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.
Oh my. Till I read the OP and the replies I had always considered this to be a pretty simple and common sense thing. There is no "right" or personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution that allows for a person to inflict harm upon other citizens in any way. Especially in this time period. The analogy of burying anthrax infected animals on ones property comes to mind. In no state that I know of is that even close to being legal and allowed.
There are scads of limits imposed by law that limit a citizens "personal freedoms." Many of these laws are and have been challenged as being in violation of the Constitution and many have been struck down as being such with others being upheld. It's a constant cycle. I don't personally know anyone who advocates for anarchy when it comes to "freedom." One can own a gun but you can't just walk out and use it on people with impunity. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre when there is no such danger. You can't dispose of animal with highly contagious and dangerous disease by just burying them in your pasture. There is no way to list all the restrictions on personal freedom on the books (they are called laws) that are just plain common sense.
Others are far from that but they do exist with some being challenged and others just shrugged off and accepted. It depends on the demographics of the area where these inane type laws get pushed if there will be any push back. America is in a constant struggle to find balance between personal freedom and restrictions on it. Has been for a couple and change centuries. More and more these days we see a LOT of insanity in that struggle. But in reality it's really not that complicated.
Oh my. Till I read the OP and the replies I had always considered this to be a pretty simple and common sense thing. There is no "right" or personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution that allows for a person to inflict harm upon other citizens in any way. Especially in this time period. The analogy of burying anthrax infected animals on ones property comes to mind. In no state that I know of is that even close to being legal and allowed.
There are scads of limits imposed by law that limit a citizens "personal freedoms." Many of these laws are and have been challenged as being in violation of the Constitution and many have been struck down as being such with others being upheld. It's a constant cycle. I don't personally know anyone who advocates for anarchy when it comes to "freedom." One can own a gun but you can't just walk out and use it on people with impunity. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre when there is no such danger. You can't dispose of animal with highly contagious and dangerous disease by just burying them in your pasture. There is no way to list all the restrictions on personal freedom on the books (they are called laws) that are just plain common sense.
Others are far from that but they do exist with some being challenged and others just shrugged off and accepted. It depends on the demographics of the area where these inane type laws get pushed if there will be any push back. America is in a constant struggle to find balance between personal freedom and restrictions on it. Has been for a couple and change centuries. More and more these days we see a LOT of insanity in that struggle. But in reality it's really not that complicated.
Why is it that the vast majority of the "insanity" occurs close to major bodies of water? Metro Pacific coast, NE Atlantic coast and some large metro regions around the Great Lakes.
An even greater puzzle is this: Several decades ago it was the far right wing that was infamous for trampling rights - free speech being the popular victim. Now it is the far left wing that wears the thorny crown of authoritarian dystopian thought and speech control. This is illogical.
Perhaps part of the answer is that the insane were institutionalized and weirdos were marginalized into virtual invisibility. Now their numbers are so great that they simply overwhelm any obstacles via the "weaponry" that modern society has enabled them with.
Why is it that the vast majority of the "insanity" occurs close to major bodies of water? Metro Pacific coast, NE Atlantic coast and some large metro regions around the Great Lakes.
An even greater puzzle is this: Several decades ago it was the far right wing that was infamous for trampling rights - free speech being the popular victim. Now it is the far left wing that wears the thorny crown of authoritarian dystopian thought and speech control. This is illogical.
Perhaps part of the answer is that the insane were institutionalized and weirdos were marginalized into virtual invisibility. Now their numbers are so great that they simply overwhelm any obstacles via the "weaponry" that modern society has enabled them with.
Interesting observations and postulations. Out West here the insanity has migrated inland now into NV and CO specifically. Californians are like a virus. They've over run and displaced we long time and native types. And brought all their mental impairments with them. The new governor that just got elected here scares the hell out of me and has me looking at N ID as refuge.
The "far right threat" you spoke of was never in reality a viable issue. Just a bogeyman that the wacko left used to sway peoples views via fear. At least in the latter half of the 20th century and now into the 21st. These days that far right bogey man is just a ghost. However the wacko left points the finger at right leaning moderates like me as being rabid Klan supporters just because we own firearms and believe in the Constitution.
They base all their mud slinging on the demon of "racism" and purport that the latter is around every corner waiting to pounce. Fear. More and more fear. But, Like Donald Sutherland said in The Hunger Games. Fear does not work as long as there is hope.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 13 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,607,625 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
Why is it that the vast majority of the "insanity" occurs close to major bodies of water? Metro Pacific coast, NE Atlantic coast and some large metro regions around the Great Lakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
WAT = Wild Ass Theory: Plastics in the water breaks down and releases estrogen mimicking chemicals. These become airborne with winds carrying them into the lungs of citizens in the area. Also introduced via drinking the local water and consuming local food. Hey, I've seen wilder theories.
Maybe it's simply that more people leads to more variety of viewpoints, all other things being equal. Cities and rural areas, no matter where in the world they are, will naturally have different ideas about who and what to judge and not to judge. If cities are filled with "left-wing weirdos", certain parts of the countryside will be filled with "right wing weirdoes".
These days, with cheap transportation (in terms of both infrastructure and personal affordability of private long-range travel), this creates an even greater tendency to "sort". If people leave California to get away from all the "liberal weirdo SJWs", then people in the rural deep south leave for at least Atlanta, Houston, and such (still affordable) - or the coastal metros if they can afford it - to get away from "right wing nutjobs". (FYI: I purposefully left off Austin because it's no longer affordable).
So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?
My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
Freedom is important but implies a certain element of self-restraint, and regard for others' freedom and rights. Societies that don't inculcate self-discipline generally do poorly when the shackles of dictatorship are lifted. The French and Russian revolutions are key examples. Ditto Algeria's independence from France, though France is not a good role model.
Countries such as the U.S., Canada, Israel, Australia and the U.K. have done well since the idea of self-restraint is taught almost from birth. Japan took well to imposed democracy for much the same reason. Other cultures, not so much.
So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?
My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
Can't disagree with this. Isn't this why we codified laws? Don't our laws effectively limit our freedom to act in specific ways?
I'd argue that this has worked fairly well in the USA. This "great debate" has been underway in every legislature and courtroom since the inception of this country.
One assumption that underlies how well this works is whether the system is based on rationalism.
Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.
As someone who has never tried pot or even tobacco I believe drug use should be legal.
...and the second you get behind the wheel (high or drunk) it should be treated like the attempted vehicular manslaughter it is.
Etc.
Don't harm others (This includes poisoning groundwater etc) and do whatever you want.
But if you smoke for 30 years don't come to me to pay your medical bills.
(That's financially harming me)
Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is? I say not, for valuing freedom this highly and this fervently leads to strange, if not self-destructive, conclusions. self destructive is fine, you are free to go to hell in your own way.
Or would you like me to tell you to eat wheat germ for breakfast vs the scrambled eggs, toast and juce you want?
My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
freedom that harms others is infringing upon the freedoms of others.
Your using a red herring argument.
The act or expression should not be banned, only how it harms others.
Example:
I should be allowed to drive drunk..... On the track on my own land (for The record I have no such track and only drink a couple times a year)
I should NOT be allowed to drive drunk where I might harm others (public roads)
It's not the act, it's not the expression (which you obviously have an agenda your pushing) it's the risk of harm to others.
BTW: It's legal to drive drunk, uninsured, without a license on private property. This is something people talk about with firearms: they say they should be regulated like cars.
If That were so you could have a unlicensed machine gun on your own property and shoot all you want.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 13 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,607,625 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname
freedom that harms others is infringing upon the freedoms of others.
Your using a red herring argument.
The act or expression should not be banned, only how it harms others.
Example:
I should be allowed to drive drunk..... On the track on my own land (for The record I have no such track and only drink a couple times a year)
I should NOT be allowed to drive drunk where I might harm others (public roads)
It's not the act, it's not the expression (which you obviously have an agenda your pushing) it's the risk of harm to others.
BTW: It's legal to drive drunk, uninsured, without a license on private property. This is something people talk about with firearms: they say they should be regulated like cars.
If That were so you could have a unlicensed machine gun on your own property and shoot all you want.
If you believe there should be no freedom to harm others outside of one's property, then you admit that some things are more important than freedom (safety of others, dignity, etc).
How about verbal abuse of children or spouses? Or burying anthrax-infected animals or spent nuclear fuel rods on my property? Or organize consensual Roman-style gladiatorial fights to the death on my property (with previous oral and written agreements to the contestants that it IS a fight to the death?
My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.
Disagree with what I bolded above. I don't agree with the government creating law based on some altruistic desire to protect people from themselves. If you want to do something that could harm you (e.g. smoke, drink soda, not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, not wear a seatbelt) but has no effect on me, I don't really care. And I definitely don't want the government regulating it.
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.
