Our 1st & 2nd responsibilities reflect our priorities.

You might find a new book by economist Dr James Robinson entitled The Narrow Corridor. The premise is the balance between populism and strong government to achieve and maintain liberty.

 

We draw the line at mutuality. If you'll notice, I never write that I want freedom from unjust infringement on 'my liberty'. I always write that I want freedom from unjust infringement on "individual liberty". Phrasing it that why implies the answer to your above question. The natural border is mutuality. The only justifiable limits to individual life, liberty or private property are the individual lives, liberty or property of other individuals.

Your example of a waste dump infringes on the lives, liberty and private property of others.

As to a common defense. The right to common defense extends from the right to individual defense. The justification for common defense is exactly the same as the justification for individual defense. The only degree of individual life, liberty or private property that should be allocated to a common defense is that tiny fraction of a percent of life, liberty or property that maximizes the life, liberty and private property secured.

 

How does Dr. Robinson define liberty?
I define liberty as the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.

 

Exactly!

The question here really should be "freedom from what"?

Freedom does not mean a license to crap on anyone else, but from the rhetoric a lot of Trumpsters use, it sure looks like that's what they think it means.

 

Freedom from unjust infringement on individual life, liberty or private property.

 

It still relies on conditions, such as does your definition of "justice" align with the law or the greater good of society.

 

My idea of what is just is based on mutuality. The only justifiable limits to individual life, liberty or private property are the lives, liberties and private property of other individuals. The general welfare should never infringe on individual life, liberty or private property.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL - TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

 

Unjust is the problem here. How is that defined and by whom? If the state is weak than strong individuals can and will prey on the weak seeing no injustice in doing so. Recall the robber barons for example or the persistence of the caste system in India. If the state is too strong than the risk of despotic rule increases. A balance is needed for a society to achieve it's peak

 

Yes. Just think how many more great things could be done if we did not have Fox News.

 

Infringements upon individual life, liberty or private property other than the lives, liberty or private property of others are unjust.

 

I don't watch TV, so I'm really not following you.

 

Sorry...I wasn't thinking it through as usual. If you don't watch Fox, then perhaps you don't know of the propaganda wars.

 

And there is a caveat to this.

IF I do not have my house and life in order- how in hell will I have anything of value to help others with?
Everyone of us has someone who's primary duty in life is to take care of them. That is the person you see every morning in the mirror.
If each person just took care of that one individual, nobody would be left uncared for.

We can handle helping those who legitimately can't help themselves. It's the ones who won't that cripple our society- along with those who sympathize with them.

 

No. Has it been written about in those terms?

 

What you are proposing is anathema to socialism. What you are proposing is individual liberty. You are proposing that individuals take authority over and responsibility for themselves.

Socialism offers individuals freedom from authority over and responsibility for themselves. Socialism offers individuals the opportunity to remain in the Peter Pan Syndrome of their youth, or perhaps the youth they never had.

In any case, socialism is something that should be provided to small children while they are being taught to take authority over and responsibility for themselves.

 

Yes. It may even be accurate to say that "bricklayer" is the PF version of Fox News.

 

Either way there's going to be a lot to work out. There's a lot to work out if the primary goal is the general welfare, and there's a lot to work out if the primary goal is individual liberty. The two are as different as east is from west. My point, in this thread, is that we should never violate our first responsibility in pursuit of second responsibility. We should not violate individual liberty in pursuit of the general welfare.

What makes the United States of America exceptional is the we prioritize individual liberty over the general welfare.

 

Okay you've stated your opinion...now what is your definition of liberty. Be specific....
*Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases.
*In modern politics, liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
*In philosophy, liberty involves free will as contrasted with determinism.

 

Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self.

 

This is what head-up-your-ass liberalism looks like.

Government's primary responsibility is to keep us safe from external threats. The best (and only way) to do that is to have our young men do whatever fighting is necessary. Sending 80 year old women into battle is beyond idiotic. That's life in the real world.

 

But a balance has to be met between government and your personal freedom for a society to develop to it's potential. If you don't pay taxes then you have no roads or schools. Perhaps you don't drive but that computer you're typing on spent time on the roads, you still need roads even if you don't use them individually. Perhaps you have no children? You still need other peoples children to go to school so they can learn to make the next computer you'll be using. Just because you have a car with ludicrous mode doesn't mean you should go 0-60 out of the school loading zone in 3 seconds, your individual liberty says yes but society says no.
An ideal government will provide for society's needs while infringing on the individual's freedoms as little as possible. It's laws will protect individuals from predators who believe might makes right. But it has to be there and it needs some teeth.