Here is the basic definition of liberty: the right to pursue personal happiness without any interference from the State as long as it does not infringe on the defined rights of other individuals.
Members who define liberty differently than that outlined in the basic agreements that founded this country are not voicing a differing opinion, but are in essence at war with the philosophy and ideals that formed the basis of the USA originally.
The problem with this is that the point at which action infringes on defined rights is constantly shifting. For example, a point on which we have clashed before, environmental regulations. Some businessmen feel that environmental regulation infringes on their right to create wealth. Some individuals feel that the actions of the businessmen infringe on their rights. Both sides, when they lose, accuse the other of being at war with the philosophy and ideals of this country. At what point, when you lose, do you claim that the courts are run by the wrong people, and go to war?
The point is that these lines are not, and cannot be, permanently defined, but are by their nature dynamic, shifting to seek a middle ground acceptable to the greatest number of individuals.
War to defend the rights of individuals in another society who have asked for our help and with whom we have agreements to go to their aid already in place, are honorable, not foolish.
What if some individuals ask for help and others do not? Do we go with the majority, go with the ones we agree with, or go where our self-interest leads us?
Steve |
