Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A sci-fi writer's words... Nice 'authority' there... Too bad the notion of moral responsibility is for most people... Excluding religious folks (who have morality imposed on them by their diety) & a minority of 'responsible' or 'enlightened' people, the only morality most people have is the morality forced on them by government power.... The natural state of humanity is corruption, chaos & anarchy... Not moral responsibility... Which leads to a world where - without government - you have no usable freedom.... For a non-3rd-world example, New Orleans after Katrina.... There's your 'totally free' people 'unpressed' by government at work... Gotta love it when REALITY jumps up and bites a utopian idealist in the face... People are not 'GOOD' and will not respect your 'freedom' unless forced to do so... Freedom is only possible when backed by force... Ironic, eh? I'm going to have to dispute you there. Government is not a magic organizing force imposed upon the people by some superior power. Government and the people in it are drawn from the general population of the area, and they take their actions and culture from that area. New Orleans after Katrina is a third-world example in a way. Many of the people in the city follow a third-world culture. So naturally, the Government in the area is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, unable to do much useful before or after the hurricane hit. And just as naturally, the people riot and loot and generally cause chaos when the Government is ineffective. Keep in mind that Katrina caused just as much damage in Mississippi (except for long-term flooding), but the rioting, looting, and chaos were notably minimal to absent. Why? Many more of the people in the area follow a first-world culture. When the established Government was unable to step in, they formed their own organizations and provided their own security and helped each other. The natural state of humanity is NOT corruption, chaos & anarchy. That is the natural state of humans and groups of humans following third-world cultures. Humans following first-world cultures naturally emphasize honesty, honor, and organization. They naturally form Governments that try to uphold these values, and hold them accountable when they fail to. Government created in third-world cultures increase the corruption, chaos, and anarchy rather then stem it - see Africa. People following third-world cultures are doomed to this state, unless they are ruled by other people with a first-world culture. Culture is irrelevant... The reason why NOLA went 'natural' and MS did not is that the population-density of the MS areas hit was much lower... There was simply less people to loot & steal from, and less people stayed behind... Every time I post this, I get the same 'Blame the NOLA Blacks' in various PC disguises... It's not a black/white/whatever thing... Wherever & whenever this happens, the result is the same... Race, or 'culture' has nothing to do with it... Remove government from the picture and people go 'natural'....

Wonder where you distrust of civilians people to do the right thing comes from?
Now I'm not one of those whom you reefer as being anarchist as I do agree on some of the issues you have argued for in the past.
However I think you’re moving in the wrong direction on this issue, there is a culture that can be observed around the world in conjunction with prosperity and is based on the respect of the law without having central authority breathing down your neck. It is the diffrece in how the Israelis behaved wile being in a state of vacuum before a state was set up compared to how the Palestinians are behaving till this very day.  
Unlike you the founding fathers had admiration for “direct” democracy in the form of Switzerland and its federal system was used as a model for which they sought to emulate. Now don’t confuse the textbook definition of direct democracy there is of course a blending between direct democracy and representative democracy here.

One again I respect many of the argument that you have made in this forum but I think that you military background is clouding your judgment on the capacity of civilians.
Iraq is not a good representation on how people behave when a government collapses.

If culture was irrelevant, we wouldn't need different states, jurisdictions, counties, town governments, or nations.  Every culture is the same, so why need different laws?  The same thing should apply to everyone.

And we shouldn't have to have more police patrols in certain areas.  Where I grew up, there were just a handful sheriff's deputies patrolling the entire county on the weekends.  Traffic enforcement, patrols, everything.  The county had a population of about 80k.  Now contrast that cop/sheep ratio with NYC or NOLA.  Compare it to the amount of cops they've got in the lower ninth ward versus the suburbs.  By Dave's logic, we need more cops to keep people under control.  My home county should be spinning out of control.

97.35% voted freedom although from some other threads which speak about permitting government intrusion into the lives of individuals for the good of society or the protection of children, you'd never know it.

I don't need the government to provide me with safety, thats what the 2A is for.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Big Brother Loves You, Dave.

Quoted: I don't need the government to provide me with safety, thats what the 2A is for. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Its more than the 2A

Quoted: All hail governmentDave_A!!!

Fixed it for ya'.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is essentially the debate amongst conservatives.  I'm not asking you to say one is absolutely important and the other not at all, but just which one do you think is more important than the other?  Which side should we err on - safety or freedom?  When balancing the two, which one has more than 50%, in your mind? No, you can't "get both".  In order to increase safety, it becomes necessary to infringe on liberties.  This question is more along the lines of "how far should we take it?" They are interconnected... It is a 'get both' scenario, period... There is a level of safety/security required in order to exercise your freedom... You could have unlimited freedom in an 'anarchy' situation, but be unable to exercise most of it due to a lack of safety & security.... If you go too far to EITHER end of the spectrum you FAIL... The only answer is to find a balance between personal freedom and the constructive forces (eg safety/security) required to preserve it and prevent decay into the 'natural state' of anarchy (which is always followed by despotism)... P.S. Since 'balance of the two' is not an option, I did not vote. Personal freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever you want and trample the rights of others, as you suggest in anarchy. Your statement sounds like, give the power to the government, we will prevent anarchy and preserve freedom. No thanks!

Quoted: 97.35% voted freedom although from some other threads which speak about permitting government intrusion into the lives of individuals for the good of society or the protection of children, you'd never know it.

Get with the program!

Freedom means having more than one car lot to browse, and the ability to change the channel on the TV, comrade!

The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here...

The Freedom to do to the things necessary to secure my own Safety...

Quoted: Quoted: The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here... I've said it until I'm about blue in the face. My biggest issues with Paul is his foreign relations policy and his views on the military. He ruins a lot of of his otherwise great ideas/positions with those.

All righty then, Foreign > Domestic...

Quoted: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Ben Franklin

A lot of research indicates BF did not say this actually. It was in a book he published but alledgedly did not author.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here... I've said it until I'm about blue in the face. My biggest issues with Paul is his foreign relations policy and his views on the military. He ruins a lot of of his otherwise great ideas/positions with those. All righty then, Foreign > Domestic... It is when that foreign policy would severely endanger the country and its people.

If we are to take you at your word, then you choose safety over freedom.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here... I've said it until I'm about blue in the face. My biggest issues with Paul is his foreign relations policy and his views on the military. He ruins a lot of of his otherwise great ideas/positions with those. All righty then, Foreign > Domestic... It is when that foreign policy would severely endanger the country and its people. Terrorists cannot endanger the country.  The best they can hope for is to kill a bunch of people.  Until they can invade and occupy territory, the only ones that can change this nation are ourselves. Who said anything about terrorist?? There are much larger, and more complex threats to this country, than just terrorist. Narrowmindedness.... it will truly be the downfall of this country.

Are you talking about the invasion that is already happening or our most favored trading partners?

At any rate I feel that if we continue to ignore domestic issues it will be far more detrimental.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here... I've said it until I'm about blue in the face. My biggest issues with Paul is his foreign relations policy and his views on the military. He ruins a lot of of his otherwise great ideas/positions with those. All righty then, Foreign > Domestic... It is when that foreign policy would severely endanger the country and its people. If we are to take you at your word, then you choose safety over freedom. And you would be wrong. Its not about safety. Its about Freedom. There are other nations out there that are capable of doing things, that would easily cause our govt to severely inhibit our freedoms. We need a president who is willing to take a stand on foreign issues, and stand up to unfriendly nations. That way the govt. wont have an excuse to restrict an freedoms here. Its a big picture.

 In case you weren't aware Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems to be concerned with US sovereignty.

Natural selection.
Freedom over safety, the fittest survive.

Quoted: Quoted: Who voted Safety? 2 people did...I suspect one is Hillary and other one Tom Cruise! BigDozer66

I figured Rudy and Hillary.  I figured Tom was too busy jumping on couches, eating fetuses, to be bothered to vote.

Quoted: Quoted: Who voted Safety? Fred Thompson and some other RINO...

As a Ron Paul supporter myself, we could do a *lot* worse than Fred Thompson.

If Ron Paul got hit by a bus tomorrow, who would you support?

No offense, but I think you're failing to see the same type of thing the knee-jerk Ron-haters are:

Does Fred/Ron get us closer to where we need to be than we are now, and/or closer to where we need to be than any of the other candidates currently running?

That's why I like and support them both.

Quoted: The poll results suprise the hell out of me considering all the Ron Paul bashing we see around here...

For my next lesson...

Those supporting Ron Paul have a lot to learn about how to effect real political change in this country. The key word is Gradual. Our political system is designed to make all changes as gradual as possible, often taking years or decades for real movement. Liberal Gradualism is how we got to where we are now, and Conservative Gradualism is the only way to get back. You cannot create political change by suddenly electing a radically Conservative/Libertarian President - nobody is going to vote for that much change that fast. It's not a hidden conspiracy against your candidate, it's the fact that people have been led to believe certain things and think in certain ways, and it takes time and hard work to change the people's beliefs and thought patterns.

You have to steadily work to get guys closer to your beliefs into office while staying practical - try to move too far too fast, and you'll lose support and the other guy will win and move the debate in the other direction. You have to accept that you aren't going to be able to elect anyone you can really get enthusiastic about for some time. You have to accept that there will be setbacks and losses. When that happens, you can't run around claiming that the sky is falling, you have to keep working at promoting your philosophy at every level you can. They are going to say and do horrible things, but you have to keep pushing, keep working to promote your philosophy.

Keep in mind also that working to change minds isn't just on the other side of the aisle. Political parties here in the US are composed of a big tent of people with widely varying beliefs. You have to convince the guys on your side to move in your direction just as much as the guys on the other side. Hint - you don't do this by picking a guy who can't win and then calling anyone who doesn't support him names.

Ron Paul is not the answer because he can't win, and if you can't win, then you're worthless. We can all argue about which candidate is best for our philosophy, but once we've chosen, we have to rally behind him. The top-tier Republican candidates aren't as conservative as we would like, but they will move things in our direction, while even the best Democrat will move things away from us.

Quoted: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Ben Franklin

+1 in a major way

Quoted: How many of you are in favor of Hippies being free to use the drugs of their choice and protest things in the streets? How many of you are in favor of Muslims being free to practice their faith as they please? How many of you are in favor of Cyclists being free to use the streets just as any other vehicle would? How many of you are in favor of Homosexuals being free to have sex in whatever manner they please? A lot of you are ripping Dave_A for saying that too much Freedom might not be so good. At least he's honest and realistic about what he believes - how many of you are?

I would support all of the above, except Dave_A's comments.  Anyone who would oppose those things does not understand what Liberty is.  Popular beliefs do not need protection, only unpoplar beliefs need protection.

Freedom without a doubt.

Quoted: Quoted: How many of you are in favor of Hippies being free to use the drugs of their choice and protest things in the streets? How many of you are in favor of Muslims being free to practice their faith as they please? How many of you are in favor of Cyclists being free to use the streets just as any other vehicle would? How many of you are in favor of Homosexuals being free to have sex in whatever manner they please? A lot of you are ripping Dave_A for saying that too much Freedom might not be so good. At least he's honest and realistic about what he believes - how many of you are? I would support all of the above, except Dave_A's comments.  Anyone who would oppose those things does not understand what Liberty is.  Popular beliefs do not need protection, only unpoplar beliefs need protection.

quoted for truth.

Quoted: Quoted: I believe that if you give people too much rope, they will hang themselves & the rest of society as well... I also believe that people are selfish, corrupt & irresponsible by nature, and that without government, civilization goes bye-bye.... The power to exert force should be rooted in the people, through election... And the checks & balances in the Constitution are a brilliant way of keeping that power/force 'in the box' so that it stays constructive and does not 'go natural' and become destructive... HOWEVER the notion that you are being 'oppressed' because your fellow citizens vote to restrict an activity you want to engage in which is NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION... Is absurd.... Then you don't understand the Constitution.  What you describe is Authoritarianism. Checks and balances only refers to the 3 branches of gov't.  They check balance each other, compared to the other branches, but they do not limit the power of the gov't at all.  It's just a priciple keeping anyone branch from becomming more powerfull than the other branches. The Constitution limits the govt' to the few powers specifically given to it, and no more.  The Constitution is not a list of the peoples rights protected, it is a list of the few powers given to the gov't.   Your view is totally backward from what the frammers wrote.

Good post StudentofLiberty.

I'm not sure what Dave_A is trying to say but it sounds like: government is unselfish, incorrupt, and responsible by nature.

A lot of people have forgotten there was argument put forward at the time against the admission the Bill of Rights into the system.
The argument was that free men rights are as numerous as the sands of upon the seashore.
Many Americans opposed the bill of rights because it would give future generation of lawyers and bureaucrats an excuse to claim that any right not specifically stipulated on that piece of paper did not exist.
The author James Madison took those concerns and objections so seriously that he wrote the ninth amendment which states: "the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by people." Whish basically means that just because a right isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Need I say that the ninth amendment is largely ignored by the legal system today, much like the second amendment.

Don't forget that natural or God given rights of free men take precedence over written rights!

Quoted: Freedom of course.

+1

The poll results are not very surprising. As soon as I seen this thread, I figured the results would be heavily skewed toward freedom.

Quoted: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Ben Franklin

Been my sigline since I became a paying member.

Quoted: Quoted: Everybody is going to say freedom, but few really mean it. There are ALOT of folks who love to regulate things around here. About the only thing most folks around here equate with freedom is gun ownership. +1 Start a thread on the War On Some Drugs, and see how many people really support freedom. Or a thread on free enterprise, energy policy, traffic rules, etc. Get away from guns, and there's at least as many closet Fascists around here as in the general population. How about some of you guys claiming Freedom name a specific policy unrelated to guns and self-defense that you would change to increase overall Freedom?

ETA:

I just realized that we are most likely on the same side of freedom.

Pure and absolute freedom.  If you're going to vote for the lesser of two evils and answered "freedom" you aren't being honest with yourself.

Obviously freedom, but its not as black and white as that.  Your freedom to do what you want must be balanced by others freedom to do what they want.  Your freedom may be put on hold to prevent a greater infringement on your freedom.  Its a slippery slope, but life often is.  

Quoted: Obviously freedom, but its not as black and white as that.  Your freedom to do what you want must be balanced by others freedom to do what they want.  Your freedom may be put on hold to prevent a greater infringement on your freedom.  Its a slippery slope, but life often is.

That's a whole lot of DOUBLETHINK

With freedom, I will be safe.

With safety I will not be free.

Quoted: Obviously freedom, but its not as black and white as that.  Your freedom to do what you want must be balanced by others freedom to do what they want.  Your freedom may be put on hold to prevent a greater infringement on your freedom.  Its a slippery slope, but life often is.

Quoted: And you would be wrong. Its not about safety. Its about Freedom. There are other nations out there that are capable of doing things, that would easily cause our govt to severely inhibit our freedoms. We need a president who is willing to take a stand on foreign issues, and stand up to unfriendly nations. That way the govt. wont have an excuse to restrict an freedoms here. Its a big picture.

I was tempted to respond to this with just a:
"think about that statement for a little while, then get back to me".
but I decided that something a little more wordy was appropriate. So here goes.



There's ALWAYS another boogie man,  ALWAYS another threat, ALWAYS something that's "threatening" our way of life. But the only true threat to liberty in the U.S. is the U.S. government.

The only thing a foreign power can do is kill people.

I know that's scary, but I have a little secret to tell you.


You're going to die anyway. I guarantee that you'll be dead within the next 100 years. I'm sorry to break it to you, but no one gets out of here alive. So you might as well be free the short time you have here on earth.

Right?

It's better than being a slave.

FREEDOM!

FREEEEDOOOMMM!!!!

Quoted: Obviously freedom, but its not as black and white as that.  Your freedom to do what you want must be balanced by others freedom to do what they want.  Your freedom may be put on hold to prevent a greater infringement on your freedom.  Its a slippery slope, but life often is.

The saying goes "Your right to extend your arm ends where my nose begins."

Infringement upon the greater freedom of another should be the only limiter of personal freedom(s).

Quoted: I wanna know who the 15 dumbasses are who voted for  "safty"  that don't understand Freedom IS Safty.

I wanna know why this poll ended up like this but when you put up any non-2A freedom related issue the closet fascists seem to come out of the woodworks.

Quoted: Quoted: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Ben Franklin Immediately popped into my head when I read the thread title.

+10

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> One again I respect many of the argument that you have made in this forum but I think that you military background is clouding your judgment on the capacity of civilians.

If you think about it, what the military is able to do with these barely-human, one-small-step-removed-from-anarchy civilian recruits is amazing.  In a *very* short time, they've shot up three slots on the evolutionary scale and "magically" become the best damned trigger-pullers, wrench-turners, etc, on the motherfucking planet.

Give me freedom and I will provide my own safety.