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.
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?
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
Metaphysique
who's going to be drawing those lines?
how are those rules/laws going to be enforced?
Metaphysique
by a monopoly on violence?
[we've been trying that for like 10,000 years already]
Metaphysique
but my freedom of speech is not contingent on whether it offends others...
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?
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?