Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms

a reply to: Nothin

I actually had to go back and take another look at your post.

I have to say that animals peeing here or there is something we can't really control, we can barely control ourselves. I think what Krahzeef_Ukhar posted a couple posts above points to that. Laws are meant for those who understand. Not saying we are much above those other creatures but we certainly can understand why our urine might be better deposited in the systems we have set up for that type of refuse.

I'm not american either, if that matters, and we can just whip it out and go where nature sends you the urge and nobody seems to care but then you have someone who might burn garbage near your home or set refuse, someone left a rotting dog in front of my mother-in-laws house and I'm sure you can see how that could be something that the average person would like to not happen.

So we are back to laws and what their purpose is. Obviously to control those who can't be bothered to think about their fellow citizen. You will never hear about someone against laws against theft or murder. Seems we all agree. We don't give thieves, murderers and rapists a chance to explain to us why they should be allowed to commit such acts. There is no point because they are not going to come up with a convincing argument.

Other laws fall into gray areas where people have not done anything wrong. It is, as the OP has said, infringement but if a society agrees, then why not follow the will of the people? I know that there is a good argument to not do that but my point wasn't about being morally right but about a society which has so many restrictions that it makes the rant of one more seem kinda silly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

Are you seriously disagreeing with the idea that laws are anti freedom?

There is no way you can argue that and be correct.

You're ideas are silly, just like mine and just like everyone elses. And that's why we entertain the loss of freedoms.

The answer isn't because we're not as smart as you. No matter how much comfort that gives you.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I do not agree with laws that punish people when they aren't infringing on the rights of others.

But you asked "Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms".

The answer is because people think it will make life go smoother.

It probably won't but that is why some people want to give it a chance. It isn't that hard to understand even if you and I (maybe a few more) don't agree with it.

a reply to: daskakik

Am glad you are interested in thinking about such ideas.
Can see that you put a lot of thought and effort into that post. Thanks!

You make some good points.

Am still interested in beyond 'freedom', beyond 'rights', beyond this simplicity?

Does not the term "Freedom": implicate some 'other' powerful 'thing', to be 'free' from ?

Does not the term "Right": implicate some 'other' powerful 'thing', to accord us 'rights' ?

So what are we, is this, beyond freedoms and rights ?

And so why are these rights and freedoms so important ?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You're either trolling or you're not very bright.

Are you seriously disagreeing with the idea that laws are anti freedom?

There is no way you can argue that and be correct.

Technically a "law" is made to restrict behavior or action.

Therefore by it's very definition it is anti-freedom.
It is a restriction.

I just argued it and am correct.


Eg: Law against murder is a prohibition/restriction of the 'freedom' to kill others.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

We give up our freedoms because the government has way better armaments than the citizenry. The government is not afraid of its citizens.

So you just give up and roll over?

Every government now and in the entire history of man governing his fellow man has feared it's citizens.

You are being delusional if you think the government is afraid of your shotguns when they are packing aircraft carriers.

a reply to: Nothin

Oh wow, thank you.

Beyond this simplicity?

Don't mean to thrift DBC's thread but I think it would still be on topic. First of all we need to just forget about the US constitution and their bill of rights. Not saying they are bad, there were actually damn good for there time, but you are not asking about something framed around them.

The fact of the matter is, and I'm hoping our american friends read this, is that there are about 100 democratic republics in the world and about 30 Parliamentary republics which come to mean the same. They don't all function at the same level but the idea is similar and seeing the incarceration rate in the US...

Your questions are really deep and I don't know if you will like what I have to say, they are not answers, they can be but they will not seem that way.

Your need to survive means that you are not free. You are bound by that need, but only if you need to go on. You cannot be free from that as long as you are alive.

Rights are a social construct that depend on the society you live in. As long as you are in that place you are also not free. In some places you cannot drink but you can beat your wife, she would definitely not be free in that circumstance. In other places you are free to imbibe in alcohol but you cannot beat your wife.

I know they are extreme examples but I think you might grasp what I'm getting at. One society has their rules and another might have the same basic rules but there is some difference. As long as you are living in either you are expected to live by those rules.

I know that some people talk about inalienable rights. There is no such thing. Someone decides to shoot up the place you are shopping at you might just lose your life, liberty and your right to a pursuit of happiness. Sounds nice on that piece of paper but nobody can guarantee that you will have it.

a reply to: muzzleflash
I can't attack you're argument. It's the same as mine.

I can attack your literacy though.

And you can probably attack mine, a well written post wouldn't be that easy to misunderstand.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Do you mean the OP's literacy level? (hahah)

I reread both your and my posts and am assuming you mean the OP because I think your and my posts are fairly easy to understand.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Ok I went and reread all your posts in the thread - and the argument you were conducting. I had missed a few pieces of it.

I am in agreement with you that "we entertain the loss of freedoms" because we as a society agree that pure freedom (total anarchy) is a horrorshow and so at least some limitations are desirable.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was an implicit admission that a government of laws was necessary to protect the welfare of the people, and that some form of laws and enforcement are a necessary evil. The Constitution then proceeds to attempt to limit the power of that constituted government and it's ability to arrest/convict/punish people with force.

I suppose at least 2 people here didn't understand what you meant when you attempted to point this out.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's a numbers and control game.

Do they have aircraft carriers? Are they point for point more powerful? Yes.

But logistically speaking, it's hard to use those carriers posted way out on the ocean to control all the many hundreds of thousands of miles of land of the American interior full of the moving cells of armed American citizens who would comprise any revolutionary force. It would be hard to use those carriers to protect all of the isolated American mega cities surrounded by all that open land.

Not to mention, you make the assumption that the American military would automatically and cleanly serve the American government, no matter what, no questions asked when in many cases it would be ordering them to fire on their own family members or in service to things those military members may be bitterly opposed to.

Carriers may end up fighting other carriers.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well you say that - but govt shuts down internet etc and tells their drone operators, air force, special forces .... that these terrorists are running amok - they respond.

How long do you think a bunch of 'well organised militia' is going to survive?

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: ketsuko

Well you say that - but govt shuts down internet etc and tells their drone operators, air force, special forces .... that these terrorists are running amok - they respond.

How long do you think a bunch of 'well organised militia' is going to survive?

Longer than you might think. We have all that fancy tech now, and I note that there are still plenty of resistance fighters in the Middle East, and it's a much smaller battleground.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

Blah, blahblah, blah blah.

Why do so many now endorse a loss of freedoms?

_____________________________________________________________________

Another internet analogy was this;

A herd of sheep saw a wolf eat one of their bretheren.

They saw the wolf use it's teeth to tear and rend the flesh of their flock member.

They saw teeth as a danger.

So the sheep removed all their teeth to be safer.
______________________________________________________________________

Why do we (as a culture) support and endorse people who want to remove our freedoms?

Yes, something tragic happened. It happened twice in a day! Guess what!


It'll happen again.


It's bcause we live in a society that embraces freedom, good/bad/indifferent.

Most people appreciate the freedoms we have, the freedoms and not to infringe on the freedoms of others.

Some bad people do not.

But we don't want to infringe on the rights of everyone else because a few bad people did bad things, do we?

We are we even entertaining this?

Why would we give up freedoms?

Because Band-Aids are cheaper.

a reply to: DBCowboy

People have freedom to go about their daily business without fear of being shot.

This seems to get lost somewhere.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: DBCowboy

People have freedom to go about their daily business without fear of being shot.

This seems to get lost somewhere.

Except I'm not afraid of being shot, and I live in a violent big city. I am afraid of being robbed in my own home though, but you'd take away my right to defend myself?

102 people die each day on average in the US from vehicle crashes alone, 37,000 annually, how many of these deaths were caused by stupidity/drugs/mental health/negligence etc. Better hand in your vehicles people because someone did something stupid (manufactured or not) and you all should go without.

I used to be staunch anti gun from seeing the many headlines over the years, but many ATSers changed my mind over time on various points, hold on to your rights and freedom Americans, the one thing a tyrannical government or invading force would want is an unarmed populace.

Most gun death is from suicide 29,000 annually, 8000 murders mostly in 4 cities in bad neighborhoods. Out of 327,000,000 people, why should good people who have guns loose their guns and protection because of bad people, leaving only criminals and bad people with guns?

a reply to: DBCowboy

So much deception in this thred, be honest about it, you DO NOT entertain giving up your guns, every time there is a mass shooting there is a panic by the gun owners of gun grabs, yet it never happens, there will be replies along the lines of "we will fight them for our guns" no need America will never change, who enjoy killing each other to much or else you would change.

As i said many many times, every weak excuse used by gun advocates is nonsense, its not because of prescribed drugs, its not because of social media, its not because of video games, its not because of poverty, its not because of religion, why am I sure? because every other nation on the planet has the same issues yet they do not have these shootings anywhere near the frequency of the US

Americans killing Americans is a freedom right? More guns will make people safer right?

True story I have lived through the time when in my country guns were available to the public then in 1997 it changed, I have interacted with many in person in those 23 years since and the overwhelming majority do not miss being able to buy a gun or even feel their freedoms were removed, maybe were not as selfish as a nation, maybe you will think were just weak minded and have had a tyrannical gooberment make us weak, yet no gooberment stooges have murdered any of us in those 23 years.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: DBCowboy

People have freedom to go about their daily business without fear of being shot.

This seems to get lost somewhere.

Except I'm not afraid of being shot, and I live in a violent big city. I am afraid of being robbed in my own home though, but you'd take away my right to defend myself?

Fear is growing amongst Americans.

Residents across the US are expressing a new kind of anxiety and fear after two back-to-back mass shootings took place over the weekend.

www.buzzfeednews.com...

a reply to: alldaylong

Buzzfeed are the same people who run with lies in their so-called news.