Replies

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

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

At #21 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?
29 jonestown

I am comfortable with as much liberty that is consistent with everyone have like liberty.
The only limitation I insist on is the same one John Stuart Mill insisted on: liberty is limited when such liberty would harm others.

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation.
48 rogerv

Your last line illustrates again the gulf between Constitutionalists & Communitarian's.
Our governments were instituted to preserve individual liberty, not to impose 'regulations consistent with liberty'.

Individual liberty is not the whole concern of the Constitution. There is also concern for the common good. This is why there is in the preamble and description in article one of the powers of congress, some concern for the general welfare. This is why there is eminent domain: the reasonable expectation that some property would be needed for the common good. Case in point would be the building of infrastructure: roads, canals, electric, telegraph and telephone wires, water and sewage lines. The building of the transcontinental railroad was largely subsidized by taxpayers and the land acquired through eminent domain, but we all benefited from the cheaper prices afforded by cheaper transportation.

I think, by the way, that there is an argument here that socializing some costs can be justified even for a market economy: because cheap transportation and cheap communication reduce production costs and enable sellers to find buyers more efficiently. Sharing the the costs of infrastructure makes markets more efficient.