Replies

The Government *should* exists to preserve the free exercise of our Rights; ergo, individual Rights *should* supercede the wishes of the State.

This is the sort of 'ought' that's common in left-libertarianism. Unfortunately, even many left-libts agree that once power is consolidated, it's continued use in the best interest of the people would be a rarity given historical precedent to the contrary.

You will not find anything along these lines in the constitution, certainly not the one that Lincoln took an oath to uphold.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

This is from the Declaration of Independence. It is one of the founding principles of this country.

Again, the purpose of Government is to preserve the free exercise of our Rights. I entered the caveat "should" because in America today, rights are being denied and infringed constantly or being fabricated out of whole clothe. In short, I do not disagree with your points on the consolidation of power at all.

Moreoever, the Constitution does not grant us our rights, it merely enumerates the ones we already possess by virtue of our humanity.

The issue is very simple: you either believe that Rights are inherent and that a just government must preserve them, or that Rights are not inherent but merely "bequeathed" to us by the government. If you believe the former, then those Rights must be extended to ALL. If you believe the latter, then Rights can be withheld from any group, at any time, for any reason based on a determination of the Government (hence, supporting the States Rights argument concerning the South's position on the institution of slavery).

The Government *should* exist to preserve the free exercise of our Rights; ergo, individual Rights *should* supercede the wishes of the State.
Folks can banter all they want about state's rights versus the power of the federal government, but they cannot claim that the state had the "Right" to deny Rights to a particular group of people (without just cause or as a result of punitive measures for criminal activity), without placing into peril their own claim of inalienable Rights.
490 -tex-

Well said.
It has always baffled me why some here at FR seem so eager to deny their own rights. - Counterintuitive.

As Gianni demonstrates in his specious objections, below:

This is the sort of 'ought' that's common in left-libertarianism.

No such thing as a 'left-libertarian'; socialism & libertarianism do not co-exist in rational men. The principles are opposites in theory.

Unfortunately, even many left-libts agree that once power is consolidated, it's continued use in the best interest of the people would be a rarity given historical precedent to the contrary.

You are belaboring the obvious in your attempt to connect the left with libertarians. There is no connection.

You will not find anything along these lines in the constitution, certainly not the one that Lincoln took an oath to uphold.

Remove the 'oughts' from tex's line above, and you get a perfectly valid observation on the basic purpose of our constitution:

"The Government exists to preserve the free exercise of our Rights; ergo, individual Rights supercede the wishes of the State."

Why do you feel the need to deny its validity?
How does the above truism threaten your liberty, Gianni?