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.
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.
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy.
-------------------------------------
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."
That is anarchy by definition.
Bizarre comment. - Goes against the very principles of individual liberty.
Clearly rational people made decisions in which majorities could regulate the behaviour of others. This is why child molesterers are in prison.
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished. Public activities can be 'regulated' by reasonable community standards.
Other that that we are at liberty. -- Until a Gianni type legislates away our freedoms.
Why do you feel the need to deny its validity?
How does the above truism threaten your liberty, Gianni?
Because it's not true?
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.
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states.
Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality.
Clearly rational people made decisions in which majorities could regulate the behaviour of others. This is why child molesterers are in prison.
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Public activities can be 'regulated' by reasonable community standards.
Other that that we are at liberty. -- Until a Gianni type legislates away our freedoms.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities.
Merely owning such a rifle is CRIMINAL in your mind, Gianni? Thank you, you've proved my point. Case closed.
You are a constitutional scofflaw.