True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[Contumacious]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

What is "society"?


Can the rights to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness be UNALIENABLE if we must be concerned about "society"?

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

False. This could be highly subjective.

 

[Katzndogz]

So? There are places in the US where they can fine you if don't paint your house the right color.

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

Well then the people in Europe can move if they don't like the seed laws.

Or, they can end the EU.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

When someone talks about harming society, they are actually talking about harm to themselves. Society is an abstract. It has no physical existence. It has no rights.

People who talk about the good of society are seeking benefit for themselves.

Gee, it would be much nicer for me if everyone drove in the slow lane at 40 MPH so that I can get in the fast lane when I'm late for work.

Gee, it would be much nicer for me if there were no guns around so I won't catch a stray bullet.

Any time anyone starts talking about the good of society, they are seeking advantage over you.

Ignore them.

 

[Oddball]

.

There are many people in the country who would clearly be more comfortable with an increasingly governmentally authoritarian environment. What I don't know is whether their numbers have been increasing or whether they're just becoming louder. Maybe it's both.

But I'll never understand the trust and faith these people have in authoritarians.

.

And yet you would make every individual an authoritarian?

You know, speaking of the issue of individual v common rights in ABSOLUTE terms makes the discussions completely senseless.

ARe you calling for the elimination of all common laws?

No you're not.

But that is what you seem to be saying.

The only "common rights" are those which extend from the individual rights to life, liberty and property.

Everything else is despotism wrapped around the hairy-fairy subjective notion of "common good".

 

[kwc57]

Most people, as well exhibited here, don't understand the difference between freedom and license.

The EU is deciding that your backyard garden bring general harm to society and is criminalizing all seeds and plants not under government authority. Your flowers could land you in jail.

BREAKING: European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

What happens with absolute authority is that so few realize what absolute means and what the terms "general harm" means. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they do, brings general harm to someone.

So? There are places in the US where they can fine you if don't paint your house the right color.

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

Correct! I live in such a neighborhood. It's why we bought there. It's a beautiful neighborhood with well kept homes and lawns. No boats or travel trailers in the driveway, no weedy unmowed lawns, no cars parked in the street, no carports, no purple houses or metal roofs, etc. If someone doesn't want to live in a neighborhood with an association covenant and pay dues, there are thousands upon thousands of available houses all over the city with cars parked in the street that you ahve to weave thru and gaudy eyesores you have to look at when you go outside. Freedom of association is a wonderful thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong. Human beings are social animals by nature, in the same manner as most other primates, canines, etc.

Human 'society' is the natural condition, so of course the good of the 'society' is a natural concern.

What's good for the individual is ultimately good for "society"

Well, if you were an individual who was drafted into the military, and lost both your legs , or was killed outright, fighting,
but your 'society' won the war, you might disagree with that.

"Society" wouldn't be the one drafting me. Corrupt politicians would be.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

No, it would be detrimental to some people and beneficial to others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most people, as well exhibited here, don't understand the difference between freedom and license.

The EU is deciding that your backyard garden bring general harm to society and is criminalizing all seeds and plants not under government authority. Your flowers could land you in jail.

BREAKING: European Commission to criminalize nearly all seeds and plants not registered with government

What happens with absolute authority is that so few realize what absolute means and what the terms "general harm" means. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they do, brings general harm to someone.

Been there, done that:

"A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government."
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

So? There are places in the US where they can fine you if don't paint your house the right color.

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

Well then the people in Europe can move if they don't like the seed laws.

Apply same to state abortion law.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

There are many people in the country who would clearly be more comfortable with an increasingly governmentally authoritarian environment.

Well, are you comfortable with the alarming increase in a corporate authoritarian environment that we have now? I am much more comfortable with congress writing laws requested by we the people (not that this is the case anymore) than corporations and corporate stooges writing the laws, such as in the case of Monsanto. Congress we can vote out. Corporations just write laws to take our rights away to protect themselves from us. Why is a government buffer by and for the people more frightening to you than the rising plutocracy?

 

[Oddball]

There are many people in the country who would clearly be more comfortable with an increasingly governmentally authoritarian environment.

Well, are you comfortable with the alarming increase in a corporate authoritarian environment that we have now? I am much more comfortable with congress writing laws requested by we the people (not that this is the case anymore) than corporations and corporate stooges writing the laws, such as in the case of Monsanto. Congress we can vote out. Corporations just write laws to take our rights away to protect themselves from us. Why is a government buffer by and for the people more frightening to you than the rising plutocracy?

Gubmint is no more of a "buffer" than Don Vito is in relation to Tessio and Clemenza.

Were there no power to be sold, the eeeeevil corporations wouldn't be buying it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So? There are places in the US where they can fine you if don't paint your house the right color.

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?

Why is that?

Changing Colors: Purple House Owner Decides To Comply With Lubbock City Ordinance - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

There's one of many examples.

Tell me how many examples you would need to admit you're an idiot and I'll see if I can accommodate you.

"You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?
Why is that?"


You simply cannot refrain from having the most trite, unimaginative, jejune insults, can you?

I'm gonna guess it's related to your IQ, and lack in that precinct.


Has that been mentioned to you previously?

 

[Oddball]

Aw shit...Now poopsplatters is gonna get permabanned!

 

[PratchettFan]

...be outlawed.

True.

Sorry, that is way to vague. I would say that is false 99 times out of a hundred. The harm would have to be immediate, obvious and grave for me to agree to this.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Were there no power to be sold, the eeeeevil corporations wouldn't be buying it.

Precisely my point. So you agree we need to get money out of politics, and that bought and paid for legislation like Citizens United should be repealed?

Government was at one time a buffer to protect the whole of the American people from exploitation of the private sector. Now it is a tool of corporations and nothing more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Polchik has a big black piece of wood shoved up her hairy ****.

What a disgusting sub-human you are.

But, I bet you've heard that before.

 

[Ravi]

Aw shit...Now poopsplatters is gonna get permabanned!

That will suck for the rest of the internets.

 

[Oddball]

Aw shit...Now poopsplatters is gonna get permabanned!

Only imbeciles live in Saskatchewan.

i will neever phear yoo!

 

[kwc57]

Polchik has a big black piece of wood shoved up her hairy ****.

What a disgusting sub-human you are.

But, I bet you've heard that before.

I bet you've been told to take the splinters out of your dark hole before as well.

TDM finally melted down. Waddle to the pantry and crack open another bag of Cheetos and wait for your ban to pass. You might want to shower while you have some time off. The neighbors are complaining about the funk coming from your mom's basement again.