If you had to choose one: Freedom or Security? (interview, lawyers, accuse)
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.
I want to get an idea of what people here value more. I have my suspicions, but thought a poll would be interesting.
**NOTE: Freedom in this context means freedom from coercion, as opposed to freedom from responsibility. Some will get into semantics about what "freedom" really is, and I'm clearly defining freedom as being free to make your own decisions without anyone else threatening force against you. Freedom from responsibility would fall into the "security" category - allowing someone else to have authority over you or make decisions for you, but they will be taking on the burden of providing for you**
My personal take is that freedom should be valued more highly, and it was when the U.S. was founded. It seems as if the spirit of the founders and colonists at the time is mostly gone. We celebrate the 4th of July, Independence Day, but most people doing so would side with the British if this were happening today.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your councils or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen."
- Sam Adams
Freedom in my house and business but security when out on/in areas I cannot confirm security on my own. As in air travel, rail travel, etc.
Fortunately, in the USA you do not have to pick one or the other only unless set in law/ordinance,etc.
It's actually sad reading it. Don't get me wrong of course it gets me angry but as I age it is starting to sadden me more than anything.
You need to do more than read that list. You need to understand it and it stops being so "sad." On the contrary...
What's sad is that people don't understand why these laws have come into being in the first place. That's what is most sad of all!
The list provided is actually a very short list of all laws that regulate what goes on in America, and of course not all laws are perfect, but at a minimum we must understand the history and rationale behind them before we can decide the right or wrong of having them, right?!?
Take the very first one on this list, for example. Why is the price of milk regulated?
Do you know? Do you know even the first thing about these laws and what the ramifications are if they were not law??? Clearly, most people don't have a clue. Even worse, most people don't even bother to ask these sorts of questions...
#2: Labels you must put on your products.
Hello? We shouldn't know what is ACTUALLY in these products that we are ingesting?
RJReynolds sure doesn't like that law much, I know. Why not be able to claim a product is 100% natural juice when really it is sugar water in that bottle? With the cost to America due to obesity, people shouldn't know how many calories they are ingesting, I mean at least be made aware? Food producers shouldn't be required to disclose what sorts of preservatives they are using?
Buyer beware the motto? Is that the mark of progress or backwardness?
I guess that depends on whether you just ingested meat or milk past that expiration date that not all that long ago was required either!
I think the quickest way to clear things up is by asking: Can people resolve disputes without giving anybody an exemption from morality? To clarify, in our society it's considered wrong if common citizens try to take by force or impose their will on others by force, but people are elected specifically to do those things. The same acts that would normally be considered wrong are suddenly legitimate if done by way of "the democratic process" and having very official ceremonies. Can people settle disputes without anybody having "special rights" (which is impossible since you can't delegate rights to someone that you never had to begin with)?
In a society without rulers, which is what anarchy means, you still have rules. Natural/common law can still be understood within a society without appointing somebody to write it on paper. You can rightfully defend against an attacker, but you can't be the attacker. Society can still organize to prevent crime or handle it when it occurs.
I also agree that humans will form a community, and it's essential that they do. I think one thing people do is they imagine things on a large scale and feel like they couldn't possibly handle those issues on their own, which would be true, so they want this big thing greater than themselves to do it. However, your community is really just a microcosm of the entire society. People worry about helping the poor for example...almost every community can help those within that community that need help on their own. It just seems overwhelming when you zoom out and look at all the people out there who need help, and we don't remember how many others there are who are willing to help.
I always get sucked into discussions about the viability of anarchy even when I say I won't do it but hopefully we can just stick to one or two points. The last few I've gotten into went in all kinds of directions.
Ok, first of all, I'm really enjoying this back and forth. Wanted to start by saying that.
To address your morality of government issue, I do not agree that we give government an exception from morality in principle. What happens in the course of an election is various individuals will publicly explain their position and what they intend to do and the people will then determine who among the candidates will best represent their values. If the examples applies to a Western Democracy, there is also likely a constitution that limits them from doing certain things. Now, we could argue back and forth about how elections work in theory and how they work in practice, and I'm actually willing to bet we'd agree on quite a bit, but that's, at least from my point of view, irrelevant to a discussion of the viability of anarchy.
Now as for the morality, you've defined our society as being one where free agents can do as they please, so long as they are not forcing others to do what they do not want. I'll amend that to the more classical version: anything goes that does not involve force or fraud. Through an election, we are not forced to abide by candidates that are not popularly selected, and in the case of American, the actual eligible voting population for certain candidates is spread more evenly, in regards to members of congress. By no means are these divisions perfect, but I would say it's objectively better than just leaving it to a popular vote. Thus, it is impossible for government or an agent of to satisfy everyone, but in a constitutional republic, the needs of the people are still valued and complete authority is not to be given to the government, though it is still understood that certain 'natural rights' are sacrificed in exchange for basic securities, like a military to ward of foreign invasion.
Among these securities, going into your next point, is the establishment of law. Even if in an anarchist state, there are rules, there is nothing to universally enforce them. Yes, in an anarchist state, everyone would surely agree that theft is wrong. But who is to enforce this? You could argue that individuals will work it out, but even then, who can objectively say who is right? If the victim of theft believes the proper punishment should be paying back what was taken plus 10% and the loss of their right hand, who can really say he's wrong? The thief surely believes this is excessive, at least the amputation part. But the only person whom he truly needs to convince of this is the person he stole from.
Now, you yourself say that communities naturally form. As part of this, the complications of having no body to enforce law will become quickly known to this community. The next natural step is to create a system to do this. And this where the viability of anarchy comes in; I do not believe it can last. In the early days of humanity, surely a group of 10 people would not need a government. But groups of 100 become a little disorganized if there is not form of governance. And this trend would logically continue when the larger groups of people become more economically and/or socially connected (personally, I think the distinction between social/political and economic is pointless).
In short, rather or not people can resolve disputes without the government is dependent greatly on the number of people we're talking about. However, I do not think a system that is so dependent on the number of participants is a viable model. I am more comfortable willingly giving over some basic freedom in order to get some basic security, such as legal protection from force or fraud.
Sorry your heartburn is more than most I think for all your personal reasons, and good luck with all that!
I value freedom for all people, not just me. For example, I'm not interested in gambling and wouldn't do it if it were legal. But that doesn't mean I don't care that we, as a country, lack that freedom.
Hello? We shouldn't know what is ACTUALLY in these products that we are ingesting?
People have been putting labels VOLUNTARILY on products long before the government told them what to put on labels. The market is quite powerful. If customers want calorie counts on labels, businesses will put them on labels.
Quote:
RJReynolds sure doesn't like that law much, I know. Why not be able to claim a product is 100% natural juice when really it is sugar water in that bottle?
That is fraud and fraud is illegal. The label doesn't change that or prevent that.
I value freedom for all people, not just me. For example, I'm not interested in gambling and wouldn't do it if it were legal. But that doesn't mean I don't care that we, as a country, lack that freedom.
And there are hundreds more.
Agreed. I often cringe that I can't have a beer at a park. Having been in Europe where their laws about such things make us look like puritans, I sometimes have to shake my head, but even that doesn't make me feel I am not free in the ways that matter most to me. I can live without having to have a beer at a park (although I often sneak one in without any problem at all), but I can't live where we are not free to express our opinion as we can in this country for example, free to enjoy so much that I think most Americans take for granted.
That laws exist is not what does not make us free! I understand there are too many deek-heads who abuse our freedoms, like once when I was at a national park camping with my family and a bunch of hooligans kept the entire campsite awake while they drank, talked loud, threw bottles into the fire pit and drank some more...
Are we not better off with the laws that allow us to address those who really don't give a crap about others in these regards? Who play music at high volumes regardless how their neighbors feel? Who drink while driving? Who shoot guns in the middle of the night just for the Hell of it?
It isn't the NUMBER of laws that makes us more or less free, it is the quality of the laws, their purpose, the trade-offs we are forced to accept living in the modern society we have been born into, or hey! Move into the mountains or dessert and get away from it all! We're pretty well free to do that too...
Agreed. I often cringe that I can't have a beer at a park. Having been in Europe where their laws about such things make us look like puritans, I sometimes have to shake my head, but even that doesn't make me feel I am not free in the ways that matter most to me. I can live without having to have a beer at a park (although I often sneak one in without any problem at all), but I can't live where we are not free to express our opinion as we can in this country for example, free to enjoy so much that I think most Americans take for granted.
That laws exist is not what does not make us free! I understand there are too many deek-heads who abuse our freedoms, like once when I was at a national park camping with my family and a bunch of hooligans kept the entire campsite awake while they drank, talked loud, threw bottles into the fire pit and drank some more...
Are we not better off with the laws that allow us to address those who really don't give a crap about others in these regards? Who play music at high volumes regardless how their neighbors feel? Who drink while driving? Who shoot guns in the middle of the night just for the Hell of it?
It isn't the NUMBER of laws that makes us more or less free, it is the quality of the laws, their purpose, the trade-offs we are forced to accept living in the modern society we have been born into, or hey! Move into the mountains or dessert and get away from it all! We're pretty well free to do that too...
Yes, we are better off having laws that prohibit people from harming others. Loud noise at night is a good example.
But we don't need laws that tell us how we can spend our money or what plants we can grow in our garden.
**NOTE: Freedom in this context means freedom from coercion, as opposed to freedom from responsibility. Some will get into semantics about what "freedom" really is, and I'm clearly defining freedom as being free to make your own decisions without anyone else threatening force against you.
I would say that a debate about freedom vs. security is nothing but a semantics argument. For instance, someone who is pro-gun-ownership will say he wants the freedom to have control over his own personal security, while someone who is pro-gun-control will say he wants the freedom to go out and about without worrying about his personal security due to some psycho with a gun.
We all believe in the American notion of "freedom", but the reason why we have so much debate about constitutional issues that protect freedom is that we all have different ideas as to what it really means.
Yes, we are better off having laws that prohibit people from harming others. Loud noise at night is a good example.
But we don't need laws that tell us how we can spend our money or what plants we can grow in our garden.
We could probably go on until the cows come home about what laws we need or don't need, and that is forever a work-in-progress. Laws come and they go, but what gets me is when the more conservative type folks go on about how these laws are what makes us not free and that's the doing of liberals.
All I can say to that is think before you speak and/or give me a friggin' break!
PS: I'm guessing what plants it might be that you want to grow in your garden but "can't," and I doubt that's because of liberals, but much like your other heartburn about prostitution being illegal..., I think if you consider what you really can or can't do from a practical standpoint vs what is necessarily illegal, you might feel more "free" than you do, and rightfully so. Many of these laws, like the no drinking in public spaces laws, are not so much to stop responsible people from enjoying themselves, but to allow the incarceration of people who abuse these "products and services." Another rule of thumb is that you are okay until the neighbor complains, and perhaps rightfully so...
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.
but hopefully we can just stick to one or two points. The last few I've gotten into went in all kinds of directions.
