Interesting reply.

I had no particular form of -ism on my mind, for my philosophy to turn against the current system and trade in freedom for other benefits (stability, order....), if it were ever to fail absolutely miserable.

Anyway Nazi facism was the wrong answer to a failed state/society during the late 20's/30's and as similar conditions like back then will not return it's not a viable/nor desiarble solution for future maybe crisises and so I'm not suggesting it as an alternative philosophy.

My whole point is, that I don't view our current system to be death proof and defendable forever. If it fails (for whatever reasons), I could imagine to be in for a make over, even if it's a non libertarian and even violent one.

Reading other posters positions and "love" for their understanding of the US constitution, just makes me understand that I don't have the same faith and love for our German equvilant of it.

It's just a piece of paper, worth something only as long as most people respect it and it offers benefits and answers/stability to actual economic, social, political problems/struggels.

If that's not the case anymore, another future form of ...-ism will have to replace it.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

Yes, because its the community which he lives in. He sells his good to society, society protects him, provides him with freind, money, leisure industry and so forth. it provides him with employees, with customers, with protection from fraud, oppertunities for trade, roads etc. His business and quality of life would be impossible without society and thus he owes something to it. At the same time it is also in his interest to get people working; that means quicker economic growth, more customers and more money flowing. He actually gets back what he puts in (many times over)

__________________

But society provides him with that stuff in exchange for his products. So why does he owe them more than just trade? For example, person A owns a farm, person B does not. So person B goes to work on the farm, and person A either gives him food, or money with which he can buy food. Why does person A also have to give person B a house, clothing, healthcare, education.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Because the workers labor provides more food than the worker takes.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

I can understand some of your perception. I think our US Constitution is very object oriented and can be applied (up to the the Bill of Rights) to a hypothetical UN federal government.

I think most of our problems stem from having a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and not being able to muster up enough zero sum faith for political purposes to actually bear true witness to our social contract and Constitution.

I, Like you, am somewhat a Rationalist... protect my own interests. I agree. But in some way, rational behavior must give way to collective interests... because what is good for the whole is good for the individual, but sacrifices must sometimes be made.
However, i am also a secularist (keep your religion in your church and home) and a nationalist. Capitalist to the fullest. And an old School Republican above all. I believe in the protection and the exercise of personal liberty. and the use of capital punishment.

Lpfan

__________________
Like Playing Poker? Wanna make some money?
Earn Rake-back when you sign up!!!

What is the political philosophy of people who claim religious morals but do not want to actually solve official poverty through market friendly means?

The workers labor doesnt provide any food. He provides labor. The farmer compensates him for that based on some negotiated wage. The farmer owns the food and the job.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not buying it. Until relatively recently blacks, indians, women, and other proscribed groups most certainly did NOT reap what they sowed. That's an ideal we are still working toward. You might say our willingness to strive for such a standard is a reason for our success. And we have made more progress toward that ideal in my lifetime than at any other period except the brief revolutionary and civil war periods.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Society is the entire community, not just his customers; why should I give him roads, protection, trade oppertunties etc. etc. if I don't interact with him or buy his products. Why should we care about the baby on the street... indeed why should we even offer protection to anyone under your arguement?

__________________

Because its in your self interest. Everyone bands together for mutual protection. No one has the upper hand. But, you should build a road for a businessman so he can transport his product to you. The road is payment for his products if thats what is negotiated. If you dont want to buy his products you shouldnt encourage him to sell them to you. Likewise, if the businessman wants to sell you his products he may choose to take action to encourage sales. Which is a far remove from him owing his very existence to the state and therefore being required to provide his ability to all. At least that is my philosophy and what this country was founded on, and with which I agree.

Govt exists to serve people. People do not exist to serve others.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that man gets his rights from God so if property is a right then logically, one can infer that it comes from God.

On earth it probably isn't possible for us to make an entirely comprehensive list. Even our founders recognized that and that was why they added the ninth amendment to the Constitution.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

I also believe government's chief responsibility is to protect us. But unlike many here I believe that protecting us from our own government is much more important than protecting us from outside threats. I believe that far too many people are willing, in order to "protect" the country, to sacrifice the very rights and freedoms which make this country worth protecting.

I also believe that in addition to protecting people from unjust political rule and from invasion, government also has an obligation to protect us from the power of concentrated money. The corporation. I really believe that the extent of the power of corporations is something the founders never imagined. I think if they had they would have built more protections for citizens from those entities. There is more to freedom than the ability to make lots of money at someone elses expense.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Well, I would say that people serving others voluntarily is a good thing but it shouldn't be forced. Government is force and ultimately exists to protect and secure people's rights. Thus when government goes outside of its legitimate function (to secure people's rights) and forces people to do what they deem to be the right thing it is a violation of the people's rights and goes contrary to the very purpose of government. Hence a government of this sort is tyrannical. (Just as the Declaration of Independence says) Individual people should help each other and give charity but not out of compulsion from the government. It should come from their own free will.

I think we are on the same page though.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

I think our Founding Fathers resorted to that propaganda and rhetoric because of the previous insistence on the divine right of monarchs. What authority could be more "divine" than that already established right of a monarch, to keep their "flock" together?

Our First Amendment and Ninth Amendment are part of the supreme law of the land.