Freedom Is Not My Enemy

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I disagree...I will admit I do not have total "freedom"...and it is by choice. It is because I have chosen "responsibility" over total "freedom".

You are free to choose whatever you want as long as it doesn't impede my right to choose.

I can't have total "freedom" if I have chosen this responsibility...I must make sacrafices in order to fulfill my responsibilities. And I make those sacrafices with pride.

If you have chosen something, than you are exercising freedom. You could have chosen otherwise. Responsibility and freedom are not mutually exclusive.

There are some things more important than freedom...there are some things that bind as all together as humans regardless of our level of freedom we enjoy...the responsibilities people commit to and sacrafices people make to provide and protect their families is one of those...In my personal opinion.

You have just provided personal examples of how you exercise your own freedom, and then called them a lack of freedom. Imagine if someone were to take away your freedom to choose whether to take care of your loved ones or not.

reply to post by whatukno

Freedom is not my enemy, but anarchy and fascism are. If you support either of these I am not with you.

So freedom is not your enemy unless it is implemented? What makes a government and the people in it special? How are they so enlightened while the rest of us are barbaric and cruel? The biggest issue with governments is that they give a monopoly of violence to a tyrannical authority. That combination had proven deadly on a far greater level than anything free individuals can ever come up with. Governments ignore responsibility and excuse terrible deeds as necessary evils.

I don't know how anyone can defend the state at this point, unless under extreme coercion, extreme conditioning, or an advanced stage of Stockholm Syndrome. State propaganda and government schools have destroyed humanities hope for achieving freedom to the point that some people have an aversion to it.

It feels like the government has given people Naltrexone for freedom.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

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.

There is a such thing as universally preferable behavior. Just as electricity finds the path of least resistance, people have found rational reasons to prefer behaviors over others.





What is interesting about the constitution is that it was made not to give rights to people, but stop the government from certain undesirable activities.

To Havanaja

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.

Anarchy? ... yes. Mayhem? .... no, we have that now. Total Collapse? ... of the rights of some people (government) to do things that are morally reprehensible, yes. Society itself would not collapse. Why would it? What incantations does the government chant to create structure, peace, and order?

There is a fallacious argument around here and this is how it goes.

"Freedom? We can't have complete freedom because that would be anarchy."

This statement, though true, is actually meant in a way that anarchy is synonymous with chaos. This is not the case. Anarchy is the lack of a monopoly of violence that tells people their proper behavior. People will no longer be forced to act in preferable ways, and will choose to as it is preferable to begin with. In fact, a society without a state to control human interaction will see a drastic increase in social capital, which will empower people to do for themselves and help those that can't do for themselves.

Imagine you try to force 2 children to play nice together. You regulate their toy distribution and force them to share. They will likely begin to distrust and resent each other.

You know what's awesome is the lecture given by Hans Hoppe on private law posted on my site.

He makes several mind blowing arguments that I've never thought about before.

For example:

Austria and Germany are in a state of anarchy between each other.

If a citizen of Austria on the German border has a dispute with German, there is no "supreme court" or over-reaching world authority that they can turn to in order to resolve their dispute.

The dispute must be settled between mutual agreements of the respective governments. The governments engage in this willingly and have established rules of conduct to sort out these kinds of disputes, but there is no world governing authority over them.

He uses this to prove that a private law society between contracted "insurance agents of law" can indeed work just fine as the principles are the same.

Great stuff.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Freedom or Anarchy? Who do we look to for either? Certainly not BigGov.

Look, we can argue about "social contracts" till we turn blue. An ancient document tells us that man is a slave to those to whom he is in debt. A slave has, by his personal decision, given up his own freedom. Big Gov wants to keep you beholding to it so it can enslave you. A wise man once said. "Yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

Final analysis: Want freedom? Get out of debt. True freedom comes from the hand of God, not by edict of BigGov. or anarchy.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by romanmel]

reply to post by romanmel


The problem is each American is born into owing 300,000 in debt right now.

Because government can spend on your behalf, you have no choice but to be in debt.

Because government can take your labor by force, you have no choice but to pay this debt.

Hence, slavery will not end until government ends.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by romanmel

 

The problem is each American is born into owing 300,000 in debt right now.

Because government can spend on your behalf, you have no choice but to be in debt.

Because government can take your labor by force, you have no choice but to pay this debt.

Hence, slavery will not end until government ends.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

In order for you to consider,"...government can spend on your behalf, you have no choice but to be in debt.", you have to first yield yourself to BigGov. Thus you have already given in to the lie of making BigGov god.

I am sorry, but I do not detect any particular attack on my freedom less laws and statutes
that define law. I have operated my entire 30 years in the same manor less the obvious augmentations and possible vulnerabilities upon reaching legal age.

So I ask all of you

WHAT FREEDOM ARE YOU BEING DENIED NOW?

WHAT FREEDOM HAS BEEN RETRACTED IN YOUR LIFETIME?

It could be that I have lead a sheltered life and have not attempted to detect the boundaries of such but I am at a loss to provide specific evidence.

So I would like more than one documenting instance of anyone here being restricted
in a manner that falls outside the realm of duly prescribed law.

In this manner I often detect a mourning for a nameless, faceless friend, which can never be resolved or even discussed with a tangible point of reference.

I suppose for me freedom is acting, going, doing, thinking, feeling and saying what I please when I please or my general/usual conduct or ability to alter such...

As I have said I cannot sight anything that has impacted or limited any of this. I am not saying you guys have not,
but I am curious to see the list that fuels this constant frustration in so many of you.

thanks JR

reply to post by Janky Red


Janky, most likely it will be the freedom to enter into a private contract of my choosing, upon terms I either found agreeable or acceptable.

Never before has the United States Government forced the hands of a citizen to enter into a contract to purchase a good and/or service or face penalty.

Although, they have tried the exact opposite, prohibition. Which was to force people to not enter into a private contract.

It is a classic case of government not attacking the root of the problem, but going after the most visible culprit. In the case of alcohol, it was twisted to make the public believe it was the only way they could bring down organized crime. Since organized crime at the time were running alcohol, they would ban alcohol and give justification.

This was the largest circumvention of our Constitutional rights, specifically the 4th and 5th Amendments. Funny thing is we continue this practice today, under the guise of the War on Drugs.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


The US government forces me into contracts I don't agree to constantly.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of war.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of drug law enforcement.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of Nancy Pelosi's salary.

I never agreed to anything under any contract with the government what-so-ever.

They force me to buy car insurance, they force me to pay for other peoples kids to attend school, they force me to pay for other peoples mortgages, etc.. etc.. etc..

The government is pretty much the same as the Mafia. They operate as a lawless group of individuals with a monopoly on the use of force. They even demand protection money. There really is no difference between the Mafia and the government.

Everyone talks about freedom and how great it is but when they see a free man it frightens the hell out of them. There are no free places, anywhere.

reply to post by DINSTAAR

You have just provided personal examples of how you exercise your own freedom, and then called them a lack of freedom. Imagine if someone were to take away your freedom to choose whether to take care of your loved ones or not.

Sometimes when you exercise some freedoms...you sacrafice others.

Hence this idea of total freedom just simply doesn't make sense. It was and always will be a compromise on what freedoms you choose and which are sacraficed. For example...as a people we have chosen to divide into nations and draw imaginary borders in the land...we do this so a group can choose our own freedoms. But also by doing this...we sacrafice some freedom by having to prove we belong within these borders to get back in if we choose to ever leave them.

It is all a trade off...there is no total and limitless freedom...it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Janky, most likely it will be the freedom to enter into a private contract of my choosing, upon terms I either found agreeable or acceptable.

Funny thing is I face that all the time in dealing with corporations of sorts -
I have no say in the contract (phone, cable, gas, water, loans) my only say is to go without since all of these entities have similar stipulations, so in my eyes this has been the biggest hit on my freedom, with private entities; financially, term and conditions, on my behalf.

But I have yet to see my range of expression (in all ways) in this country be limited thru government.

The legal ease and massive structure has seem me paying thousands in my lifetime just for lack of be able to respond to such giant constructions, coupled with credit reporting, another corporate structure we are all chained to without consent.

Slowly year after year fees pile up, under fear that I will be cut off from the ALL such modernity's I pay and pay and pay. My recourse is a lawyer, which usually would cost much more than the "FEE". I could sight 7 of these HITS this last year totaling over a thousand dollars...

I know Ben Franklin was very keen on the notion of two party contracts and how it relates to freedom. I seemed to be a very integral part of freedoms structure in his eyes. He would often write about the negotiations, strategy and his "opponents" plausible motives and strategies.

If you are talking about the HCR, I agree, very bad move, the compulsory part.
However, it think the anger would be the same if a system was put into place for everyone, ala universal.

I think the option to cause no rightward anger might have been tort reform, which is bias towards business, in other words limiting a plaintiffs freedom to seek all avenues
of recourse based upon TORT LAW. interesting IMO that the individual is limited in one avenue is it not? Especially considering stuff and crys

Never the less I would like to see some specific examples, beyond general contractual
ones.

It seems everyone is fine with allowing corporations to have monopolies on the negotiation process in most cases, but not fine to place a frame work about the corporations on "behalf" of we the people. We the people who have little option but to deal with some form of such entity to achieve modern standards ...

This is were the freedom talk become suspect in my eyes... As tort reform as a small example, limiting the plaintiffs ability to seek damages by an artificial means, changing one portion of personal injury law, well, is that not limiting one freedom to that portion of recourse, a recourse which libertarian ideas a based upon, legal recourse as opposed to preemptive regulation?

As I have said the compulsory part of HCR is a different matter, one of which I will not defend. I am also damn sick with a cold/flu so I am sorry if this is even worse than my usual attempts...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The US government forces me into contracts I don't agree to constantly.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of war.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of drug law enforcement.

I never agreed to give my labor in support of Nancy Pelosi's salary.

I never agreed to anything under any contract with the government what-so-ever.

They force me to buy car insurance, they force me to pay for other peoples kids to attend school, they force me to pay for other peoples mortgages, etc.. etc.. etc..

The government is pretty much the same as the Mafia. They operate as a lawless group of individuals with a monopoly on the use of force. They even demand protection money. There really is no difference between the Mafia and the government.

Well I mean My parents never agreed to invest in this technology that we are utilizing today. Or the hardware and labor funded by all of us...

I never agreed to many things I assume my tax dollars are going towards.

It seems to me you really want something that is solely defined by your definitions and notions.

It appears your happiness hinges upon #A the destruction of the US government and #B that another governing, taxing body will not take its place

=

recipe for living and unhappy, impossible existence

Originally posted by Janky Red
Well I mean My parents never agreed to invest in this technology that we are utilizing today. Or the hardware and labor funded by all of us...

I never agreed to many things I assume my tax dollars are going towards.

It seems to me you really want something that is solely defined by your definitions and notions.

It appears your happiness hinges upon #A the destruction of the US government and #B that another governing, taxing body will not take its place

=

recipe for living and unhappy, impossible existence

Your right on A, wrong on B.

And impossible is only defined by the laws of nature, not the laws of man.

I'm not violating any laws of nature in my desires, thus the existence I would like to subscribe to is not impossible.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red
Well I mean My parents never agreed to invest in this technology that we are utilizing today. Or the hardware and labor funded by all of us...

I never agreed to many things I assume my tax dollars are going towards.

It seems to me you really want something that is solely defined by your definitions and notions.

It appears your happiness hinges upon #A the destruction of the US government and #B that another governing, taxing body will not take its place

=

recipe for living and unhappy, impossible existence

Your right on A, wrong on B.

And impossible is only defined by the laws of nature, not the laws of man.

I'm not violating any laws of nature in my desires, thus the existence I would like to subscribe to is not impossible.

well good luck

I am sorry you are so dissatisfied

reply to post by Janky Red

WHAT FREEDOM ARE YOU BEING DENIED NOW?

-The freedom to my own property. I cannot make a living without someone taking some of my earnings.
-I cannot use another form of currency like gold or silver. Legally, even bartered items must be taxed upon their value in dollars. The government forces people to be a part of a monetary system that they are working to destroy. This is a recipe for disaster.
-I cannot home school my kids without state permission or in the very least, regulation.
-I am not allowed to medicate myself or use substances for recreation even when I am being no hindrance on anyone.
-Every single thing that one needs a permit for is an encroachment on our freedom. If I wanted to buy land, and build on it, I would need a permit.
-IF I had a business I would be forced to obey regulations that have little relevance to the business itself. Not to mention I would have to pay the government for all my licensing and taxes.

Do I need to go on?

WHAT FREEDOM HAS BEEN RETRACTED IN YOUR LIFETIME?

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been instated by the government to ensure that the big oligopolies maintain control over the market while start-ups and small businesses bringing innovation are hindered.

So I would like more than one documenting instance of anyone here being restricted in a manner that falls outside the realm of duly prescribed law.

I am taxed for every penny I earn, as are you. I am not free to use my earnings as I see fit, instead I am coerced into paying for the tyranny that enslaves us and kills for the sake of some sick sense of patriotism.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Sometimes when you exercise some freedoms...you sacrafice others.

You do not sacrifice freedom when you take on responsibility. You are exercising your freedom to do what is best for you, your family, and those close to you because YOU found this to be preferable to being a deadbeat. Nobody forced you to be a good husband/wife father or mother. It is something you do because you are rational and it is preferred over other options.

You are sacrificing selfish desire, but that is not freedom. Freedom is the ability of choice itself, not the choice and its outcome. You can very well choose to leave your family but you haven't voluntarily. This is both preferred, and moral. If you were being forced, it couldn't be moral, and may not necessarily be preferred.

It was and always will be a compromise on what freedoms you choose and which are sacraficed.

The choice itself is freedom. A "sacrifice of freedom" itself is a free act and does not undermine the fact that (minus coercive situations) you can choose exercise your freedoms differently. When you say "sacrifice my freedom" what you mean is sacrifice my selfish, opportunistic tenancies.

Janky Red

It seems everyone is fine with allowing corporations to have monopolies on the negotiation process in most cases, but not fine to place a frame work about the corporations on "behalf" of we the people.

A monopoly of power lines in an area does not compare to a monopoly of violence. If 'we the people' wanted to do anything about the oligopolies and monopolies the first thing we would do is run to government and ask them to fix it. This is where we fail. Most laws and regulation over markets have acted to ensure dominance of these very monopolies. From zoning laws to government contracts, the state deals only with the companies that back politicians. Only the large companies have the resources for this, so the laws and regs that are passed may hurt the big businesses a little, but they decimate the small businesses who had no back room deal.

This is were the freedom talk become suspect in my eyes... As tort reform as a small example, limiting the plaintiffs ability to seek damages by an artificial means, changing one portion of personal injury law, well, is that not limiting one freedom to that portion of recourse, a recourse which libertarian ideas a based upon, legal recourse as opposed to preemptive regulation?

Straw man killed. I take the same stance on tort reform as I do anything politically. Coerced regulations on markets are immoral, unnecessary, and unjust.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Tort reform would be unnecessary if proper contracts were in place.

Doctors could simply refuse to provide service unless a contract was signed that specified a set payout in the event of a malpractice event. Doctors could set the limit and self-insure that amount if they wanted too.

I'm not sure why this isn't the case right now.

I'm guessing there must be some law in place that prevents this.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

ah yes, here we go

legalworkshop.org...


such contracts are illegal in medical care

hence, why medical costs are so out of control.

reply to post by mnemeth1

hence, why medical costs are so out of control.

Couple that with the government intrusions that already exist in the medical field and you have the makings of a price increasing feedback loop. As long as the individual cannot afford their own health care, insurance companies and government intrusions are necessary to provide it. But the whole problem of too high of prices exists because the government has intruded in the first place. Now, we have to deal with resistance from government and insurance companies from actual reform.

Basically, the government has no price setting structure or expertise. They are like a blindfolded man running through a forest. Prices tend to increase because the government will pay any price because they don't know the price of things to begin with. All this, up until you have shortages of either medical care (Due to bureaucratic bogging market down) or shortages of funds because your population is getting sicker and sicker while stifling productivity and innovation.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Pretty much it.

That sums up the state of our current criminal healthcare system.

Of course, one only needs to look at who donates the most to democratic political campaigns to see why exculpatory malpractice contracts are illegal.

Such contracts would put the trial lawyers out of business.

That would be a tragedy.

You know, such contracts might also create a secondary market.

For example, a doctor might provide an exculpatory contract that prevents you from suing him in the event of malpractice - BUT - you as an individual could then purchase your own malpractice insurance to cover you in the event that the doctor screws up.

This way if you want SUPER cheap care, you could visit a doctor that provides no coverage if he screws up - and the choice is YOURS if you want to take out malpractice coverage before seeing him or not.


God this all makes so much sense - hence why its all illegal.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]