Quote:200 years ago in the US people had more liberty than they have now, however, abortion was not discussed and laws did not appear until the 1820's.
Definitely not.
Quote:Now, anytime someone argues against these socialist rights, the automatic knee-jerk reaction is to assume the opposition is against the notions of affordable housing, a living wage, free public education, social security or a minimum standard of living. This is not true. These societal boons can be arrived upon without putting every citizen at the end of the bayonet of governmental force.
You know of a place where everyone has these things without the government, or as you so colourfully put it, "the bayonet of government force"? I don't. Everywhere that there is social security, even broadly speaking, there is a government involved. Everywhere there is widespread education even for the poorest, there is a government involved. Everywhere that people can be assured of some measure of health care, or of a minimum standard of living, there is a government involved. Perhaps you might believe that these things are possible without governments, and perhaps you are right. But this is not our experience so far, unless you have some examples to the contrary.
I think liberty is an emergent property. Nature is implacable, and our collective ability to live lives of meaningful choice depends on our ability to overcome those inherent obstacles in a way that helps everyone spend their time on this planet how they choose. Governments, as one of our few effective tools for collective action, give us the ability to make that happen. They also give us the power to do the opposite, and against that, we have to be vigilant. However, as I see it, without the intervention of government, we'd all be a lot less free, not more.
-Jester