The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals". For example, the Constitution's own preamble begins "We the people..." and the Bill of Rights refers to "the people" over and over and over and over.
You might have missed the subtle nuance but the US government (federal and state) do not exist to serve the personal interests of a king, or ruling class individuals who prey on the people in the name of their privileges.
With government deciding what we "ought"? Doesn't sound conservative to me.
I'm not playing your game anymore. Total freedom leads to anarchy
I'm against anarchy and for government protecting individual liberties - anything more is statism.
No reply needed.
Typical of so many libertarians, you don't want to debate the issues ~
Linda Frances is the one who wanted no reply.
just toss out some of your convoluted logic that misrepresents the natural structure of society and you're done with it.
Yes, because I threatened with physical harm anyone who dared reply to disagree with me - it's right there in my ... oh, wait a minute ...
The state exists to PROTECT COMMUNITIES ~ not just "the rights of individuals". For example, the Constitution's own preamble begins "We the people..." and the Bill of Rights refers to "the people" over and over and over and over.
"People" are individuals - no contradiction of my position there.
You might have missed the subtle nuance but the US government (federal and state) do not exist to serve the personal interests of a king, or ruling class individuals who prey on the people in the name of their privileges.
Individual rights are not "privileges" and belong to each adult (and, to a limited extent, each child). The term "ruling class" applies better to those who would violate the rights of individuals to "protect their community."
How do individuals, say, viewing porn or using drugs in the privacies of their homes thereby "prey on the people"?