever get the nerve to protect their freedoms. That is unfortunate, but I understand there are those who wouldn't fight to protect their nation or their family.
Psalm 37
Christ, what an oaf you are, - You don't even know what thread you're on. See above. You're so obsessed with calling Californians silly names because the state is infested with misterwhite type prohibitionists/authoritarians, that you've become deranged. Keep digging, -- your idiocy is becoming interesting.. I'm not dodging any facts. You seem unable to frame one, coherently. How am I supposed to respond to that pile of bullshit? Lay off the sauce for awhile and get back to me with something that makes sense.
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind."
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind."
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#4. To: tpaine (#2)
#5. To: misterwhite, --- now claims he is NOT robertpaulsen? (#3)
I'll tell ya. That robertpaulsen is brilliant. I think he should put his thoughts into a book.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Individual rights have a privileged place, but they cannot be supreme, at least in part because they conflict with each other.
Freedom on speech conflicts with national security, and with the need to prevent fraud.
Freedom of the press also conflicts with national security,
and with the need to prevent the pornographic exploitation of minors.
Freedom of religion conflicts with basic human rights to life (no Aztec sacrifices, no honor killings).
Gun rights conflict with the need for physical security in some places.
The right of privacy conflicts with the need to stop crime.
The right of property conflicts with the duty to provide resources for the operation of the state and its defense.
And so it goes with issue after issue. --- Everything must be bound, because unbounded, any given liberty will be abused to the point of depriving everybody of the benefit of the rest of them.
#7. To: tpaine (#0)
(Edited)
I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.
#8. To: Misterwhite, vicomte13, Y'ALL (#3)
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind." ---- misterwhite/robertpaulsen
#9. To: rlk (#7)
Yup, I have a pile of comments, some or most, of which I don't have time to post here.
#10. To: tpaine (#8)
(Edited)
oth the Statists here, misterwhite and vicomte, are hoping this thread goes away, poor lads..
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Gun rights conflict with the need for physical security in some places.
The right of privacy conflicts with the need to stop crime.
The right of property conflicts with the duty to provide resources for the operation of the state and its defense.
And so it goes with issue after issue. --- Everything must be bound, because unbounded, any given liberty will be abused to the point of depriving everybody of the benefit of the rest of them.
Hoping it goes away? ---- I went away, because I was bored with the subject,
--- and bored with your repetitious recitation of you opinion. I already know what you think. And I told you what I think. You feel the need to repeat it three or four times. I was content to make my point, go through one iteration of response, and let it be.
As far as me being a "statist", the state is, and it isn't going away. Individuals within each state have a God-appointed duty, and that's what they should be doing through the apparatus of the state. The state, like gravity or tides, is neither good nor bad as such. It's simply a force. How men harness the force is what makes the difference.
As far as lacking the balls to respond, I am not sitting quivering in fear at your scintillating logic. You're a veteran, an old one: on the front line in Europe in 1956, which was 7 years before I was born. I have a certain respect for age, and I don't want to get too nasty with old men because I don't think it's nice.
It has slowly dawned on me that, as far as this website goes, I'm pretty young. That changes things a bit. Now I tend to see stubborn growling and anger as less a matter of principled stances and more a matter of the grousing and crotchetiness of old age speaking, and what good does it do to go and beat up on old retirees whom the world has passed long by? --- It is not fear or ballessness that causes me to not fully engage with some of the ridiculous things that get said to me, it is pity.
You have a childlike faith in an inner ideal of what "rights" are in the American construct that you have probably held since childhood, and that you probably got reading the Reader's Digest.
What good does it serve to fight with a very old man, a veteran, over his dreams? --- None. --- If that is lacking balls...well, then I guess I lack balls.
I think of it more as having a heart. And that's where I'll leave this thread. Fight on in the good fight for your ideals, soldier. Someday you'll break through the lines to green fields beyond. Or you'll die trying..
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
"You have a childlike faith in an inner ideal of what "rights" are in the American construct"
#13. To: misterwhite, --- shows his inability to debate, once again... (#12)
comte--- You have a childlike faith in an inner ideal of what "rights" are in the American construct that you have probably held since childhood, and that you probably got reading the Reader's Digest.
Yes he does. Individuals have rights and society is not allowed to infringe those rights (unless actual harm is done). A very simplistic philosophy for very simple people in a simple world.
But in the real world, society has to deal with conflicting individual rights. One individual claims the right to play loud music while another claims the right to a good night's sleep. ---- Ask tpaine, (I'm afraid to) whose right should prevail and his answer will vary depending on whether he's the music lover or the sleeper.
#14. To: misterwhite, aka numbnuts, believes that the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind. (#12)
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind."
#15. To: tpaine (#0)
I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#16. To: misterwhite (#3)
I'll tell ya. That robertpaulsen is brilliant.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#17. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#14)
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
GRANDISLAND, -- I'd like to see you defend misterwhite's take on this issue.
#19. To: GrandIsland (#18)
I'm not interested in defending another persons "take" on any subject.m not interested in defending another persons "take" on any subject.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
You can't even DEFEND your own silly takes...
#21. To: GrandIsland (#20)
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: GrandIsland (#22)
#24. To: tpaine (#23)
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24)
When you can't own a 50 caliber, or a hi-cap mag... or a thumbhole stock in that filthy state of yours, why is White or myself relevant to your chains? --- Stop dodging the crux of this article... you're servitude is willfull and welcomed.
#26. To: tpaine (#25)
#27. To: tpaine (#0)
#28. To: GrandIsland (#26)
There ya go... dodging the one fact that sucks the breath out of your credibility...
Tue fact that your whole existence here or even on the defunct LP, your non stoip complaining about statist type states, making fun of sheep... and you willfully, intentionally and purposely live in SheepVille.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]