It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom Is Not My Enemy

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Surrendering freedom was not the consideration agreed upon by The Constitution for the United States,


Well it really depends on your definition of freedom. You dont have the freedom to move freely through the United states. There are many areas that citizens simply cannot just walk into, that being private property, places where they are restricted. One can complain that private property cannot necessarily be applied to freedom, but then again who gave anybody the right to own land? God? No, the government did, the constitution did, our contractual agreement did.

You dont have the freedom to walk in the nude down public areas. You may see this as inappropriate, but in many ways we were born naked were we not? Since when were we forced to wear clothes? Its my right not to wear clothes, God didnt say I could not.

Its funny enough to note that the constitution in its originality continued to allow slavery to happen in the United states. Southern Delegates would not support the constitution in 1787 at the constitutional convention if it was not allowed:
www.law.umkc.edu...

And theres the fact the constitution did not assure freedoms to women at the time as well. So while the constitution was not perfect, it was a social contract in some way or another, and people did lose freedoms at the time whether or not it applied to your own definition. For the most part those freedoms were given up for the social stability of the nation.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Agreed, hence why I stated in my first post:


That is not to say that the state will not attempt to requisition more power and take away more freedoms that were agreed under the original social contract. In this sense the constitution reigns and should always be referred to in the case of the US.


All I am really saying is that from the moment humans decided that they had a better chance to survive in societies rather than as individuals they relinquished freedoms to achieve that ... you simply cannot have absolute freedom and society at the same time, even the most libertarian of ideologies still surrenders some freedoms.

Each sub-society (nation) has a set of parameters for their own application of the social contract, and yes it is up to the people of those nations to keep their governments true to their respective conventions, or to alter them, after all the US constitution has been amended 27 times. But also not to cry freedom without measure and/or forethought for its own sake, or as is the case more often than not lately, to score disingenuous political points on the back of a straw man argument.


[edit on 25 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


It is understood what you are saying my brother, yet there is much irony in your argument. You rely upon metaphor when using the word contract and yet you wish to restrain the word freedom from enjoying such literary freedom, ironically by arguing for a more literal definition of the word freedom, and expect those who would use the word freedom to rely upon the cold calculations of measurement and prediction, which removes it from the category of metaphor and into a physical description, while contract remains ethereal in its concept. Just as freedom should be discussed with a certain amount of measure and/or forethought, so should contracts.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Freedom is not my enemy, but anarchy and fascism are. If you support either of these I am not with you.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Just as freedom should be discussed with a certain amount of measure and/or forethought, so should contracts.


I miss our discourses ...

No two peeps ever take as long to deconstruct into agreement.

Pfff ... pre-socratic physiologoi got nothing on us!

Cheers bud.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Just as freedom should be discussed with a certain amount of measure and/or forethought, so should contracts.


I miss our discourses ...

No two peeps ever take as long to deconstruct into agreement.

Pfff ... pre-socratic physiologoi got nothing on us!

Cheers bud.





And cheers to you as well! I have missed these discourses as well and this is an agreement of ours I cherish every bit as much as freedom.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It is not true that the Constitution for the United States grants any rights to the people. The Constitution, nor the government gave people the right to own property, it is quite simply a right. Rights pre exist governments and the effective governments tend to be those who competently perform the task delegated them by the people to better protect the rights of the people.

The right to travel is expressly mentioned in the Constitution as a right of the people and a right is only a right in as much as it does not cause injury to others. Trespassing on another persons or entities property is a disregard for their right to have private property, and as such there is no right to travel on private property. The right to travel has not been impeded or trumped by the right to own property, as any person can still travel, just not on property belonging to others.

The argument against walking nude in a public place has normally been that such an action causes injury to others, and as such is not a right. People are certainly free to walk around in the nude in the privacy of their own homes and there are nude beaches in the United States where people do walk nude publicly.

The issue of slavery will forever be a historical black mark upon the Constitution and the ambiguously written "three-fifths Clause" has remained an inky shameful portion of text in that Constitution, rendered moot by the 13th Amendment, which does prohibit slavery. Slavery is now prohibited, and as it should be under a Constitution that holds that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights.

It is patently false that the Constitution did not assure women freedom to women, unless of course they were slaves, and that sadly required a 13th Amendment to rectify, but women as a sexual genotype/phenotype were not excluded from freedom by the Constitution, and no assurances were necessary to any minorities, other than the single largest minority in the nation, the individual. Women poses the same rights as men and do not need any special acknowledgment by Constitution. Slavery should not have been allowed from the get go, it was, then rectified by Constitutional Amendment in the 13th Amendment. All people have inalienable rights, regardless of race, gender or creed.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It is not true that the Constitution for the United States grants any rights to the people. The Constitution, nor the government gave people the right to own property, it is quite simply a right.


How is owning land 'simply a right'? Who gave that authority? By your definition its a right but how is so? Since when did this become the natural agreement?


Rights pre exist governments


There is no clear defined rights for the human race. Those rights did not exist before we humans came into place.


and the effective governments tend to be those who competently perform the task delegated them by the people to better protect the rights of the people.


Again where exactly did those rights come from? Did God give us those rights naturally or did we form them ourselves?


The right to travel is expressly mentioned in the Constitution as a right of the people and a right is only a right in as much as it does not cause injury to others. Trespassing on another persons or entities property is a disregard for their right to have private property,


But it is not injury, and private property isnt a right granted by Earth itself, its a human concept.


The argument against walking nude in a public place has normally been that such an action causes injury to others,


How does it cause injury? Is that just societies definition of injury? To others its not injury at all, its natural. Somebody can rational that since we are born naked, there should not be acceptions to us being forced out that state. However, we enforce laws against nudity because it is in many ways a harm to society. We sacrifice that natural freedom for the sake society.


People are certainly free to walk around in the nude in the privacy of their own homes


But then again we go back to the argument of private property, and as you argued it being our land, that we be free to walk nude on it as well. The argument here mixes.


The issue of slavery will forever be a historical black mark upon the Constitution and the ambiguously written "three-fifths Clause" has remained an inky shameful portion of text in that Constitution, rendered moot by the 13th Amendment, which does prohibit slavery. Slavery is now prohibited,


It may now be prohibited but it was tolerated back then. You clearly argued that constitution was made without any freedoms sacrificed (your own definitions of freedom) however slavery was clearly an acception at the time. The truth was, people did sacrifice freedom over the constitution so that America may benefit. It is a black mark upon our history but thats what had been contractually agreed to at the time.


It is patently false that the Constitution did not assure women freedom to women,


Women were largely excluded in the constitution. The constitution did not assure them the rights written in the constitution. It did not guarantee that those freedoms were protected for them.
cup.columbia.edu...


but women as a sexual genotype/phenotype were not excluded from freedom by the Constitution,


Again, the freedoms in the constitution at the time were not protected for women, atleast until the 14th ammendement. The constitution did not necessarily apply to women. It was not an assurance of those freedoms.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You keep attempting to present rights as if they are something that can only exist by physical grant, and ask who gave us rights, which is as pointless as asking who gave us gravity, who gave us the earth or who gave us the solar system that resides in this universe and who gave us that universe.

Rights are inalienable and exist just as surely as gravity does. Your insistence that trespass is not injury is false. Trespass by definition is injury. It is a transgression on another persons rights, and such transgression is not a right. This equation is what makes rights universal, that a right is such in as much is it does not cause injury to others. Transgressing on another persons property is not a right, and unlawful.

Your questions of how walking nude in public causes injury are valid and under the legal system set in place by Constitution, you can use the courts to challenge any law that would prohibit you from walking nude in public and if those who are advocate the prohibition of nudity in public are claiming injury your challenges force them to provide a victim. If it is a criminal matter rather than a civil matter. If it is a civil matter, then the challenges remain the same, and while the stringent rules of criminal prosecution are not in place, local ordinances prohibiting nudity under civil codes, might discover that code violates portions of their state constitution.

What I am saying, is that under the Constitutional system set in place by the Framers, any person can legally challenge a law as being not valid. A statute, code or ordinance is not law in and of itself, it is merely evidence of law. If it is law, then its very nature is designed to protect the rights of individuals. Whether prohibition of nudity is a law remains to be seen, or more aptly discovered, as this is how laws are found, they are discovered, just as surely as Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity. No one seriously believes that Newton gave us gravity, and no one should seriously believe that legislation gives us freedom.

However, your question of how walking nude in public causes injury seems to be some what disingenuous since you turn around and argue that in many ways it harms society. Whether it does or not I make no argument for, only that arguments to justify prohibition of nudity, including your own, are justified by the fact that such action causes injury.

You continue to deflect with the slavery issue and it is nothing more than obfuscation, all contracts are amendable as is the Constitution for the United States of America and the problem of slavery was rectified, bringing the contract more in line with the rights of all people. The Amendment has the force of law and holds, so why are you continuing to throw out the slavery issue? It has been handled and corrected.

I will simply repeat myself about your spurious assertion that women were excluded from the constitution, no person was excluded from the Constitution including any person by race, with the exception of whom the Constitution refers to as Indians, who by treaty were excluded from certain Clauses. No exclusion of any persons rights is mentioned in the Constitution, and even the rights of those slaves wrongly enslaved, their rights were never excluded by Constitution including the ambiguously written "three-fifths" clause which does not single out any specific race or gender.

The Constitution applies directly to the government it aims to put in place, and the argument that there was once a time when the Constitution did not apply to women is just false. Women were not prevented by the Constitution to run for office, they were not prevented to any thing by that Constitution, and it is disingenuous to argue they were excluded because they weren't singled out and mentioned specifically as being granted rights. No person is granted rights they simply have them. Where do those rights come from? Where does the universe come from?

Edit to Add: sorry for the mess, I intended to press the reply to button instead of the quote button but messed up and don't know how to fix that.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You keep attempting to present rights as if they are something that can only exist by physical grant, and ask who gave us rights, which is as pointless as asking who gave us gravity,


Gravity is a science. Human 'rights' are a matter of culture which is a completely different concept of matter. Human rights does not involve a science in any way, it is a cultural and social perception, view, agreement, and likewise across the world the views of what rights humans have is varied.


Rights are inalienable and exist just as surely as gravity does.


'Rights' are as I said earlier a matter of social and cultural definition, it is a not a science. The views of what rights humans have are different across human cultures and they have changed over the years to better suit society. Unlike science and in such gravity, which has always existed. Gravity is not a social construct, its science, its fact.


Your insistence that trespass is not injury is false. Trespass by definition is injury.


Again this is a social construct. We see humans as a right to own land, we see people tresspassing as an injury. Millenia ago the concept of trespassing was nearly none-existent. This idea of whats 'right' and 'wrong' has changed many times over the years, often to better suit society, and often with sacrifices. It was only two centuries ago that slavery was essentially constitutionally 'right' and that limitations on women was 'right' as well. It was only decades ago that fellow americans were still constitutionally not assured rights through segregated means, they could not freely travel through public areas. The idea of the human 'right' has evolved as society has evolved, often for good. We have over time changed and modified rights so that we may live in a better fair society. We have also restricted many freedoms so that we can assure the better society. Humans do not hold the 'right' to consumer/ take is certain addictive substances as it takes a toll on society and community. Even in their privacy of their own homes this is not a 'right' in the view of society. Domestic violence is not a 'right' even in the privacy of home. There are freedoms that are seen as a burden and threat to society and they are prohibited for the greater good. It is a contract.

Your personal views over 'rights' are not those that are universal. The fact is there is no such thing as universal rights because they are simply social constructs. They change often for the good of civilization and they are significantly different across cultures. We can be rightious and insist our views of rights are universal, but at the end of the day its a social view.


I will simply repeat myself about your spurious assertion that women were excluded from the constitution,


And again let me remind you that women were not guaranteed rights under the constitution. They were not viewed as equal as men at the time and those rights were not equally passed onto them by law until the 15th ammendment. During the majority of the 19th century women were not even allowed to own property.


no person was excluded from the Constitution including any person by race,


And yet the constitution allowed place for slavery to exist.
www.questia.com...


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The right to travel is expressly mentioned in the Constitution as a right of the people...


Hello Jean Paul. Forgive the nit-pick, but can you clarify what you mean by this? There is not explicit mention of citizen travel within the Constitution.

Although, there is a mention of travel, but only referring to Congress.


Article I, Section 6
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

...


There is a presumed 'right' to travel though as laid out in precedence from U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)

Cheers friend!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Women were largely excluded in the constitution. The constitution did not assure them the rights written in the constitution. It did not guarantee that those freedoms were protected for them.
cup.columbia.edu...


While contextually you are correct that the Constitution does not make mention of women, you are applying your understanding of the times today to yesterday with subjectivity and not observing it objectively as if you were engulfed within the culture of the 18th century.

Can you point out where in the Constitution women are excluded? Also, in the reading of context today, except for the black mark regarding those in involuntary servitude and Indians being counted as 3/5th for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives. Can you show me where it explicitly denies a black man or a Native American any of the rights protected from being enjoyed?

Unfortunately the Constitution was ahead of its time in practicality as the culture was still breaking free of the Old World and its accepted practices.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Your nitpicking is more than greatly appreciated. In my haste and my obvious zeal for liberty I imprudently used the word "expressly" when I should have used implicit, and it is implicit by the text of Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 with the citizens of each state being entitled to the privileges and immunities of the several states, and as ambiguous as that may seem, if the federal government has been charged with protecting the "privileges and immunities of citizens from one state traveling to and from other states then travel is clearly accepted as the method in which one citizen would find themselves absent from the state of which they came and now present in a different state, and as such part of what is protected as right.

Thanks for clarifying that.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Your idea for total freedoms is a nice dream. AND although I disagree with your notion of pure freedoms for an individual, I admire your effort to explors subject which motivated me to examine my own POV.

To nutshell my reaction: wouldn't a "state/condition" of pure freedom for one individual necessarily mandate the same freedom for ANY AND ALL individuals...unless you want to introduce the by-law that some individuals are "more free" than others. Most hteenagers know about this fallacy from reading "Animal Farm" (G. Orwell, 1945) which I hope is still included in high school reading lists. AND SINCE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN YOUR SYSTEM WOULD BE ALLOWED TOTAL FREE REIN TO HIS/HER FREEDOM OF ACTION and EXPRESSION, WOULDN't THIS QUICKLY PRODUCE ANARCHY, MAYHEM AND TOTAL COLLAPSE...of what i don't exactly know. QED.

Has the author of this thread considered that his ideal state of existence has roots in ultra liberalist political-philosophy? But again, thanks for the opportunity to do some thinking.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Trust me, I've seen them use the word "social contract" before.

They use that term strictly as justification for enslavement and violence.

They aren't talking about private law, contract law, arbitration, or anything like that - they are talking about slavery.






[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by havanaja
 


You're commenting without watching the videos I see.

Its hard for me to argue massively broad points that take an entire lecture to cover.

I can pretty much assure you that any question on any one area has probably already been answered by some expert along the way in the video series and publications I've presented.

The purpose of this post is to get you thinking about what freedom really means and that there are systems of "government" (if you want to call it that) which allow freedom to be maximized - without chaos.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
How do you define freedom? I see freedom as an illusion which changes forms as you move through different areas. True freedom, you have the ability to do what you want and when you want it. This freedom you live in is not really freedom because it is outlined with rules and borders.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


The borders of our freedom arise from the natural state of man.

"Do no harm to others or their property."

Its a simple rule and one all men tend to agree upon.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


In science there is law and what is law in science is a physical known fact. It is no coincidence at all that the same word applies to rights. The attempt you make to separate the meaning of law and insist law becomes more malleable and not as easy to define when applied to freedom, is dubious in its agenda. It is richly ironic that you ask why a right is a right, and then insist that the laws regarding rights act differently than the laws of science, yet one of the distinguishing factors of any law of science is that it does not explain why, but simply explains or predicts the behavior of properties.

Newton's equation describing gravity does not explain why gravity exists any more than the Bill of Rights explain why, not only enumerated rights exist, but why even the rights not enumerated exist. A law, both in science and in jurisprudence generalizes a body of observations. At the time a law becomes a law, no exceptions have been made. This last point is key in understanding why rights are universal and no exceptions are to be made. Because that is a central component of law. If their is no universal application then it is not law.

Rights have never changed to better suit societies, rights belong to individuals, and societies are formed to better protect those rights. The right to life, liberty and prosperity is not a newfangled notion invented by those wacky white males, we call the Framers of the Constitution, it became law based upon the observable facts since time immemorial that right to life, liberty and prosperity belong to all people. When this law is applied universally societies and the people in them flourish and observably so. When exceptions are made to this law, and its universal application rejected for some other purpose, societies stumble.

As surely as gravity has always existed, the right to life, liberty and prosperity, for humans has always existed as well. Where you say that a "Millenia ago the concept of trespassing was nearly none-existent.", I would remind you that the New Testament records Jesus offering his followers The Lords Prayer and in this prayer there is clear language asking to be forgiven our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Where you speak of some history that never happened, a history in where women were denied rights by The Constitution for the United States of America where in reality, there is no language at all in that Constitution that denies rights to or authorizes anyone to abrogate or derogate the rights of women. The non sense that the Constitution excluded women from having rights is false and can not be shown by the language of that Constitution to do such a thing.

Slavery was never Constitutional in any legal sense, and the tacit agreement to slavery by the "three-fifths" clause, was rendered moot, and bringing the necessary universal application to make the law have the force and weight that law holds. The "three-fifths" clause was a flaw in the equation that is that Constitution, and was corrected by the 13th Amendment. It is odd how you use the precedence of slavery to support your argument that rights are not law in the same sense that gravity is. You are in essence, supporting slavery and arguing that such a thing is perfectly acceptable as long as the social norms and perceptions deem it beneficial to society, and indeed, the benefit to certain markets and economies was the long standing argument and justification for slavery. It is still observable that slavery is wrong and freedom is right.

Consider this; you argue that society restrict certain freedoms because they cause injury or harm to society, and name one of these so called harms as being "certain addictive substances". Not all addictive substances are restricted, at least not yet, and there is no universal application as addiction is not what is being prohibited, but certain substances that lead to addiction, where other substances just as addictive remain a right. Addiction can't be the subject of this law, as clearly there are many exceptions made to addictive substances, so there must be some other subject to that law. Just as the outcome of the so called "laws" prohibiting addictive substances will have its exceptions so will any so called "laws" declaring slavery legal, and the outcome will always produce, exceptions.

That the federal government has declared the authority to prohibit these certain addictive substances is self evident, but far from settled in a legal sense. Indeed, the so called "laws" that have fueled this ill advised "war on drugs" has created an unmistakable toll on society, and has caused great injury to many individuals. When prohibiting products that have a clear demand, the outcome is always a black market which is just one way to facilitate organized crime. Nothing at all about the prohibition of products that hold demand makes any sense, and yet you blithely offer them as evidence that rights are what society says they are and come with all sorts of exceptions.

Your remarkable assertion that:

"There are freedoms that are seen as a burden and threat to society and they are prohibited for the greater good. "

Is an assertion heard by many from the left and it tends to have the same nature and character in reasoning as Janet Reno's decision to burn down the Waco Complex in order to "save the children" and in doing so she killed everyone, including the children...but hey, it was for the greater good. It is this tragic perspective where one mans freedom can be trumped by another mans freedom, and no predictable outcome can be made, that has done much damage to society. Failed drug wars, children burned alive, slavery, tragic and intractable wars, are all products of a failure to successfully predict the outcomes of such ill advised endeavors.

More than 2,500 years ago Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War and in doing so has created lasting laws of battle and conflict that are relied upon today. One of those laws is the avoidance of protracted wars as they exhaust the coffers of a nation, and deplete the moral. Sun Tzu had observed what is indisputably an outcome without exception, that protracted wars lead to financial ruin and low moral of the people. The point being that more than two millennium have passed and yet the law still holds. It was not invented by Sun Tzu and we don't exhaust our coffers and deplete our morale today because we have all agreed to follow the law invented by Sun Tzu, we exhaust finances and morale because that is the natural outcome of protracted wars.

Just as natural in its outcome is the effort to restrict liberty. Any restriction of liberty by government, creates resentment by the governed and it is self evident by the insurrection and willful defiance of people across the world who suffered a long line of abuses and long train of usurpation's before finally demanding that their rights be acknowledged, that freedom is universal, and tyranny will always stumble. In the last century, we watched on television live as people in numerous countries stood up and fought, some effectively accomplishing peaceful revolutions of freedom, as in certain Eastern European nations, or some using more force to gain the liberty they know they have the right to enjoy. When the tyrannical governments crumbled, it was clear their only strength lay in the consent of the governed who no longer consented to the intrusive government, that restricted their freedoms. That these tyrannical governments failed was predictable, just as predictable as prosperity for the self governed.

The fact remains that all people have the right to life, liberty and prosperity, and they do not have this right because it is written, they have it because it is observably so.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Trust me, I've seen them use the word "social contract" before.

They use that term strictly as justification for enslavement and violence.

They aren't talking about private law, contract law, arbitration, or anything like that - they are talking about slavery.






[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]


It is agreed and I just posted a reply to another poster attempting to rely upon "social contract" and how they so willingly relied upon the precedent of slavery to justify their arguments that rights are granted.

Your efforts in this thread, indeed in this site, are more than greatly appreciated.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join