Replies

I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. I think our grip on civil liberties has always been shaky--anytime we find a problem seriously enough to declare a war on it (including one that involve actual wars) we see illegal wiretaps, no-knock policies, taking of property, suspension of free speech, free press, even freedom of religion. I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights. (BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)

Here's my take on what has gone wrong with our civil liberties, in no particular order: we like freedom for ourselves, but don't trust other people with it; we are in too big a hurry to get things done, and push through some policy initiatives and laws without having a public discussion (indeed, debate) about how those policies will affect everyone involved; and we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward). I think by disciplining ourselves to demand rationality in the policy making process, we give ourselves time to find alternatives that are liberty-protective.

Let me give a specific example. I wish I knew more details about this. There are some takings going on somewhere points east of where I live invoking eminent domain, but in a novel way: some municipalities are forcing people to sell their homes (sometimes at below market value because of the way they clear whole blocks of houses) not for public goods like highways, but so that a developer or corporation can build on that same land properties that will bring in higher taxes. The argument is that this produces jobs. But, on the other hand are these people who are loosing their homes, some of which have been in the family for generations. That strikes me as wrong. I think that is an abuse of eminent domain. I'm wondering if the debate had been more public and everyone in the debate had their interests taken seriously, if the decision might have been made differently. At any rate, it is my hope that greater rationality here will lead to greater freedom. After all, I think if people were more rational, they would realize there are good reasons to voluntarily help others.

some municipalities are forcing people to sell their homes (sometimes at below market value

Again, very good example. This is lawlessness masquerading as lawful. The key to prosperity is legal clarity, legal predictability, and honest courts. The precise mechanisms are less important than that they be transparent and honest.

What you are witnessing in the abuse of imminent domain is what makes a third world country "third world". If such a thing becomes widespread here, the US becomes "Guatemala with color television" to quote an old movie from way back.

Dishonest men can pervert any system if they are allowed into power, and if the people lay down for it. Its not the system, its the character of the people.

rogev:
In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?

By following the basic principles of our Constitution.

No infringements on individual liberties allowed.
18 jones

I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. -- [snip] -- I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights.

(BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)
-- snip --

-- we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward).

21 rogerv

You distinguish regulation from suppression; - thus, you think our rights to keep & bear arms are qualified by an obligation to protect others from 'harm'.
Unsaid is your assumption that guns are harmful objects and must be regulated. Your belief is being used by government to infringe by over-regulation.

It is not a 'belief' but a fact that the government has not honored its commitment to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, among many others.

Indeed, -- we disagree on the basics themselves of what liberties people have, not only on what they "should be allowed to have".
In fact, your use of 'allowed' is a good illustration of how deep our disagreement lies.

How can we rationally institute changes in our society if we can't even agree on such basic principles?