I do not advocate unrestricted expression. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be "shelved" in some way or another when it prevents another from possessing any of those three. Sometimes, when the interference extends to all three, the responsible individual must face all three of theirs being "shelved" as well.
Whoa now! This is a very strange statement... Who determines who gives up that which makes them happy, free, or living for someone else?
Because this could be construed as pure communism.
If Bill over here bought the last TV, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last of this food product, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last gallon of gas, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here got the last job, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
Here in the US, we are given the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, not the privilege to have it given to us. This competition is what keeps the economy alive and progressive. If I could just sit on my ass all day and watch TV while someone else slaves away in a factory you better believe I'm warming up that couch.
This is all a matter of resources. There are only so many resources in this world. You cannot possibly divide up the country into perfect sections for people to live on. Who gets the privilege of lake shore property? I mean, everyone has a right to it. Should we dig lakes at the border of everyone's land? I could go on on this topic, but hopefully you can see my point.
This is how I read your statement. You think it's a responsibility of everyone to make everyone else happy... everyone gets a slice of pie, even the person that didn't help cook it.