From this statement, it would appear that "absolute liberty" is not, after all, absolute and only extends so far.
I suppose that depends on if you're looking at it only from your perspective, or the perspective of all involved. Again, your rights end where mine begin, and vise-versa. I have the right to do whatever makes me happy, to the extent that it does not impede you from doing what makes you happy or infringe on your right to life & liberty. If it makes me happy to cover myself in green jello and dance naked to Beethoven, that is part of my right to pursuit of happiness, so long as as I do it in a manner that does not force you to watch or be otherwise negatively impacted by it, taking away your right to pursuit of happiness.
Yes, society does get to set certain standards for what is acceptable, especially in public, and the litmus test for this should be along the lines that arbitrary things that you do that benefit no one and detrimentally affect the public are not acceptable; public nudity is deemed unacceptable most places because it will offend most, and does not benefit the actor. You do not have a right to be naked in public, and they do not have a right to not be offended. In such a case, we accept that what makes the nudist happy pretty well makes everyone else unhappy, and so we disallow it.
If prohibiting you from doing something that simply offends the public will infringe on your constitutional rights, then we don't prohibit it (freedom of speech) unless it infringes on the enumerated rights of others (The fire in a theatre example).
Defining the limits of that extent is where the difficulty is.
See above. The libertarian view is not one of lawlessness, anarchy. There are still things that we can deem unacceptable as a society and prohibit their being done without curtailing liberty. But once more, this is where it can get tricky on account of lazy, disrespectful people. The concept is simple, the execution less so.
Also, defining just what constitutes a right
For that, I defer to the constitution of the United States of America.
Anything can be claimed as a right, but does the claim make it so?
Full circle back to it's your right until it infringes on someone else's.
I recently saw a claim that Christians have a right not to see gay people.
Well, they do, to the extent that their desire not to see them is overridden by the homosexual person's right to exist freely within public and private places that accept the lifestyle. So they can close their eyes or stay in places where the homosexual will not venture. A church, being private property, may be able to prohibit homosexuals. But in public, his/her right to liberty is greater than their right to not be offended by his/her presence.
Progressives claim a right to be free from fear of firearms. These "rights" are claimed. Do they exist?
Same as above. Within their own home or on private property where all rights short of the right to life and liberty (read-not being imprisoned, assaulted, etc) are suspended, they do have a right to be free of their irrational fear. But once again, there is no right to not be afraid, but there is a right to keep and bear arms, so in public, the god given and constitutionally enumerated right wins.
Can anyone point to a definitive, exhaustive, enumeration of rights and their extent. When there is disagreement, who decides?
Our constitution enumerates the rights that are not to be infringed. From there, once again, it's to the extent that you don't infringe on others. And as I said, there is some room for society to determine which rights would be nullified by negative impact on society, etc. But those enumerated in the constitution are not to be infringed upon, period, unless the person exercising them demonstrates that he cannot do so safely, thus depriving others of those enumerated rights. Right to bear arms is absolute, but I think everyone can agree that the limit of that right does not extend to recklessness with a deadly weapon, such as firing randomly in a crowded place. The right is not "to discharge arms in any place, at any time and in any manner the possessor desires". It is the right to bear arms, and unless you exercise that right in a way that endangers others, it is not to be called into question.
When it comes down to it, it is the people, collectively as a society, who decide what rights an individual may exercise within that society. This decision may be reflected in a foundational document such as the US Constitution, or it may be just a matter of respect for custom and precedent as in the UK. These rights and their exercise are further defined by law through the vehicle of government. The court system is the official arbiter of rights and the principle of jury nullification places the final decision back in the hands of the people (or at least, 12 of them).
Exactly. The problem is that we've arrived at a point where a certain group would restrict our rights without cause. There has to be a reason. I have never demonstrated a danger to society, and so they have no cause to restrict my right to bear arms. Yet they are doing it. They are circumventing the constitution and due process, and it cannot be tolerated.
But it is important to note that the rights that are acceptable to a society change over time. and depend the collective perception of what rights are useful or detrimental to that society. The rights that are today supported by society may be swept away tomorrow.
Times do change, new issues arise. Regardless, some rights are absolute and timeless. Our government is presently depriving people of their right to life and liberty without due process, and we cannot accept this.
