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.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Welcome to the POLICE STATE, slaves.
Too bad you didn't tell that to all of the FOX News pundits during Bush II's administration. Those right-wing pundits, especially Hannity, would have called you a traitor and terrorist sympathizer for resisting mass surveillance.
Too bad you didn't tell that to all of the FOX News pundits during Bush II's administration. Those right-wing pundits, especially Hannity, would have called you a traitor and terrorist sympathizer for resisting mass surveillance.
You forget I have been a Ron Paul guy, well before Bush was elected.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5696
There is such a thing as too much liberty, meaning "so much personal freedom that it allows dishonest, abusive, exploitative acts and expressions to go unpunished". In short, situations that more or less invite an eternal riot, gladiator match, and so forth. At the other extreme is North Korea or ISIS. I honestly have a hard time deciding which one (eternal riot or ISIS) would be worse - especially since "freedom" is often the battle cry of the selfish.
The best we can do is tweak our government and culture in ways that strengthen the essential dignity of as many people as possible.
There is such a thing as too much liberty, meaning "so much personal freedom that it allows dishonest, abusive, exploitative acts and expressions to go unpunished". In short, situations that more or less invite an eternal riot, gladiator match, and so forth. At the other extreme is North Korea or ISIS. I honestly have a hard time deciding which one (eternal riot or ISIS) would be worse - especially since "freedom" is often the battle cry of the selfish.
The best we can do is tweak our government and culture in ways that strengthen the essential dignity of as many people as possible.
There is never enough liberty. In fact we can get by with 2 laws.
1. Do all that you agree to do.
2. Do not encroach upon other persons or their property.
I should be able to do what I want as long as I don't break laws based on those 2 natural laws. That said, a lot of our criminal law is not based on those laws. They are just arbitrary laws designed to make money for the .gov.
Gee, yet another "liberty versus security" false dichotomy thread. Liberty without security or security without liberty? In fact to have either one, you also must have the other.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
There is never enough liberty. In fact we can get by with 2 laws.
1. Do all that you agree to do.
2. Do not encroach upon other persons or their property.
I should be able to do what I want as long as I don't break laws based on those 2 natural laws. That said, a lot of our criminal law is not based on those laws. They are just arbitrary laws designed to make money for the .gov.
1. I'd add "without any duress" AND "with a full portfolio of information about what the agreement entails" AND warnings about the likely consequences of binding yourself to the agreement.
2. I have a couple hundred acres of property back in Louisiana. Should I have a right to contract to someone to bury all their disease-infested hogs at a shallow depth, paying me $25 per hog per year forever? Or strike the same deal for a nuclear power plant company, to dump their fuel rods naked into the ground at the same price per rod. And that's just the extreme cases (which still count, because if your claim doesn't ally to e-v-e-r-y situation, then that's not the most valuable thing there is. That thing that overrules your right to use personal property as you see fit being the thing actually more valuable than right to use that property in ways you see fit).
Or maybe I should buy a house in a residential neighborhood, and have it a perpetual party house (with blasting music, traffic congestion, people carousing about my yard, etc).
And this is before I get to some frankly horrifying examples of how to use my property, which I won't mention for the sake of good taste.
This is why I don't believe in unlimited property rights, especially if you use that property in ways that negates the ability to enjoy (even if still use) what their property offers them.
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.
C'mon BB...
