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.
What compromise do you speak of? Give some examples of what liberties that need to be infringed on for society to exist? Give some examples of laws that infringe on liberties, yet are required for a functional society.
Zoning laws. I have a friend who has a neighbor with a pond. That neighbor lives on a hill, higher than my friend's house, when it rains, his pond floods and sometimes during very harsh rains (they live in NY so the huge amount of rains recently is what brought this to mind) the pond will turn into a a mini-river and go downhill and cause erosion on my friends property. She tried to work it out with this neighbor but he loves his pond and doesn't want to do anything to remedy the situation so now the city is involved and will probably make him remove the pond (fill it up). That is an example.
Seat belt laws also come to mind. A lot of people don't like wearing seatbelts and feel they should be free to ride around unrestrained in a vehicle. But if someone else is in the car with them and an accident occurs, a person not restrained (especially someone in the back seat) has the potential to fly about in the vehicle and cause injury to someone else.
Traffic laws. People don't like being required to stop at intersections. They like to go somewhere they want to go in as fast a manner as possible. But if we didn't have traffic control devices collisions would be extensive and cause loss of life and property to those who don't mind stopping at a sign or light.
I could go on and on and on. It is strange to me that you don't understand that everyone always wants to do something the way they want and that no one is the same.
She is after all, his daughter. She was raised by the man and spent much of her life with him. If you read the article, you would clearly see that she was not at all political in her views of the candidates, she was comparing the humanity on the issues and the difference between her Republican father and the current crop of radical right wingers that consistently invoke her father's name. It was obviously important to her to set the record straight that there is no similarity between them and him.
She also said that the only candidate whose views and demeanor more closely resemble her father's, is not even getting any attention.
Things are the way they are because some do not respect individual liberty.
Duh!
Quote:
That however does not invalidate the position of individual liberty. Those who do not respect it are treated accordingly, so your attempt to claim that it does not exist is false.
See above.
Quote:
You were trying to force my position into a specific set of conditions and expectations so that you could proclaim it non-existent. Individual liberty exists all throughout society as there are those that respect others individual liberty and expect to have theirs respected and it is the key to which this nation was founded.
I see the nation was founded to have a government. I also see that people claim to be fighting the government. How did that come about if not the "duh" above?
Quote:
Individual liberty is a trouble for you, as it is for most liberals.
Its not trouble at all to be realistic. See the "duh" above.
Quote:
They dislike the idea that someone can live as they choose, speak as they choose, and make decisions as they choose...
Well, there you go, elaborating the point I needed only a "duh" for. So much for the messenger of "individual liberty".
[quote]You asked for an example of individual liberty, you are discussing with one.[quote]
I'm discussing with someone who has got issues with individual liberty of others who aren't in agreement with. And that is how it all starts... "duh".
Quote:
I respect each and every individuals liberty and make a point to not infringe on it throughout my life...
Even if you were capable of, you're missing the point of "society"... "duh"?
Quote:
So your claim is false. Individual liberty does not require a collective to function, it exists in each and every individual to which upholds it. It requires nothing from another and demands no service or fee for it to exist.
I'm not aware of an outcast from a society. That necessitates presence of a collective we call... society.
If protecting her father's reputation and commenting on the candidates latching onto her father, I guess you could call it an agenda.
I would believe something Patti says about her Dad more than anyone else outside the family. Who knew Reagan better in his years out of office than his family? If she says there is only one candidate that is close to her father's thoughts and positions, that bears weight with me.
She had endorsed no one, and mentions no names. She has no axes to grind, no personal profit to be gained, and at about age 60, has no more desire for fame or notoriety- all that stuff is in the past.
She has no interest in being a prominent person in the Republican Party, or in the Democratic Party, either.
Patti Davis is known for her liberal political views. She spoke against her father's agenda and if you are denying that she was a liberal who clashed with her mother and father, you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
If protecting her father's reputation and commenting on the candidates latching onto her father, I guess you could call it an agenda.
I would believe something Patti says about her Dad more than anyone else outside the family. Who knew Reagan better in his years out of office than his family? If she says there is only one candidate that is close to her father's thoughts and positions, that bears weight with me.
She had endorsed no one, and mentions no names. She has no axes to grind, no personal profit to be gained, and at about age 60, has no more desire for fame or notoriety- all that stuff is in the past.
She has no interest in being a prominent person in the Republican Party, or in the Democratic Party, either.
Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. So what? Ron got into Yale (i doubt that you could) and quit to pursue his dream. What's bad about that? Tens of thousands of kids drop out of college every year. That makes you some sort of a failure?
Sounds to me like he's doing just fine. Well enough to get paid to do his political commentary unlike some folks who come to C-D and give it for free (hitting close to home yet?).
And so what if he's liberal? And? He's obligated to be a Conservative because his dad was? That's silly.
Yes, Bill Gate and Ron Jr. share much in common. Founding a society changing company and a failed ballet dancer are pretty much the same.
Reading through this thread is like watching scavengers turning on each other. If she'd said anything they agreed with, they would've been kissing her butt, and finding some office for her to run for. Truth hurts.
Just thought I'd repeat an earlier post of mine. Still holding true to the thread, I see.
Zoning laws. I have a friend who has a neighbor with a pond. That neighbor lives on a hill, higher than my friend's house, when it rains, his pond floods and sometimes during very harsh rains (they live in NY so the huge amount of rains recently is what brought this to mind) the pond will turn into a a mini-river and go downhill and cause erosion on my friends property. She tried to work it out with this neighbor but he loves his pond and doesn't want to do anything to remedy the situation so now the city is involved and will probably make him remove the pond (fill it up). That is an example.
Doesn't violate the position of individual liberty concerning that. Individual liberty is a concept that you are free to live and do as you choose as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of another. This is the concept, and the situation you described does not invalidate individual liberty, rather it affirms it. The pond was causing damage to another persons property, infringing on their liberty. The power to control such was well within the pond owners powers, yet they made a choice that allowed such infringement. They violated the individual liberty of another and by doing such, required action to which forced them to respect it. Individual liberty is not anarchy, it is a concept of respect for each individual to be secure in their own choices and the responsibilities of such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Seat belt laws also come to mind. A lot of people don't like wearing seatbelts and feel they should be free to ride around unrestrained in a vehicle. But if someone else is in the car with them and an accident occurs, a person not restrained (especially someone in the back seat) has the potential to fly about in the vehicle and cause injury to someone else.
This is an unconstitutional law and has no proper reasonable support for its violation. Each individual within a car has the freedom to choose one or not, or in the case of one not being within the car, the choice not to ride in it. As for the person flying out of the vehicle, the occurrence of such is not a reasonable means to imply negligent action and endangerment of another (I remember when this was first started and there was a lot of BS claims being made which are completely false). Vehicle accidents are a major cause of death, based on this, we could ban vehicles entirely due to the statistical likelihood of their chance for an accident (violating the individual liberty of another), yet people still drive, while we dictate they wear seat belts to which accidents of such that effect others is statistically insignificant.
Point being, its a bogus law and not a proper support for the claim you make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Traffic laws. People don't like being required to stop at intersections. They like to go somewhere they want to go in as fast a manner as possible. But if we didn't have traffic control devices collisions would be extensive and cause loss of life and property to those who don't mind stopping at a sign or light.
Traffic laws are suggested modes of safe transportation and interaction. In fact, if you can show that your action was completely safe and within reasonable bounds to your violation, you can get the case dismissed. These laws exist to inform people of safe habits, those who do not operate in safe habits endanger the individual liberty of others. For if you run that light and hit me, you have violated my individual liberty through your negligence. This falls completely within the lines of individual liberty. The problem laws are ones that dictate behavior with no reasonable grounds and do so through accusatory means, defining you as guilty of negligence even though you may apply such behavior in a means to which does not meet the qualifications to which the law was created, such as a seat belt law or some other pro-active law that implies the action will be mishandled and create an infringement on another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I could go on and on and on. It is strange to me that you don't understand that everyone always wants to do something the way they want and that no one is the same.
As I said, some laws are direct unreasonable infringements on liberty, they do not need to exist because their occurrence is not caused by the behavior, but the irresponsible nature of another to which you can not infringe on everyone for the sake of attempting to reduce the infringement of a few.
As with the others I agreed with, they operate within the bounds of individual liberty, reasonably showing the action is an infringement (or extremely likely risk of such) on another.
As I said, we practice individual liberty all the time, but... we have slowly begun to get away from it through redefinition of what infringement, liberty, and rights are as well as using claims of protection from the few as a means to disregard the liberties of the many.
I see the nation was founded to have a government. I also see that people claim to be fighting the government. How did that come about if not the "duh" above?
And what was the pretense to which the government was founded? You can start at the preamble and move from there. You make a stupid argument that because they established a government, that it then empowers the government to do as they please. So why would people be fighting the government? Well, because a bunch of spoiled ungrateful little busy bodies decided that they didn't like the concept of people being responsible for themselves and living under the concept of a free society and began to institute polices over many years to which conflict with the entire aspect of its founding. Obtuse much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Its not trouble at all to be realistic. See the "duh" above.
I am familiar with liberal logic. Realistic means relativistic and how it pertains to the benefits at any given time to them. Sorry if your claims of "reality" and "realistic" aren't descriptive enough to provide support for your position, maybe a little less "duh" thinking and a bit more logical thinking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, there you go, elaborating the point I needed only a "duh" for. So much for the messenger of "individual liberty".
I'm discussing with someone who has got issues with individual liberty of others who aren't in agreement with. And that is how it all starts... "duh".
No liberty is infringed by disagreement. I have no demands of you (and even if I did, you are not required to act on them), I am not removing your choice. You are free to do as you please. I make no means to hold you to anything. I may request such, but a request is not a demand. You don't seem to have any understanding of what freedom and liberty means. Oh that is right, you are one of those who claims people have a "right" to healthcare, but by "right" you mean demand others pay for it. So it is not surprising you spend a lot of your time going "duh".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Even if you were capable of, you're missing the point of "society"... "duh"?
How am I not capable of such? Society is made up of individuals, some violate liberty, some do not. Individual liberty is a case by case position, it is not a collective, just in case the name didn't give it away for you, as you seem to be saying "duh" a lot, I am not sure if you have a mental issue, so excuse my clarification for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I'm not aware of an outcast from a society. That necessitates presence of a collective we call... society.
Because you seem to only think in a hive structure, a collective, a group think, a mob mentality. You can't fathom that people exist individually, independent and operate under a respect for other peoples freedoms to do so. This is why you see no problems dishing out costs with more social programs and increasing government control and power. You see no problems with individuals being stepped on, violated and abused, because everything to you is one big whole.
Try thinking individually sometime instead of regurgitating group thought. You are not a part in a machine to be discarded when it stops feeding the whole. That is slave thought and it only leads to ignorance and suffering. Wake up.
I'm not a great fan of Reagans, but he would seem like a breath of fresh air compared to the crew of Neocons that are running now. Reagan's daughter apparently agrees. I'm pretty sure that she will not be voting for any of the frontrunners.
She is a liberal twit. What do you think she is going to have to say about the Republican candidates. She was a total embarrassment to the Reagans most of the time as well as her goofy brother. This is supposed to be significant news?
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.
