I qualified what can be a justified limit by using the word fundamental. The meaning of course depends on the theory, or scheme that is referenced. Since I was referencing Freedom, not any particular state scheme, I made that statement without qualification and it is true.
The fact is, that the US doesn't guarantee Freedom. It just as well imposes socialism, which more, or less is not Freedom. It is a republic and a a mix of the two can result. How the balance appears depends on the folks the electorate place in power engineer it.
Authoritarian rules are socialist and fundamentally have no rational justification to protect rights. They have no justification under the theory of Freedom. Socialism does justify them. It justifies them under the guise of the public good. The public is the central identity in socialism. The individual is the central identity and focus of Freedom. Freedom has no concern, or focus on the public; it doesn't recognize the public as a valid entity to be concerned with.
" In a just Free Republic, there are limits of that power, but it is certainly a mistake to make the simplistic statement you do.
In a Free republic, socialism is not allowed. The US has the character of a Free Republic only insofar as it protects Freedom and rejects socialism. To do that the electorate must generate representatives that know and respect Freedom and reject socialism and it's authoritarian impositions. It is no mistake to say this and no mistake to protect and support Freedom over the tyranny of socialism. In fact under Freedom evil is defined as that which unjustifiably violates individual rights. Socialism violates them at will. Hence the term, "necessary evil".
"When those are imposed, there is only authoritarian tyranny."
" way too black and white. limiting freedom via regulation of lewd sex acts is not *authoritarian* in a democratically-run community, like the Republic of Texas. Sodomy is not a natural right, although some may like it to be so.'tyranny' is an imposition on our Natural Rights, but this does not fall into that category."
The KISS principle is always appropriate.
Sodomy isn't found as a natural right, because in the search for the collection of what is a natural right normal folks are used. If they had looked at things from the prospective of a homo, they would have found sodomy as a natural right. freedom sees sodomy as just something a person may want to do. I find no way that it and of itself violates anyone elses right. Therefore there's no justification to pose legal sanction. Legal sanction can only justified with notions of public good.
As a practical matter, which is of course what will always be, Freedom and its respect for life and individual rights is always paramount. A homo is and will always be a homo. I find no valid reson for punishing him for what he really is, for his essential leanings and desires. I see the sanctions traditionally imposed on this minority as simply a tyranny of the majority. Folks may find it icky, as I do, but they should acknowledge his right to exist and follow his essential nature.
It's also gay propaganda, as I also pointed out on the other thread.