Do you guys think pollution harms anybody? Yes? Than pollution should be heavily regulated. No? Why not its harming somebody isnt it?
You guys freak out over the diseases Southern Americans can bring into this country so you want to regulate the border, what about diseases that can infect foods, you dont think the government should regulate food to keep it safe and clean for us and prevent us from eating diseased food? What insane hypocrisy, this is how I know you guys are racist you scream "Dont let the Mexicans in they will bring diseases!!" but when a corporation gets regulated by the FDA to make sure he doesnt allow diseased foods to be sold, you say "Damn totalitarian Hussein Obama taking away our FReedumm!!!". You blame everything on Mexicans and the black president, but NOTHING on corporations who can indeed also spread diseases and should also be regulated like our border is. Essentially, brown people spreading disease is a huge problem we have to shut the border down over, but white people spreading disease by selling unregulated food? "THATS FREEDUMM!!! M'URICA!!!!!!"
Do you consider self-destructive behavior that harms no one else an exercise of freedom? Because it isn't.
Words have definitions, the word freedom is clearly defined. free·dom noun \ˈfrē-dəm\ Definition of FREEDOM : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action The constraint to not damage property or prohibiting the killing of another person are limits to freedom. Any law limits freedom. So yes, if you want to disregard those limits you'll likely end up committing a crime. If you choose to live with other people, the only way to not be limited by that relationship is to completely dominate the people around you. To deny them freedoms. Most of us don't think that's a reasonable approach, that our freedom to kill others is often less important than another person's freedom to not be killed. We think people have a right to certain freedoms and those freedoms should be safeguarded, even at the expense of other freedoms. Good laws are an attempt to find a fair way to live with others. To determine, document and clarify agreed upon compromises in freedom that guide us where one man's freedom's intersect with another man's rights. Good laws protect important freedoms at the expense of less important ones. Even if it doesn't feel that way, good laws make us more free.
This is very common, but it is wrong. Freedom isn't the goal, happiness is. Freedom is a part of happiness, and sometimes a means to it, but it is wrong to say that freedom in itself -and not as a part or means of happiness- is the goal. That is where I think libertarianism and other freedom-oriented thinking goes very wrong.
Yes, the GOOD LAWS. Many laws just are not necessary. That's my take on it anyway. - - - Updated - - - I haven't really put much thought into that. I guess that depends on the situation.
Yup, that's an important conditional. Even with the best intentions, we have passed many bad laws which were either unnecessary, unfair, or inconsistent. People ain't perfect, we get some stuff wrong.
I absolutely do know what I'm talking about. I just haven't explored every human situation at this time and I highly doubt that you have. The topic that you are talking about has a lot of branches to it. From eating a cheese burger to killing yourself. Have you analyzed everything in-between? I was just being honest with my answer.
There are a lot of laws I'd like to change or do away with. But I'm only 1 partner in 316,000,000, so the best I can do is voice my opinion about those laws and offer what I hope are better solutions.
Your assessment of me as a person is not interesting. If you could articulate a fault in anything I said, that might be interesting.
I don't see how one can be happy without freedom. IMO, it is the most basic desire of a large portion of humanity. Some, to be sure, prefer the soothing comforts of despotism, instead of the tempestuous seas of liberty, to quote jefferson. In any analysis of governance, happiness is irrelevant. Even the american founders only said one of our natural rights is to PURSUE happiness, which is a freedom choice, not a destination. No govt can provide happiness. They can be oppressive & redistribute, or protect property & provide liberty. They can provide the setting for us to pursue happiness, but they cannot deliver it themselves. You merely dismissed all my points with a sweeping 'wrong!'? Rebut the points, if you think they are wrong, & show where my reasoning or conclusions are invalid. Human freedom most certainly is the goal for many of us. THAT is what we want, & will fight for it. Happiness is an elusive dream.. i cannot fight for your happiness, only your right to pursue it as you see fit. That is freedom. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson
If your looking for a sparing match it won't be with me. I'm confident enough that I don't need to prove my self to anyone. I have said how I feel about freedom and also liked a few post I agree with and I stand by it. P.S. no I do not believe in anarchy.
I don't give a damn about your self, any more than I give a damn about your opinion of mine. It's your retarded idea of freedom I take issue with. Indeed you have, and have thereby demonstrated that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
First off there is no reason for you to be rude. Second I just want to be left alone. I'm tired of people trying to control me. I do understand the concept of giving up some freedoms for others and I'm fine with that. If a person is reasonable and understanding, in other words, a good person there you have it, all is good. Example.......... I live in town. I asked my neighbors if they minded if I put a few ducks in my back yard, they were fine with that. But if they were not then I would not have done it and I would not have felt like they took something from me. My actions do affect others I get it.
I am the type of person who can get along with everyone but I'm learning that some folks do need rules. I have always strived to be fair my whole life. If a person needs threats/rules to behave then it's not in their heart to be good people to begin with. Those people can leave me alone so I can be free of them as well.
My point is very simple. Happiness, not freedom, is the ultimate goal. I've already said, freedom is part of happiness, and a means to achieve happiness. As you say, you don't see how anyone can be happy without freedom, and I agree. You also say that no government can provide happiness, but they can provide the setting to for people to pursue it, i.e to use freedom as a means to achieve happiness. You are already agreeing with me, but you don't understand it.
I agree with this but I am not trying to write a law here. I'm just interested in how people felt about freedom. But I am glad that the thread has expanded because it has made me consider other things. I still feel the same though, but have dived deeper into the meaning of freedom. I temporarily forgot that many do need rules to behave. I don't. So you guys are right not everyone is like me.
I do not see a clearly spelled out list of rights, rules, & qualifications as being 'threats'. All of law is technically a 'threat' because consequences are usually part of any law. There are many areas where law is not some moral absolute, but just practical solutions for us to get along with others. For example. A stop light is not needed on some lonely country road. But a busy urban intersection needs some kind of order, or there is chaos & accidents. If you say, 'I don't need no stinkin' light to tell me what to do!' You may cause an accident, & would likely get a ticket.. for breaking a law. Is this law some inner moral code, that all people recognize inherently? Of course not. It is just common sense organizing, for the purpose of preventing accidents, & making it easier for people to drive in the city. Almost everyone likes freedom. But most people realize their freedoms are necessarily limited by the collective. It is just part of society. The more of us there are, the more regulations we need, in order to keep from killing each other. You are not THAT unique, & i completely understand your longing for freedom. But your individual freedom is always limited by others. No one has absolute freedom, unless they are a hermit away from all the trappings of human society. I had a list of freedom points in post 14.. this was one: The individual's rights to life & property are paramount, with only minor limitations by the collective where other's rights are affected. This concept has been debated & pondered by philosophers & thinkers for millennia. Locke & Jefferson were big proponents of liberty. But just because my liberties are sometimes limited by the collective, if they are taken under the guise of 'the collective good', it becomes oppressive. That is the tricky balance we have in our modern society. Large populations bring the need for order & limits of some individual liberties, but that cannot be used to trample our basic rights.
Most of the time, i find myself in agreement with your posts. I'm sure there are times when misunderstandings come from fuzzy definitions or unclear points. Since this thread was about freedom, & the correlation of it & govt, my response was in line with that. Happiness is irrelevant from a governmental perspective. I want my govt to secure my basic rights, & provide justice, & not worry about my happiness, since that is too subjective to be a collective goal. If my basic rights to life & property are secured by a limited, subservient, efficient govt, then i am very happy. If my rights are trampled, i am micromanaged, nannied, & coddled in every detail of my life, under the guise of making me happy, i am NOT happy, but offended by the distorted view of freedom that govt is presenting. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ~Thomas Jefferson
Yes, but why do you want a limited and efficient government to worry about securing your basic rights, provide justice, but otherwise basically leaving you alone? Because that is the best recipe for a society which gives the most people the most happiness. Freedom is a goal only because it's a means (and part) of the ultimate goal, which is happiness.
