@hightor,
Quote:
Notice the tactics at work here:
You're a fine student of blatham's rhetoric.
Pretty clear that McG's point was not that the right to "unlimited consumerism" is the basis of our "national purpose."
Rather it is that, as Americans, we are not limited to only our "needs" and certainly not to what an elite ruling class defines as what we
need.
People don't always make good decisions about satisfying their desires and in certain cases it makes sense for a society to prohibit the effort of its members to secure what they might want. The desire to have the property of others is a perfect example of the sort of "consumerism" that human societies have been prohibiting for thousands of years.
Every modern society establishes some limits on the rights of their members to satisfy their wants even if they don't involve outright theft, and the vast majority of the folks you might describe as 2nd Amendment "purists" or "gun-nuts," accept this as reasonable and necessary. The argument frequently made about a right to own nuclear weapons as a logical extension of the right to bear semi-automatic weapons is patently absurd since virtually no one in this country claims a right to own atomic bombs.
There is, quite obviously, a difference of opinion as to the reasonableness and necessity of a great many of the limitations imposed or argued for as respects such "wants" as
- Ending one's own life
- Aborting an unborn child
- Mind-altering drugs
- Extreme body alteration through surgery
- Selling or purchasing sexual favors
- So-called "industrialized" farming of both plants and livestock
- Owning semi-automatic weapons
In each case, those who favor the limitations or prohibitions can make a fairly coherent case for an adverse societal impact of the "want" in question, and in each case, there are no few people who will argue that either the impact is not as adverse as claimed or that the right of an individual trumps the concerns of society.
The way to resolve these differences is to act within our democratic system of laws. The way to affect anything other than a temporary resolution is make one's case upon facts and reason that persuade rather than emotional tirades that coerce.