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.
At what point does the pursuit of freedom become the pursuit of lawlessness?
Absolute freedom is impossible as long as we are alive. As long as we are alive and occupying a physical body, we will always be beholden to something. Our need for air. Our need for food. Our need for the sun's warming rays. And then there are our ever-present pyschological needs, the need for belonging, home and family. Americans, since you love freedom more than anyone else, I'd like to hear from you in particular.
At what point does the pursuit of freedom become the pursuit of lawlessness?
Absolute freedom is impossible as long as we are alive. As long as we are alive and occupying a physical body, we will always be beholden to something. Our need for air. Our need for food. Our need for the sun's warming rays. And then there are our ever-present pyschological needs, the need for belonging, home and family. Americans, since you love freedom more than anyone else, I'd like to hear from you in particular.
As always, I appreciate your feedback.
In a lot of ways, this is very similar to the question of "What is the purpose of government?" In a completely open and free society, we are literally free to do whatever we want. That unfortunately includes rape, murder, pillage, etc... Along with, I'm sure, a few not so bad things. But in a society that is free to do whatever it wants, the people of that society (if it can be called that) have no literal protection whatsoever.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, so eloquently posed this frame of thought to answer that question. He went on to describe a number of different reasons for having government but came to the conclusion that government should be exist to protect people's lives, their liberty, and their estates.
To anyone who is familiar with U.S. History that last phrase should sound very familiar. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was very familiar with history, philosophy, and the modern thinking of the times in regards to politics and government. His unalienable right of a sovereign man were as put here:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
This statement make it, in my opinion, most clear that America's founders felt the purpose of government was to provide (or prevent the loss of) a person's life, their liberties, their ability to own property (estates), and to pursue happiness. Or, in other words, Jefferson agreed with the foundational views of Locke so much as to put it in The Declaration of Independence.
To return to your original question...
The necessity of freedom can become just as much a burden as the restriction of complete bondage. It is a weird spectrum that complete freedom somehow seems to lead to bondage and subjugation. It is my opinion that in a completely free society, those who are the absolute strongest and brutal are often the ones who begin their rise to power and the resulting massacre of the "lesser" beings is only the beginning of the tyranny. This is evident in a number of different failed political states which almost always emerged from the triumphant anarchism of various revolutions.
But, to be beholden to something that can protect the people, will stand for the people, and can be changed by the people... There are few things greater put in place than an entity that can ultimately stand to protect the individual freedoms of each person while not asking them to sacrifice too much. That is, in my opinion, what makes the concept of America's Federal Republic a great system of governance and a good example of a happy medium between the violence of anarchism and the violence of tyranny. Of course, I write this as our government is about to plunge the world into financial disaster.
My freedom ends where yours begins. I do not believe in so called "victimless" crimes, if I do not harm your life, liberty, or property then to me no crime was done.
How can you be certain a crime is victimless? Just because there is no apparent victim does not mean there is ultimately no victim. People will commit all manner of offences if they think they can get away with it, from murder to vandalism
Of course not.
Your previous post implied that there was no identified victim because the perp got away with.....or something.
Perhaps you weren't clear or I just didn't understand you
How can you be certain a crime is victimless? Just because there is no apparent victim does not mean there is ultimately no victim. People will commit all manner of offences if they think they can get away with it, from murder to vandalism
Murder implies a victim. Just because you get away with something doesn't mean it's victimless. Smoking pot is a victimless crime. Gay marriage and polygamy (in many states) are victimless crimes.
How can you be certain a crime is victimless? Just because there is no apparent victim does not mean there is ultimately no victim. People will commit all manner of offences if they think they can get away with it, from murder to vandalism
Very few people would commit these crimes simply because they can get away with it, and those that would are likely the ones that are doing it now, in spite of the law.....We all have, or should have a set of personal ethics, (morality if you want to call it that) that has nothing to do with our religious beliefs, or lack of same.
I suspect that I see where you are going with this.." without religious morals there would be anarchy", but I may be mistaken. I apologize if I am, but many Christians hold the view that their religion dictates their morality. For those Christians, I beg you to hold tightly to your faith if that is the only thing preventing you from lawlessness.
My morality, is not, nor indeed is yours based on religious beliefs. This is apparent when you think of all God's laws that are no longer followed.
Christians generally chose the biblical laws they agree with, and wish to follow while ignoring the ones they don't.
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.
