Looking for ideas, and instead of picking one topic I want to compare and contrast all the different issues that divide us as Americans when it comes to Liberty and control.

Some of the most patriotic folks I know have said, at one time or another "there should be a law against that" simply because they don't like it.  I'm trying to find examples where Freedom comes up against Control.  Basically, the same crap GD fights over on a weekly basis.  I'm going to pick 4-5 subjects to write about.

Right now, I have the Drug War and its consequences on personal liberty.  I was going to write an entire paper on this, but thought it could be broadened out much more.

What say you, GD?  No need to support or refute arguments, (although that's fine) just looking for subject material right now.  I'm expecting some gems here.

First.  Don't talk about Chaos.  Most people presume chaos is bad.  Instead, talk about the "...animating contest of freedom..."

Freedom within the construct of a governed society is the understanding by the people AND the government that humans are individuals.  Individuals with their own needs and desires; and the ability to use their own innate talents to achieve those goals.  Freedom requires giving those people the least amount of restriction in their daily lives, to allow them to accomplish their tasks.  Control and lack of freedom comes when government and people ignore individuality and force people to conform to rigid boxes based on theories and assumptions about human behavior.

Rule number 1. If someone says "I support "X" but..." Immediately ignore them. They are your enemy. You either support freedom (individual rights and protections of those as outlined by the constitution) and all the "dangers" that come along with it or you don't.

But that's the point.  The title contrasts itself, which is what I want the paper to do.

Freedom = good word  (or is it?)
Chaos = bad word  (or is it?)

To many heart-holding patriots, Freedom = chaos on things they disagree with, and can't be tolerated.

Ok.  So give me some examples.  I'm looking for subject matter here. What's an example someone has said "I support X, but"

Freedom = the ability to make decisions about your life that have great risk, if you make a mistake; but great reward if you are correct.

Chaos = many people using/misusing Freedom and making poor decisions, and reaping the results and risks of those decisions.

Freedom can be bad, because it allows people to injure themselves or even others.

Chaos can be good because it can be a good teaching tool for those surrounded by chaos or  those looking at it from the outside.  It can promote knowledge and understanding of the human condition.  This can result in social, technical and philosophical improvements to society.  Without some level of chaos, society has nothing to react to (no stimulation) for change.

Media using half-truths to support their agenda.. Should the government step in? or should freedom of speech be upheld? You expect this sort of thing from the government in the name of "security" and "confidentiality", but the media has historically been a fact checking piece of the checks and balances. Keeping the government in line. Now, who are we supposed to believe? I personally think there should be a communications group that is completely dedicated to fact checking the government and media.

Go to just about any topic in GD on arfcom and you will find examples.

Here is a few .

Justifying the restriction on certain lasers to civilians.
"Quoted:

I'm usually pretty 'pro freedom' and think people should be able to own mg's, grenades, suppressors etc. However, IR lasers are UNIQUELY scary. They're a totally different animal than guns. With guns you know some guy is shooting at you. With high powered IR lasers, some guy could be up in a building 200 feet away frying your retinas and you wouldn't even notice until you went to an eye doctor wondering why you suddenly have a bunch of holes in your eyesight. At least with normal lasers you KNOW if somebody is shining them at you."

Justifying the restriction on certain lasers to civilians.
"Quoted:


I'd much rather have easier to get IR stuff than no NFA. The NFA regs keep the peasants out and type who think an SKS in a tapco stock is bad ass and OCs it to their local 35er militia meeting."


Go to any 2A related thread and you will see people justify background checks, mental illness restrictions, and many more, right after they say that they support the 2A.

There is an Obamacare thread with people promoting .gov healthcare.

Go to the ongoing thread about the guy on the overpass during the Bundy standoff. Lot of JBTs in that thread.

Look around man. Info is out there.

I like how kingsmen started out with "I'm usually pretty 'pro freedom". That is a clear indication of what is to follow is not pro freedom.

Please give some examples. Im curious.

So freedom is bad because it allows people to injure themselves?  I hope you are being sarcastic.

.GOV should not be involved in the media at all. Free market media. let them lie and be fools. If we as a people choose to trust the media then we have sealed our own fate. I would rather fall on my own sword than invite the .gov in to "make it right".

The founders agreed that without a Christian conscience freedom would become chaos and chaos slavery.
Our form of government being unfit for any other kind of people.

Factcheck.org?

No, I wasn't saying that Freedom is bad.  Freedom of thought and behavior can have negative consequences and that has to be accepted as a byproduct.   Chaos can occur if Freedom is abused, whether willfully or through error.

ETA:  Example

No speed limits on highways.  Freedom to drive the speed you wish.  This can have negative consequences to the individual or group of people, if it is abused or someone decides to drive too fast for conditions / texting, etc.  

Chaos could occur if many people made similar bad decisions.  

Chaos could be construed as a of a lack of personal responsibility or self-regulation of a larger group of people, not just an individual. (at least for the example)

First why do you want others to help write your paper for you?  I'll add "responsibility" as a component of freedom.  It's always appeared to me that if individual responsibility is shunned with others being held responsible then freedom would be forfeited.  If you aren't going to be responsible for your actions then other's will control your actions for you.  Such as "Discipline yourself, so others won't have too." ~John Wooden

That negative consequences are subjective. So is the chaos out of freedom you speak of.

Freedom is freedom.

Holy fuck seriously?  Did you read anything beyond the headline?  I'm looking for ideas and subject matter.  If I wanted you to write my paper, I would've provided crayons.

Here, I'll highlight just in case anybody else doesn't get it.....ideas and subject matter

Its GD man. The fools come out of the cracks around here.

Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for
instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad
knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care
about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 6'4"
245lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something
like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are
probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would
say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am
sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be
happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the
nerve to say that to someone I know.

Think of anything the Puritans hated.  The sex trade immediately comes to mind.  It's legal for two adults to buy and sell from each other.  It's legal for two adults to fuck.  Why is it that in most places, it's illegal to buy or sell fucking?

Gambling.  Same story.

I agree that negative consequences are subjective.  However, they are only subjective in a vacuum.  If only one person could exists, and would have absolute freedom.  Any consequence would be his alone.  

However, freedom in the context of anything more than one person existing can create consequences that are objectively negative.  If a person given absolute freedom decides to use it to drive drunk, start a fire, shoot a gun in any direction he chooses and in the course of these actions, hurts or kills another person who did not wish to be hurt or killed, then that is a negative consequence.  The more people you add to that mix, that have the freedom to think, and freedom to extrapolate what occurred to one person, might occur to them, they may decide that is a negative consequence.  Alone, this decision would be subjective to a single person; but when it is many people coming to the same conclusion, it reaches objectivity, and so society creates laws based on these things.

It is the difference between a law against murder and a law prohibiting gun ownership.  

Murder is a willful act of a human being to deprive another human being of life, when that victim wants to live.  Objectively, society has decided this is a bad thing.

Owning a gun is not an act that in and of itself harms anyone at all. It is a subjective law , based on the opinion of a segment of society.  Now, if a person uses the gun to kill another, there is already the objective law covering murder.  The law covering murder should be enough to be a punishment to behavior.  This is what I believe the Founders understood and part of the reason we have a 2nd Amendment.


I don't believe that given absolute freedom (freedom is freedom), people would recognize or understand the concept.  The human conceptualization of freedom exists because society will always end up creating some sort of moral code, laws or restrictions on behavior that frame the ability to act with out interference.  This, I believe, gives us the ability to define freedom in our own minds.

Oh oh OH!! Gambling on fucking!!

Over/under pool on 3 minutes!!!

lol... what about a sex Olympics? If unfunded sex Olympics is okay, then why not the Pros? Is that any different from porn? What about practicing it in order to make money later? Is the practice illegal? 'Paid personal trainer'?

So much fuckwittery.

I added that  (red highlight) for "idea and subject matter" and yes I did add the "write it for you because it is "GD".  Hope your paper goes better than your interpretation of my post.

You have been here since 2011 but need help finding examples of that?  

-NFA supporters
-Sudden Universal Healthcare supporters
-UBI supporters
-Supporters of requiring a license + "training" requirements for CCW
-A couple of AWB supporters (oddly enough)
.......................................

No, they are not really subjective at all. The potential of negative results is there, and the more freedom, the more potential. I accept that it may occur, because to live in a society that does not, means to live in a society with no freedom.

Human behavior is wide ranging, increased freedom means to increase the range of allowed human activity. Both positive and negative. In order for a society to be free, it must accept a certain level of disorder. The less disorder accepted, the less freedom exists. This is reflected in the culture, legal system and government.

Freedom is not all sunshine & puppies, it also includes clouds and illness. To view it otherwise, is to be blind to the nature of man.

Contrasting the idea of freedom with the idea of liberty, especially with respect to chaos, could make an interesting paper.

I believe freedom means that with rights that are good for the people we have to accept that those rights also allow the bad of the people.

We want people to be able to freely speak and gather, express ideas and opinions. However that also means we have to listen to Nazis talk about how the Holocaust was good. We also end up with people like Westboro Baptist Church and, of course, protests against Bush/Obama/Trump.

Because firearms are so controversial is exactly why there is an amendment to guarantee the right. From that right comes with the unfortunate gun deaths by murders and accidents.

Guilty until proven innocent. Better 10 men go free than 1 innocent be convicted. Burden of proof on the prosecution. We read in GD all the time how someone should fry because some perv touched kid or a crazy killed a pet, yet we know we cannot/should not carry out sentencing on our own. Sometimes the bad guy even gets off scott free because the prosecutor could not meet burden of proof within the rules of evidence.

Yes they do.

Order and liberty are better described as levels on a hierarchy of needs than conflicting sides of a scale. Different groups don't produce or desire identical quantities either.

You are talking about the rule of law. Yes freedom does not include freedom to violate other peoples freedoms. Your freedom starts having consequences when it  violates others freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Where's the like button!! LOL!!

How about "obscenity laws" for an example?

I found his quote that might be useful in your paper  "Discipline without freedom is tyranny; freedom without discipline is chaos." ~Cullen Hightower