Ok so this will be a more philosophical post. I rail quite often, both here, and other places, private conversations, and what not, that individual liberty is the bedrock of society. That society is a cumulative production of the sum of individuals, thereby making individual liberty the superior consideration that a free people should have. But as anyone should, I seek to mineralize this theory into my persona, and to do so, I have to be able to answer for it. Therefore, I ask the question:

SAYS WHO?

We have competing theory in our constantly evolving culture, the theory I subscribe to, of individual liberty taking precedence of the good of the whole. The other side seeks superiority in the well being of the whole. Where individual liberty can be preserved, fine, but if removal of an individual liberty is better for the whole, its considered a necessary sacrifice.

To start to answer this, we have to do a few things. One, we have to remove God, and religion, and any interpret able sources from the equation, as interpretations can skew.

My goto answer for this in the past has always been the writings and leanings of our founding fathers. But then again, they were only men, same as any of us, and were constructing what was necessary for the time. Is this set of principles one that transcends time, or are our needs and necessities subject to change. Need they be open to evolving along with the other aspects of our society? Or are they hard rules that must be adhered to preserve our humanity?

My next goto answer for this is the laws of nature around us. I believe this presents a much stronger argument than anything man kind has written or spoken or thought. Life is about struggle for resources. Life, unfortunately for some, is all about winners and losers. If there had been no competition for resources in the early days of life, perhaps there would have been need to evolve. Perhaps we would still be goop in a pool if we didnt have to change to match our surroundings, and win in the competition for resources. If we seek, as a society, to remove the competition for resources, we hit a wall. There is no way to distribute the resources at our disposal in such a way that all mankind can reside at a comfortable level. Indeed, in spreading the wealth, you spread the poverty further.

Im interested in the opinions you guys have on this classic clash of ideals. I'm not so much questioning my position here, as much as I'm questioning why I hold it. My goal is to solidify it, but I really do want to hear some well reasoned arguments for the opposition.

I am very comfortable with what you have put forward. The balancing act between individual liberty and the good of the collection of individuals is, I believe, a moving target. Different groups place emphasis on different things and will thus diverge on many issues to varying degrees. The individual must determine if the possible benefits of membership in a group outweigh that which they will be expected to give up to attain that membership.

I would say individual liberty ends where the individual liberties of two people collide. We cannot have complete liberty because at some point the liberty enjoyed comes at the expense of another. This is the equilibrium that societies must contend with and there will always be those that are not happy; some saying it's going to far, others saying not far enough.

As someone who is very confident in my abilities to provide for myself and who trusts my intentions with regard to the considerate interaction with my fellow humans, I come down on the maximum individual liberty end of the spectrum. That position is often misportrayed as "survival of the fittest." That's not entirely true. Getting back to my boundaries of liberty idea, while I may be fitter than someone else, I don't believe that entitles me to take things from them just because I can. that violates the idea. I expect others to act the same way. Don't try to take things from me. THAT is where survival of the fittest comes in. I will stop you.

Now, here is where the power of the group comes into play. Suppose you are not fit enough to stop someone encroaching on your liberty. Say you are set upon by several people. Being a member of a group means you can count on your fellow group members to come to the defense of your individual liberty.

This is exhibited physically in the form of institutions like the military and the police. It manifests legally in the form of laws and regulations. While this is good, even these things can tip too far and you find yourself losing individual liberties under the banner of protecting them.

When that TSA "agent" is grabbing your nuts at the airport, they would say they are protecting your liberty from being killed by a terrorlst, but they are arguably accomplishing that goal by undermining your liberty to not be assaulted against your will. I would rather they do a better job screening bags and flying air marshalls on the plane and get their hands off my junk. If somebody trys to hijack my plane with a fingernail file it's going to go very badly for him.

It's a very sticky discussion and I don't think there is one answer, but rather a myriad of very close ones and they are all individual observer and situationally unique.

Too deep for me.

Or maybe lazy.

But good reading.

There's no doubt that the solution is an amalgamation of varying degrees between the two extremes. But there comes a time, occasionally, where a decision has to be made as to how to settle a dispute between interests on both sides of the argument. Its at those times that we have to have a barometer in place of which of the two major interests take precedence, individual liberty, or group interest.

A great example of this is imminent domain law. At first you might think, simply because imminent domain law exists, that means the choice has already been made, in favor of group interest. But not so. Imminent domain is a limited practice. Its in the actual instances that the final decision is made. Kelo -vs- New London is a prime example. What constitutes a valid group need that is superior enough to overrule individual liberty? Before the precedent in this case was set, imminent domain was predominantly reserved for construction of public services, schools, fire stations, and what not. But the argument in Kelo/NL sought to stretch the limits, and allow a city government to invoke imminent domain based on greater potential tax revenues that would be generated from the new development.

I strongly disagree with the findings of the court in this case, but the point of this post is to ask, why? I personally value individual liberty and property rights, first and foremost, above all. But what supports this, I wasn't taught that way, honestly, I wasn't taught either direction in my early years. Conservatism, and indeed libertarianism, is something I've embraced in adulthood. Yes my family is traditionally Republican, but I'm really the first generation in my family to break the ties with a party, and adhere to an ideal set instead. I'm not a wealth person, I dont own any more than a small bit of land my house is on, so I'm not a conservative for self-serving reasons, I genuinely believe that valuing the individual, and his/her rights above all else, is the proper and right frame of mind. But when a liberal has equally strong beliefs to the contrary, how do I build a foundation that states the they are wrong? Is it really just a matter of opinion, or is there some bedrock ideal that supports my belief over another's? Or is there some bedrock ideal that can show that my outlook is wrong?

Imminent means "coming soon" or "overhang, project"

Eminant means "prominant" or "famous"

Immanent means "inherant" or "innate"

You've brought up an interesting conversation. I know what you're trying to get at, however, I think it is best answered by a question... What is compromise?

stebo0728 wrote:My next goto answer for this is the laws of nature around us. I believe this presents a much stronger argument than anything man kind has written or spoken or thought. Life is about struggle for resources. Life, unfortunately for some, is all about winners and losers.

For billions of years, biology has been ever improving. A gazelle has evolved to be the way it is because gazelles that weren't that way couldn't escape the cheetah. A cheetah is the way it is because cheetahs that weren't that way starved before they reproduced.

There are great ape species that have evolved to live relatively solitary lives, but they are rare (I can think of only the two species of Orangutan). Humans, as evident from our history, have evolved through the development of tribal tendencies. It's what organizes us from neighborhood watch to ultranationalism. To the extent that we recognize individual liberty, it does not come from nature.

That isn't to say that it isn't important or a very real societal consideration, but that an appeal to nature is just as fallacious as an appeal to dogma. There has always and will always be a representative and an individual liberty principle that guide our government. Two branches serve the former, and one the latter. To the extent that you want to upset the balance in one way or the other, however, there is no escaping the fact that you're going to have to get a vast majority to agree with you. Ideally, the compromises work themselves out in the process.

Until they don't. Just today on NPR, I heard a Republican Representative assert in an interview that the Democrats are perpetrating voter fraud. Believe it or not, it's that kind of comment that scares me and makes me want to stockpile weapons and ammunition. When you start seeing your tribesmen as foreign enemies, you destroy the tribe.