Our 1st & 2nd responsibilities reflect our priorities.

Personal attack just indicates that you cannot think out of your self-imposed box.

Why is it the government's responsibility to keep us safe from external threats? If individuals can do everything else without government, then why can't they defend themselves?

Mind you, I agree that government SHOULD provide protection from external threats. I am just trying to think the libertarian train of thought to the very end.

 

An ideal government will protect and defend individual liberty while infringing upon the general welfare as little as possible.

 

As long as the balance is between individuals. There should be no "balance" struck between the individual and the general welfare. The individual should always take precedence over the general welfare.

 

Actually I submit that properly understood, you can't have either without the other.

 

There are very, very few duties of government. Equalizing income is NOT one of them. Defending us from external enemies is the primary duty and function of government. Only government can do this. Individuals can't stand on their front lawn with handguns to defend the nation.

 

Having been involved in multiple conversations of this nature over the years, I feel fairly confident in saying the only freedom many of these folks are trying to protect is their self-righteous indignation to be short-sighted and ignorant.

 

Aren't you the same bricklayer that spent the good part of a thread trying to convince me that free will does not exist?
If an individual does not have free will how can you imply he has the authority to do anything?
Why not have mercy on these respondents, and just admit you're a lifetime NRA member.

 

I disagree.

Are we discussing relationships between equals or relationships between a sovereign and a subject?
Between equals, one's responsibility for them self extends from their authority over them self.
In relationships between sovereigns and subjects, such as between authors and their characters, the subject's responsibility extends from the sovereign's authority over them.

 

The proper limit to individual life, liberty or private property are the lives, liberty and private property of others.
Individual life, liberty or property should not be infringed upon by either another individual or the general welfare.

 

The first amendment is a specific example of how the USA is constituted to prioritize individual liberty over the general welfare. The exercise of free speech often examples how the general welfare may have to sacrifice in defense of individual liberty.

In fact, each and every one of the first ten amendments read like a dissertation on the supremacy of the individual over the general welfare. Indeed, there is nothing more beneficial to the general welfare than the protection and defense of individual liberty.

 

You cite violations of what I present. What I present stands even when it is violated.

 

The problem is that you're addressing some folks who believe that its more ethical to sacrifice the individual for the good of the collective.

 

How is that a "problem"? It's an accurate observation, but how is it a "problem"?

 

I figure folks of that opinion are about as likely to be disuaded from it as individualists are to adopt it.

 

1. Everyone is responsible for their own defense..

2. A soldier in an all volunteer army gives their life, it can't be stolen.

3. The army is paid for by all and serves all.

The problem is when all pay for one or just a few.

 

I prefer clarity to agreement.

 

If the statement in bold is true...then the one above that is based on the illusion of a separate "self". That would render the whole concept of "liberty" as nothing more than an idea born of fear of it's opposite.

 

No...an opinion

 

To create an illusion that your happiness and well-being depends entirely on something that is being threatened.