Liberty and community

Libertarianism is prominent in my world lately, both in family postings on Facebook and in a difference of opinion in the Austin Chronicle.
Being a conglomeration of both liberal and conservative, it serves me here as a different sort of definitional foundation for both of them in its own definition.
"Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose". This old saying serves well to illustrate the differences in the stands of all three philosophies. Liberals and conservatives both would accept the statement, but have different stands on who is interfering with whose freedoms. This stems from their different understanding of the effects of others' actions. Conservatives truly believe that gay marriage affects them, even if it occurs in other states. Liberals say proudly that none of us are free till all of us are free, even though in a physical, material sense this may not be true.
Libertarians however, truly seem to disagree with the saying totally. IMO they seem to believe that we can all have virtually unlimited freedom. This, if true, would make them an antiquated system of thought indeed. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding, we ALL these days live in a society, even the most isolated tribes. And as long as we do, we must temper our freedoms with respect for each other. True, there is much negotiation involved in this tempering. Most, if not all, laws involve weighing two or more rights against each other. Think about it.
And, as society grows larger and more crowded, more laws are called for. We may get tired of dealing with all these laws, but in essence they are needed. They may be altered as time goes on for changing situations, but basically they are needed.
Gun rights are one of the current issues being debated among the three groups, and here libertarians are quite far removed from the other parties. I have heard it said among them that these rights should not be infringed upon, yet many of the constitutional rights that stand equal with the 2nd amendment have been regulated. There is no unfettered right to speech, or to freedom of assembly, or to freedom of religion. All of these have had restrictions put on them over the centuries, for good or bad, to accommodate perceived social needs.
Why should the right to arms be any different? In fact, most people, even professing libertarians would not take this position to its ultimate end - a private person allowed to own bombs.
Guns are not one of my big issues, but I cannot see the problem with background checks and limits on ammunition. This does NOT take away a right to own weapons to any sane, law abiding person.
And if the fear is of what may come next, I say deal with that when it comes. As hard as it is to do even a simple thing on this issue, it seems as though that fear is not worth bothering over.
Liberty is a wonderful thing, but as long as there are billions of people in the world, true unfettered liberty will belong only to dictators.

Francis Christian

Not only am I surprised at Pope Francis, I am surprised at how well received his messages are. Now he's even person of the year.
Not a surprise in this world that a christian acting like a christian should engender such a reaction, but who would have thought that the world would be so ready for it? I guess as long as he is not expecting other christians to follow his lead, he's doing great.
Just imagine a world in which ALL christians lived humbly and exalted others, even those that conventional wisdom deems sinful and unworthy. A world in which ALL christians asked "Who am I to judge?"
Guess we're not quite there yet.

Something for everybody?

So Republicans are against a federal minimum wage increase because different states have different costs of living. OK, fair enough.
How about this then?
We increase minimum wages, state by state, according to the living wage there. So everyone who works full time could have a decent paycheck according to their region.
Then everyone would be happy?