Where does "individual liberty" end and "public good" start?

[ArmedBear]

I merely pointed out a reference to that concept by some gentlemen who were most assuredly not of the statist/controlling type

Interesting point, but wrong.

Perhaps you need to read a little bit about history, particularly about the Federalists, who were the authors of those words and the primary supporters of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton's beliefs were perhaps the most extreme, but hey, if you can conflate Pat Robertson with George Bush, you've got no right to complain about the illustrative use of Hamilton, who was actually a significant player at the time.

Start here (go down to Federalist; the first part isn't all that relevant): http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/ham/hampltcs.html

The Anti-Federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights, which places far more limits on the Federal Government than the original unamended Constitution. Some Federalists, Hamilton in particular, held to statist tenets that would shock both left and right today.

Curiously, modern "Federalists" are probably more like the Anti-Federalists in the 1780s, but that's a whole other tangent.

 

[Henry the Eighth]

I should have stated in my last post that is one of the many things wrong with the Constitution, my bad.

What do you mean gentlemen who were most assurdedly not of the statist/controlling type? Have you ever read the federalist and anti-federalist papers? You can find plenty of statists among the founders if you care to look, not everyone agreed with Jefferson and those on his side. In the end it was a compromise and a poor one at that, seeing how it has turned out.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW where you and I disagree, Keith, is not on whether there is such a thing as the "general welfare", which certainly there is.

The question is whether the "general welfare" is served by taking life, liberty, or possessions from a minority of people.

In short, is the "general welfare" referred to in the Preamble justification for the tyranny of the majority?

I say, no.

Here's one that should hit home for both of us. My family came close to dying in the Holocaust.

If the Nazis killed a lot of wealthy Jews, a minority in Germany, and gave their possessions to a lot of other people, then someone who supports the notion of the "public good" as a goal apart from and superior to individual liberty has no logical moral objection. Yeah, they killed a few million people, but tens of millions benefitted. That's the "public good," treated separately from individual liberty. The advocate of the "public good" trumping individual rights will surely have an emotional reaction to the Holocaust, but what can be their rational objection, if in fact tens of millions of Germans ended up "better off?"

 

[Speer]

From a practical standpoint, I wouldn't trust the thing.

Hell no. Murphy's law.

 

[xd9fan]

Doubtful, many parents will see this as a great safety feature.

until THEY drive home from the office party lit......

 

[lysander]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind climbing in my car and verbally telling the 'puter to take me to xyz, and it does, with no grief. I could be on my WIFI laptop dinking around talking to you Keepers of the Vision while I'm being delivered to my destination.

Trade offs in all things. How much privacy and autonomy do you give up for this luxury?

I posted earlier that this device could be misused by those in power (as technology which grants control over others almost always is)...but I would never ban it outright. Let the market decide (WITHOUT government interference) if it sinks or swims.

...of course we could get into another discussion entirely about whether or not consumers in the market really "make" decisions freely...but I digress.

 

[Henry the Eighth]

The public good, common good, general welfare, etc. are all vague and nebulous terms. I maintain there is no such thing as the public good. For what might be considered the public good for some will most assuredly not be seen as good for others.

 

[Len S]

The group Madd wants to have this tecno babysitter in all new cars by 2008. Remember absent also means abnormal. No sweat to read no start the car. No pupils to see the car stops. So if you have to drive on one of those wonderful bright sunny COLD days you cant do it. In theory it may be a good idea for parents to have the ability to police their kids actions. No system that is easily defeated by gloves or sunglasses will be worth anything. If you can police your children some do-gooder politican will police you. Remember its for the children! Or, bend over were from the goverment we are here to help.


Len

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Lens

could you substantiate what you posted? i tried and couldn't.not so much about the madd group but the other specifications? i hope its not "it coulda happened that way".

 

[Danus ex]

"Toyota: eliminating the consequences of stupidity!"

Why does humanity collectively move toward nanny measures like this? Small groups of morons screw up and make it look like the rest of can't learn from our experiences or the experiences of others. Parents should be particularly appalled by this--how long does Toyota think you should regulate your child's behavior? Protecting children from life only teaches them that others will always protect them from life.

 

[Len S]

I read the blurb about Madd in the Chicago Tribune. As far as the other part of it that is not stipulated anywhere. We were discussing this at the firehouse when we read it and the general opinion among those present was that the system would be of no benifit if it could be defeated by simply using gloves, it is conjecture on on our part but it would not make sense to make a system that was defeated so easily. The stuff about Madd was they want it to be Federal law that all cars made after 2008 would have these systems built in.

Len

 

[SoCalShooter]

Its only a matter of time until we see this.


http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/pods/watchful_eyes.jpg