Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lots. Your address is known. Your vehicles are licensed. Your criminal record is tracked. Your financial transactions can be tracked. Your use of certain deadly weapons can be monitored and limited. These are all things that law enforcement amasses to be able to enforce laws that benefit society. Your ability to perform many actions that could harm others is also abridged through a large body of laws. This is inherent in the function of every society. You are only really truly free if you're a hermit living in the wilderness; if you've come out of the cave and joined society, then you've agreed to limit your freedom in many, many ways that you take for granted every day.
But that's what you don't get... this is not an individual decision; it is a collective decision. How, on my own, can I give up liberty for security? It doesn't make sense.
Society is not the same as the state, and I don't support the state at all. The government is only there to control the society that already exists. You can, in fact, have a society without the things you listed, and some are simply a result of being on someone else's property. It isn't a loss of liberty to enter someone else's domain and be subject to their rules. It is only tyranny when people's self-ownership/property rights are infringed upon.
As for your question, I'm ignoring what the state says here. 50%+1 voting on how the rest of society must live is a major cause of conflict within that society. I believe people should be "their own country" in a sense, because everyone owns themselves, and no one else. People should be able to join together and agree to sacrifice liberty if they want, but others shouldn't be forced into that agreement when they never agreed to it. So you're correct that it doesn't make sense from the perspective of a collectivist society that ignores self-ownership by forcing the minority to live by the majority's opinion.
Pointing out the motivation is justifying the action. A bank robber may have a desperate need to buy heroin in Baltimore, that doesn't justify robbing the bank.
No, they are two separate things. Lets take your example, a person wanted to buy heroin, but did not have enough money. That motivated that person to rob a bank for the money. If I pointed out the person was motivated to do this crime to acquire the money to buy heroin it does not justify the crime it just points out the motivation for the crime.
No, they are two separate things. Lets take your example, a person wanted to buy heroin, but did not have enough money. That motivated that person to rob a bank for the money. If I pointed out the person was motivated to do this crime to acquire the money to buy heroin it does not justify the crime it just points out the motivation for the crime.
Robbing a bank is wrong, period. So is driving a handful of airplanes into the towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or crashing one into a Pennsylvania field because the passengers revolt.
Robbing a bank is wrong, period. So is driving a handful of airplanes into the towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or crashing one into a Pennsylvania field because the passengers revolt.
Yes, I know someone is going to go all Patrick Henry on me in about half a second. Just pointing out that there are real costs to weigh here on both sides...
On one hand, you can defend your individual freedoms to the max...and get increasingly what they just had in France.
On the other hand, you can have the NSA snoop around more and get less of what they just had in France...but there's a cost to your individual freedom.
With the new tactics terrorists are taking to weave into society and attack "within", how else are societal authorities supposed to find and stop these guys without having prying ears on internet, telecom, etc? It can't be done without that.
So what say you? Do you want more terrorist attacks here like in France, or do you want the NSA spying? You can't have it both ways and get less attacks and less spying.
Then again, maybe even if there are more of those kinds of terrorist attacks here, they won't make much of a splash given the terrorist attacks our own crazy citizens routinely inflict whenever they get their hands on a gun and hit a movie theater or school...
I would rather die in a free country than live under the thumb of a police state. The problem with government is it ALWAYS distorts original intent for control.
The problem with government is it ALWAYS distorts original intent for control.
We see the same thing with the homosexual "rights" movement. Those intolerant and bigoted bullies take one line about "equality" out of the Declaration of Independence and use it to undermine and ultimately destroy our civil society and culture.
So what say you? Do you want more terrorist attacks here like in France, or do you want the NSA spying? You can't have it both ways and get less attacks and less spying.
.
I say we keep the 4th amendment and stop illegal NSA spying. Yes, we can have it both ways. The NSA does not need to violate our rights to do their job well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
