Freedom where too draw the line?

crazyewok

greencmp


Yes, jail or preferably death at the hands of the intended victim.

Freedom and murder are so far from being comparable or mistakable for one another as to make me question whether you have thought very deeply about your question.

You are free to eat your sandwich, you are not free to eat my sandwich (nor to murder me and eat me or my sandwich but, I didn't think that we needed to clarify that).

There are no freedoms that are crimes which is why there should never be restrictions on freedoms. To allege that some freedoms are crimes is misleading, to criminalize freedom is by definition totalitarianism.

So in effect a freedom that takes the freedom or forces something extremly negative upon another is not a freedom but a crime?

I can respect that deffinition.

Of course what consitutes a crime is again a line that needs to be drawn. Its not always black and white. If I murderd you and took your sandwich thats pretty clear but. But say I set up a business that handled harmfull chemicals, should I have regulations or should I be free to dump my waste in your water and possibly kill you?

History has proven that unencumbered by regulation industry will take excessive liberties on human rights, and damage to the environment.

I don't think anyone even argues that, even the staunches republican here in the US would not argue for zero labor and zero environmental protection. Thats a characterization of them done by the media, the question is exactly what you ask though.

Where is the line, To some its far left, to others its far right, No one is arguing for Zero, not even the craziest of us would.

But as with all things the truth lies in the middle, not slanted to either side.

Should the state protect people from criminals, Yes, should the state protect the people from Companies that seek to do the environment or people Harm, Yes.

Where is that line of harm though? is it clear cut? Some say yes, some say no.

Some think the Government should protect people from their own choices, thats wrong.

Frankly though this is a debate older than time itself, and far greater minds have pondered it than our.

Its why the US has its founding documents in the first place, the great experiment in trying to balance mans freedoms and his duty to society as a whole is the very basis for the US.

reply to post by crazyewok


Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not impact, restrict, inhibit, deny the freedom of others.

easy-peasy, lemon-squeasy

beezzer
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not impact, restrict, inhibit, deny the freedom of others.

easy-peasy, lemon-squeasy

Haha yeah. I think this is a common theme and one I lean strongly for.

reply to post by seeker1963


Seriously man, i think you are in the wrong thread :/ Take a breather, i really dont see him (her? meh) targeting the US for a bashing with what been asked.

OP - i like what some one said earlier about not restricting freedoms, but punishing crimes - I guess i'm a libertarian with a small "l" if someone need to categorise it. In an ideal world, which would probably mean one with less people, more space and a heck of a lot more self responsibility we could do away with a heck of a lot of legislation that defines what we can do without censure.

But freedom is relative, and one's freedom can limit another's when there is no compassion or empathy - and the world sure lacks that a lot of the time.

reply to post by benrl


Great post. I think you summed my feelings up pretty well.

reply to post by crazyewok


the problem with your proposal can be summed up with 2 questions:

who's going to be drawing those lines?

how are those rules/laws going to be enforced?


by a monopoly on violence?
[we've been trying that for like 10,000 years already]

much respect to wrabbit and his "paw"

but my freedom of speech is not contingent on whether it offends others...

Metaphysique


who's going to be drawing those lines?

how are those rules/laws going to be enforced?

The great problem I guess. Someone somewere is always going to have to draw those lines. Guess that comes down to whats the best way to pick ones goverment? and whats the best way to make sure ones govermnet doesnt get us into the mess we are all in now?

Metaphysique
by a monopoly on violence?
[we've been trying that for like 10,000 years already]

Yeah hasnt gotten us far I agree.

Metaphysique
but my freedom of speech is not contingent on whether it offends others...

I agree, Ones is free to offend and one is free to not listen. I think my line is drawn then it goes from offending to inciting violence and hurting people, I think we both agree that one should not be free to raise a lynch mob and go beat up or kill (insert minority group here).

reply to post by skalla


I think that was probably runoff from one gungrabbing themed threads. Sometimes people have a hard time letting things go, and remember disagreements elsewhere. One of the problems with forums that allow avatars

crazyewok

greencmp


Yes, jail or preferably death at the hands of the intended victim.

Freedom and murder are so far from being comparable or mistakable for one another as to make me question whether you have thought very deeply about your question.

You are free to eat your sandwich, you are not free to eat my sandwich (nor to murder me and eat me or my sandwich but, I didn't think that we needed to clarify that).

There are no freedoms that are crimes which is why there should never be restrictions on freedoms. To allege that some freedoms are crimes is misleading, to criminalize freedom is by definition totalitarianism.

So in effect a freedom that takes the freedom or forces something extremly negative upon another is not a freedom but a crime?

I can respect that deffinition.

Of course what consitutes a crime is again a line that needs to be drawn. Its not always black and white. If I murderd you and took your sandwich thats pretty clear but. But say I set up a business that handled harmfull chemicals, should I have regulations or should I be free to dump my waste in your water and possibly kill you?

Yes, I haven't been able to think of any unclear examples (which is not to say that there won't be some of course) where what appears to be a freedom is actually a crime.

If you poison someone (or lots of people) that is a crime, whatever the mechanism or intention. With a less powerful government, that company would have far less latitude to commit such crimes with impunity since they will not be protected by the threat of state violence supporting their criminal activity. I think many people have the incorrect impression that increased state control will translate into greater protections from crime when all of the evidence suggests the opposite.

greencmp
I think many people have the incorrect impression that increased state control will translate into greater protections from crime when all of the evidence suggests the opposite.

Indeed. All the most oppresive regiumes seem to have a very short shelf life.

benrl
Ive been called an anarchist on occasion, I believe I should be able to do and say as I please as long as that does not harm another.

I don't need the state protecting me from myself.

Love does no harm.
But when most are willing to see no harm in abortion or prostitution or such things, it becomes apparent that humans have a defect - we can perceive harm as no harm when it suits our desires and pleasures and flesh. We'd rather see the baby as a clump of cells in order to provide a 'way out' of casual sex or we'd rather believe that the porn star is happy with her life instead of drug addicted for example. No different than a pederast can truly believe that the 10 year old boy that he molests is benefited 'spiritually' by man/boy love. He can see no harm and therefore will fight for his right to do what he wants .

WhoKnows100

benrl
Ive been called an anarchist on occasion, I believe I should be able to do and say as I please as long as that does not harm another.

I don't need the state protecting me from myself.

Love does no harm.
But when most are willing to see no harm in abortion or prostitution or such things, it becomes apparent that humans have a defect - we can perceive harm as no harm when it suits our desires and pleasures and flesh. We'd rather see the baby as a clump of cells in order to provide a 'way out' of casual sex or we'd rather believe that the porn star is happy with her life instead of drug addicted for example. No different than a pederast can truly believe that the 10 year old boy that he molests is benefited 'spiritually' by man/boy love. He can see no harm and therefore will fight for his right to do what he wants .

Yea, perverts and criminals can do mental gymnastics to justify their stance.

As such society tends to rely on a consensus of what is morally acceptable, even that changes depending on which group of people you ask.

We can bandy about moral gray areas all we want, but truly we all know what the people responding mean when they say as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

It means my free choices should not impose on your free choices.

reply to post by Metaphysique


You say that like you think we were better off 10,000 years ago. Since the creation of actual government (the "monopoly on violence" that anarchists like to gas on about), the human species has advanced by leaps and bounds. Conquered disease, explored foreign lands, split the atom and put men on the moon. Your idealistic society would do none of that.

reply to post by crazyewok


What if you use your freedom to allow harn to cobtinue, should that be allowed under your view?


For example, people should not be allowed to kill another person because that causes harm but what if they are already dying and you do Nothing to help them? Should that be legal, and if not, doesn't that mean we should should FORCE people against their will to help others, slowly once again taking away freedom little by little?

ShadeWolf
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

You say that like you think we were better off 10,000 years ago. Since the creation of actual government (the "monopoly on violence" that anarchists like to gas on about), the human species has advanced by leaps and bounds. Conquered disease, explored foreign lands, split the atom and put men on the moon. Your idealistic society would do none of that.

your assertions could be easily proven or disproven had those very same governments not had the despicable habit of destroying past history in order to rewrite it to their advantage .

therefore, you have absolutely no evidence to claim things weren't better before then or that humanity did not accomplish those feats or surpassed them .

and a little newsflash to rock your little world, all of humanity's advances have been a product

of The Individual

not the collective.


ROFL, you statists, primary beneficiaries and imbibers of the state's teats...

doing the same failed thing over and over and over again...

[whining] "but it'll work this time..."


reply to post by crazyewok

oh and F&S ewok

as benri pointed out [corps.] along with skalla [empathy]
defining terms is of importance.

to an unreconstructed bigot subscribing to antebellum values in old dixie
freedom can mean to do what one pleases with those of lower station

the following Bene Gesserit aphorism sums it up best for me:


"Seek Freedom and you will become a slave to your desires,
seek Self-Discipline and you will achieve Liberty."

Some greats posts here and points that have been brought out.

arpgme
reply to post by crazyewok

 

What if you use your freedom to allow harn to cobtinue, should that be allowed under your view?


For example, people should not be allowed to kill another person because that causes harm but what if they are already dying and you do Nothing to help them? Should that be legal, and if not, doesn't that mean we should should FORCE people against their will to help others, slowly once again taking away freedom little by little?

I know its a bit of a grey area and one were a set bar will never please everyone

To me things like assisted should be ok as long a as a doctor and lawyer has ruled the concenting person sane.

Hell I would be for duels as long as they are between two consenting adults.

A thorough read of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights should answer all of your questions about freedom and powers of Government. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

A crime should only be a physical act against someone or their property.

reply to post by crazyewok


When you think about it, there's only 1 actual law that actually is in force. That is the law of physics. That's the only law. Like you can't fly, you're not superman, you're kept within the laws of physics.

Now next to that in terms of actual laws are the 10 commandments. Those are the basic laws of life. Then the laws of the land. The actual laws, not the acts or policies, but the actual laws. Most of which are nothing more than ways for the rich to steal from the poor. That's why they were invented. But generally speaking unless you want trouble you have to follow them.

Now where are tptb going? The Matrix. that's it. And before that, well your every movment, your every thought, and action would be monitored and recorded. If you step out of line you're killed. It would be a the elitiests and then all the surfs / slaves. that's where it's going.