Posted: 9/9/2002 11:30:13 AM EDT
|
would limit the freedom of others? In the last few days I've been nothing short of amazed. Many of the same people who cry about "They are robbing me of MY freedom" are first in line to say "Those people shouldn't be allowed to do/think that!" Now I'm not talking about criminals, terrorists or even citizens of other countries. I'm talking about AMERICANS who think they should be able to decide what other AMERICANS should be able to do. On one hand they complain they are being oppressed and then on the same page there they are, pushing THEIR agenda onto others. If you are not willing to allow freedom, what the hell makes you think you deserve it? |
|
First, you must define the diference between "freedom" and "license." Should people be "free" to murder you family, and steal you guns?? No, that would be "taking license." So what we have is the necessity to determine where freedom ends, and license begins. So, it is NOT as simple as "making rules" = "limiting others freedom." |
|
Quoted: If you are not willing to allow freedom, what the hell makes you think you deserve it? Ahem. In my neighborhood someone just called the cops on the neighbor's dog. Some called the cops on me for washing my car. Earlier, they called in the neighbor kid for "carrying a gun" in the neighborhood (it was a bb-gun) I fled Maryland to avoid this kind of crap. I [b]haven't and won't[/b] call my new neighbors that have moved in a couple months ago and haven't registered their vehicles here yet. They aren't hurting me. I [b]haven't and won't[/b] call the cops on the couple neighbors who's dogs are crapping in my yard. I [b]haven't and won't[/b] call the cops on the neighbor who's dog almost attacked us while we were walking the neighborhood last night. I [b]will[/b] talk to my neighbors first and give them a chance to address my concerns. I won't call the cops on anyone if they aren't hurting me. I'll think long and hard before involving the cops if their behavior impacts me and they wouldn't address it after I talk to them. Ultimately, I could get a neighbor killed calling the cops on them. I would make sure it's worth it before doing so. |
|
Quoted: First, you must define the diference between "freedom" and "license." Should people be "free" to murder you family, and steal you guns?? No, that would be "taking license." So what we have is the necessity to determine where freedom ends, and license begins. So, it is NOT as simple as "making rules" = "limiting others freedom." Geeze, you sound like a NetZero commercial. Ok for the sake of discussion FREEDOM is defined as those rights guaranteed by the Constitution whether we currently enjoy them or not. Some of you people always go to ridiculous extremes. (ie. Well if you mean the right to shoot old people on sight, then NO I don't think you should be free to do that.) I thought it was a GIVEN that when we discuss FREEDOM we are referring to those rights we were supposed to have as CITIZENS of the United States. |
|
Yuppie: Well I like totally think that people who dress funny should like be placed in jail. I mean like, oh my God!, The things some people wear are like, so horrible. Homophobe: I think those sissy faggots should be killed. Its their fualt I can't go out and practice unsafe sex because some queer couldn't make up his mind what he liked to go to bed with. Non Christians: I think Christians should not be allowed to go out in public. I see them on street corners telling me that I am going to hell for smoking crack. Christians: No one should have any rights other than us Christians. Your all a bunch of crackheads and your going to hell. Minorities: No comment! I will get band off the site because some will think I am serious! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: First, you must define the diference between "freedom" and "license." Geeze, you sound like a NetZero commercial. Ok for the sake of discussion FREEDOM is defined as those rights guaranteed by the Constitution whether we currently enjoy them or not. I beleive ALL people should have the rights SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law. For clarities sake, smoking dope is NOT specfically enumerated. I'm conflicted if that should be illegal, and haven't reached a firm opinion yet. Freedom of speech, press, religion, RKBA, freedom from illegal search and seizure, and the rest of the BoR should be equally availabe to all, as long as those freedoms aren't being used with license. (i.e. printed material inciting illegal action against certain peoples for whatever supposed reason IS NOT to be allowed under the guise of freedom of the press) Some of you people always go to ridiculous extremes. (ie. Well if you mean the right to shoot old people on sight, then NO I don't think you should be free to do that.) I thought it was a GIVEN that when we discuss FREEDOM we are referring to those rights we were supposed to have as CITIZENS of the United States. Not its NOT a given. I chose the "murder your family" illustration as a hyperbolic (hyperbole is a legitimate means of making a point) example of freedom vs. license. Society has determined certain "freedoms" are to be disallowed under the premise that they are harmful to society as a whole. Knowing that libertarians often use this whole discussion as reason to legalize marijuana, I used the "murder your family" as a hyperbolic illustration of what society has outlawed as being harmful to society, as a whole. A case can be made legalized marijuana is harmful to society as a whole, just as murder is, and therefore is NOT a Constitutional freedom anyone should be guaranteed. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you are not willing to allow freedom, what the hell makes you think you deserve it? Ahem. In my neighborhood someone just called the cops on the neighbor's dog. Some called the cops on me for washing my car. Earlier, they called in the neighbor kid for "carrying a gun" in the neighborhood (it was a bb-gun) I fled Maryland to avoid this kind of crap. I [b]haven't and won't[/b] call my new neighbors that have moved in a couple months ago and haven't registered their vehicles here yet. They aren't hurting me. ...snip... Ultimately, I could get a neighbor killed calling the cops on them. I would make sure it's worth it before doing so. I'm with you, fight4yourrights. I can't stand all those lilly-livered sissies that run to the cops at a moment's notice. If the neighbors are having a loud party and the noise is keeping you awake, then just go knock on their door and ask them to turn it down! Most people, I think would just call the cops. No one has guts anymore, and if they're your neighbors, chances are they will want to stay on good terms and will comply with a reasonable request. What nonsense! I'm glad I'm not in your neighboorhood! |
|
Quoted: I beleive ALL people should have the rights SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law. For clarities sake, smoking dope is NOT specfically enumerated. I'm conflicted if that should be illegal, and haven't reached a firm opinion yet. Keep in mind that NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate ANY drugs. That's the very reason a Constitutional Amendment was needed for them to regulate alcohol. Of course, the STATES could legally regulate drugs, or not, as they choose, or per their state consitition. I'm very much against any Federal regulation of drugs, along with all the Federal spending done to fight the "War On Some Drugs". -Troy <-- who does not use ANY drugs, including tobacco or alcohol. |
|
Quoted: I HAVE TEN RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO ME,THATS ALL IM CONCERNED ABOUT. AS LONG AS THEY DONT FUCK WITH THOSE TEN RIGHTS I CONSIDER MYSELF FREE. Hey to break the news to ya but they have fucked with many of those 10 rights. Especially in Kalifornia. And you ain't free. |
|
Quoted: Keep in mind that NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate ANY drugs. That's the very reason a Constitutional Amendment was needed for them to regulate alcohol. Of course, the STATES could legally regulate drugs, or not, as they choose, or per their state consitition. I'm very much against any Federal regulation of drugs, along with all the Federal spending done to fight the "War On Some Drugs". -Troy <-- who does not use ANY drugs, including tobacco or alcohol. Quite right. The Fed gov't DOES NOT have the POWER to regualte illicit drugs. Not their jurisdiction. But I get tired of people telling me the Constitution guarantees them teh right to light up a bone. The Constitution acknowledges certain right. (aka the BoR, but that is NOT intended as an exhaustive list) The Federal War on Drugs is indeed unConstitutional, and we can thank Ronny Reagan for that one. Also, we can thank Nancy Reagan, as the "For the Children" matriarch pushing emotion over clear COnstitutional thinking. Proof positive of what happens when women are allowed a national platform from which to yap.. [}:D] ) The states indeed DO have the right to regualte commerce in illicit drugs. SHould they? That's another question. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I beleive ALL people should have the rights SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law. For clarities sake, smoking dope is NOT specfically enumerated. I'm conflicted if that should be illegal, and haven't reached a firm opinion yet. Keep in mind that NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate ANY drugs. That's the very reason a Constitutional Amendment was needed for them to regulate alcohol. Of course, the STATES could legally regulate drugs, or not, as they choose, or per their state consitition. I'm very much against any Federal regulation of drugs, along with all the Federal spending done to fight the "War On Some Drugs". -Troy <-- who does not use ANY drugs, including tobacco or alcohol. |
