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?
I know this is an emotional issue for some, because outsiders love to cite slavery as a pathetic "justification" for violent behavior against the U.S. today, or to tear America down, or use it in a lame attempt to demand more money for past grievances.
I think people rightfully go into a defensive mode over this issue; I do it myself when I hear demands for reparations. In our zeal to defend America, or to put her past into proper context, we may find ourselves arguing positions that we normally would not take.
After carefully considering the Rights issue in a featured series on them, I find myself looking at almost all issues as a "Rights" issue or power grab issues by the government, in violation of the Constitution. Did Lincoln power grab? Oh, yes, certainly. Did the States exercise unjust powers over the slaves? Yes, certainly. Did slavery, as an institution, need to end? Yes, certainly. Did abuses and the consolidation of power come about as a result of the Civil War? Yes, certainly.
In parts, we are all correct on our points, but when looking at the key frame of reference as the nature of Rights, the Civil War was justified and slavery needed to be abolished. This part is undeniable.
If more politicians had a hearty respect for the inherent nature of Rights, instead of viewing them as "gifts" bestowed by the Government to the people, like a King making bequests, we'd have fewer abuses by the Government and more freedoms as a nation.
I beg to differ. There are 'left' and 'right' libertarian philosophies that differ greatly. Your problem is your confusion with the use of the terms 'left' and 'right' wrt the major parties.
"The Government exists to preserve the free exercise of our Rights; ergo, individual Rights supercede the wishes of the State."
That is anarchy by definition. Clearly rational people made decisions in which majorities could regulate the behaviour of others. This is why child molesterers are in prison.
Why do you feel the need to deny its validity?
Because it's not true?
How does the above truism threaten your liberty, Gianni?
It doesn't, it's just not the way it works. Whether or not it should work that way is the matter of some debate.