All right Dennis. I help you out in between your passages below. --- Dennis Tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Mitchell wrote: > "Individual rights do not trump on the rights of the > collective. Government > is there to be sure the collective rights are > intact." - Collective rights in your context is much different than what I said. Collective in my use refers to American citizens in general. The easiest example is that an individual does have freedom of speech, but that ends with yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Somebody gets hurt, the fire yeller is in legal trouble. His individual right, did not trump that of those movie-goers. - > I want to thank Eric Mitchell for clearly > articulating the fundamental > difference between libertarian/conservative thought > and so-called > progressive/leftist thought. - What? We have an understanding of the constitution and not general contempt for government? - > Those on the left, as described by Eric, see this > nation as a collective, > with the role of government as one that decides "who > gets what" in managing > that collective. The majority rules and the > government is king. Period. - No, not period. Those on the Left not only read the juicy Articles and Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but we read the reason for writing the document in the first place. It's clearly stated in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. What's unclear about the role of our government after reading that? It's clear, and to the point. 'We' not 'I'. 'Promote General Welfare', not 'Get government off my back'. - > > Those of us on the right see this nation as a > population of individuals, > each pursuing happiness as we see fit, protected by > the Constitution, whose > primary role is to define the LIMITS of government > and to protect the > minority from the tyranny of the majority. There > are no "collective rights" > in the Constitution, but rights of individuals. - OK - History lesson time. The Declaration of Independence was a document of statement. It explained why we were breaking away from mother England(not really. Taxes is what drove us to pull the trigger. We took all their crap until they started messing with our money). That's were the pursuit of happiness is penned. We were governed then by the Articles of Confederation. Strong on individualism, strong states rights, weak central government. Sounds familiar? Like heaven to a lot of revisionists. It barely lasted. It was a joke that was so bad that we called a constitution convention and the framers got together and formed a 'more perfect union' by 'providing for the common defense'(not just you and your neighbor) and 'promoting the general welfare'(we rise and sink together) and stregnthening the federal government. The Constitution desribes the structure of government and how each entity acts within and between each other. It states pretty much nothing of individual rights until you get to the Bill of Rights. That reads on how government may interact with its citizens. The Constitution (actually the Bill of RIghts), protects that rights of the collective, or citizens. Just like I stated the role of government should be. - > True conservatives consider > democracy "mob rule" and that the true measure of a > free society is one that > includes the right to own private property, free > market economics, and the > rights of free speech and association. And the > biggest obstacles to these > freedoms are taxation, regulation and litigation. - I do beleive that true conservatives consider democracy 'mob rule'. I certainly do beleive that. At what time in our history do you think we had a 'free society' as you dscribe it? I can't find it. The closest I can find is during the McKinnley Presidency. Then he got shot. - > Regardless of what you've > heard from your unionist pappy, that's what a true > conservative is. Trust > me. All of our political positions flow from those > beliefs. - Those beliefs have very little or no foundation in the Constitution. - > This difference in philosophy goes a long way in > explaining why we can't see > eye to eye on something as simple as a smoking ban. > > So I offer these definitions in hopes that future > debates can be conducted > with intellectual honesty, with a mutual > understanding that we have honest > philosophical differences on all topics of public > policy that can be traced > to our fundamental beliefs in the role of government > in a free society and > not for any other reason. - I thank you for the definitions but allow me: The Left belives that the government has a role in society. The Right pretends the government does not. Eric Mitchell Payne Phalen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
