There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, as granted by US Law. Without being granted those things they would not have them by a specific authority, the US Government.They would not automatically have them.

Your right to life, liberty, property and self-determination are -not- granted by US law.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants these things.

Never mind that this is completely beside the point here....

 

[PratchettFan]

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

 

[PratchettFan]

1. 
   There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Excellent post.

The Liberal vs Conservative ; the Republican vs democrat are false dichotomies.

The question is whether an individual supports LIBERTY., no if , buts or howevers.


.


.

Do you?

 

[Camp]

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society.

OK... and?

No one is born with automatic inherent freedoms.

You then proceed from a different set of assumption than those who founded this country and therefore cannot meaningfully have this conversation.

What a punk ass pussy way to escape a loosing position. The founders words back up my words and what I presented. When they declared life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they added "...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,..."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

 

[PratchettFan]

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe that if they can use it without becoming a burden on society they should be able to use it. If they use it an become a burden, I see better solutions than making it illegal and treating just using the stuff as a crime.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club. But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society.

OK... and?

No one is born with automatic inherent freedoms.

You then proceed from a different set of assumption than those who founded this country and therefore cannot meaningfully have this conversation.

What a punk ass pussy way to escape a loosing position. The founders words back up my words and what I presented. When they declared life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they added "...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,..."

Not sure how this supports your position, or negates my statement, especially given that "these rights", they say, were endowed upon us by our Creator.
Please explain..

 

[PratchettFan]

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

Yep. That is a natural behavior of human beings. The very fact we have laws is a clear demonstration that we need them. But concepts of harm and immediate danger are very broad terms and can be used to justify almost anything. The reality is that this is not an either/or issue. It is a balancing act where we try to keep either end of the seesaw from hitting the ground.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.
"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

Yep. That is a natural behavior of human beings.

Well.... the natural order of some human beings. Others just want to be left alone, and in return will leave others alone.

But concepts of harm and immediate danger are very broad terms and can be used to justify almost anything.

Usually, those that chose to parse these terms to their advantage seek to exert control over others.

 

[rdean]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

Major Garrett Obama has expanded not reduced gun rights - CBS News

Republicans feel the need to control women's bodies. They feel women need that control because they aren't capable of making their own decisions. They feel they need to limit the life quality of gays because they feel gays aren't entirely human. Republicans practice voter suppression because they feel blacks need guidance and only Republicans are capable of giving the proper guidance. Other than that, everyone should be free.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

Major Garrett Obama has expanded not reduced gun rights - CBS News
Republicans feel the need to control women's bodies. They feel women need that control because they aren't capable of making their own decisions. They feel they need to limit the life quality of gays because they feel gays aren't entirely human. Republicans practice voter suppression because they feel blacks need guidance and only Republicans are capable of giving the proper guidance. Other than that, everyone should be free.

Please explain how this is relevant to the idea put forth in the OP.

 

[Contumacious]

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.
"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

Yep. That is a natural behavior of human beings. The very fact we have laws is a clear demonstration that we need them. But concepts of harm and immediate danger are very broad terms and can be used to justify almost anything. The reality is that this is not an either/or issue. It is a balancing act where we try to keep either end of the seesaw from hitting the ground.

The problem is that people like you whose mind is enslaved, who is not aware of his rights and who is dependent upon the government for his livelihood will succumb to government supremacists.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along. The very concept of liberty is very new to our species. It is not inherent in our behavior. Quite the opposite.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government. To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so. For most of human history, the right to do just that was considered an inherent right of every strong man. What people call inherent rights are really nothing more than artificial legal concepts which exist only so long as the society allows them to exist. If that goes away, the rights go away. Thus they are dependent upon a working society.

 

[PratchettFan]

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

Yep. That is a natural behavior of human beings. The very fact we have laws is a clear demonstration that we need them. But concepts of harm and immediate danger are very broad terms and can be used to justify almost anything. The reality is that this is not an either/or issue. It is a balancing act where we try to keep either end of the seesaw from hitting the ground.

The problem is that people like you whose mind is enslaved, who is not aware of his rights and who is dependent upon the government for his livelihood will succumb to government supremacists.

The problem with people like you is your are deluded. Life is not a John Wayne movie.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along. The very concept of liberty is very new to our species. It is not inherent in our behavior. Quite the opposite.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government. To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so. For most of human history, the right to do just that was considered an inherent right of every strong man. What people call inherent rights are really nothing more than artificial legal concepts which exist only so long as the society allows them to exist. If that goes away, the rights go away. Thus they are dependent upon a working society.

Might Does Not Make Right

The Founders created a Federal Court System to protect our rights : Life, Liberty, Property, the pursuit of happiness

Unfortunately it was populated by government supremacists who are more concerned with the government rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along.

Yes.. he seeks to control others for the sake of control - others that seek the ability to act according go their inherent freedoms.
See how that lines up?

In the state of nature, you are free to exercise your inherent rights; your ability to do so depends on your ability to protect that freedom. The only real difference between that and the state of, well. states, is that we create a government to protect those freedoms.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government.

"Created" and "maintained" are different things.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, "maintains" certain rights, nowhere does the government grant those certain rights.

To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so.

That 'something" is you. Or the state, Or both.
None of that bears on the concept in the OP, however -- there;s people like you, that wan to be left alone, and then there's people like the guy who wants to take your house and kill you.

 

[Contumacious]

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe it is your body and you should be able to do with it whatever you please. But what we are doing here is determining parameters and I think it is pretty clear no one wants no restrictions on freedom. So it really is a matter of degree rather than taking one side or the other.

To a degree -- but, unquestionably, there are people who simply seek to limit the freedoms of others, absent any demonstrable harm or immediate danger, because they seek to have control over these people.

Yep. That is a natural behavior of human beings. The very fact we have laws is a clear demonstration that we need them. But concepts of harm and immediate danger are very broad terms and can be used to justify almost anything. The reality is that this is not an either/or issue. It is a balancing act where we try to keep either end of the seesaw from hitting the ground.

The problem is that people like you whose mind is enslaved, who is not aware of his rights and who is dependent upon the government for his livelihood will succumb to government supremacists.

The problem with people like you is your are deluded. Life is not a John Wayne movie.

The problem with people like you is your are naive and ignorant who believes that we are being governed by angels.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....


...just those who believe people are inherently free,

Those are called "conservative".

and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Those are called "liberal".

Not sure what you have against naming the two opposing philosophies. But I hope this helps clarify things for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....
...just those who believe people are inherently free,

Those are called "conservative".

and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Those are called "liberal".
Not sure what you have against naming the two opposing philosophies. But I hope this helps clarify things for you.

Not always so.
For instance,some conservatives with to impose Christian morality on others.