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

[pix]

We live as well as we do, pix, because we don't live in a world by your rules.

Australia is a country of a Rule of Law. Cross the line, mate, and you are spate. You know that. Australia is not a libertarian world.

i have no idea what youre talking about. i dont live by any rule of law that i dont want to.
as for guns, sure howard brought them in, but everyones stoked about that excepting afew losers.
ppl who have guns in australia are socially ostracised. there are very few gun owners here. dont get me wrong, you can own guns here, but you have to be licensed and checked. only gutless feeble cowards who couldnt hold their own in a fist fight own guns here. social repurcussions are very strong.

 

[pix]

;lol: Sure you do. You have far stricter gun laws than the USA, and that is an example of a Rule of Law country.

yay for australia!!(although i still have no idea what you mean)
i think we had about 17 deaths by guns in aus last year. if ever there is a gun death, anywhere in aus (which is a country waaaay bigger than america) you will hear about it all lover the news. but in america, its de rigueur. thats fucking tragic for america.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

...be outlawed.

True.

I suggest you read the following:

In Defense of Liberty: The Relationship Between Security and Freedom


www.heritage.org/research/lecture/in-defense-of-liberty-the...

... and how any short-term disadvantages that may harm an open society at ... personal freedom and ... law in abstract terms as an enemy of freedom, ...

And Progressives call me extreme...

 

[JakeStarkey]

;lol: Sure you do. You have far stricter gun laws than the USA, and that is an example of a Rule of Law country.

yay for australia!!(although i still have no idea what you mean)
i think we had about 17 deaths by guns in aus last year. if ever there is a gun death, anywhere in aus (which is a country waaaay bigger than america) you will hear about it all lover the news. but in america, its de rigueur. thats fucking tragic for america.

I agree that such deaths are tragic, althoug it has decreased from 19000 plus to 11000 plus in 15 years. Sensible laws will help cut it even more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Progressives call me extreme..

You are extreme.

 

[pix]

I agree that such deaths are tragic, althoug it has decreased from 19000 plus to 11000 plus in 15 years. Sensible laws will help cut it even more.

my face is all scrunched up when i say, "ohhhhh well thats a start" about those stats, but i am blown away that it is acceptable to your countryfolk that such astronomic figures are touted re gun deaths, and yet you all want your guns prised from your cold dead hands.

 

[blackhawk]

...be outlawed.

True.

Who gets to decide what is bringing harm to society? I'm sure there are many who feel owning a gun brings harm to society and that should be outlawed. Many probably feel that out of wedlock births and teen pregnancies bring harm to society should sex be outlawed till your 21 or married? How would you get a consensus on what freedoms harm society and how would you enforce it?

 

[Contumacious]

the Rule of Law by a We the People constitutional republic with minority rights is far superior to any libertarian or anarchist status.

Let me see if I can guess what you are smoking: Mexican Sinsemilla, right?

.

 

[Two Thumbs]

...be outlawed.

True.

Gotta love an honest liberal.

Comes right out in the open and says he's against freedom.

And probably half the Constitution.

Gotta love an honest conservative.

Comes right out and says he sees any political ideology in black and white terms.

choices; freedom or tyranny

I choose freedom you chose tyranny


Pick any color you want, you picked tyranny over freedom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mexican Sinsemilla, right?.

Libertarians smoke a far inferior weed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I choose freedom you chose tyranny Pick any color you want, you picked tyranny over freedom.

You choose the tyranny of a simplistic mind.

 

[Agit8r]

"And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to N. G. Dufief (April 19, 1814)

 

[JohnL.Burke]

...be outlawed.

True.

Any freedom that brings harm to society has already been outlawed. The rest is simply a power grab.

 

[bripat9643]

the Rule of Law by a We the People constitutional republic with minority rights is far superior to any libertarian or anarchist status.

When did any libertarian ever come out against the rule of law or minority rights?

 

[bripat9643]

;lol: Sure you do. You have far stricter gun laws than the USA, and that is an example of a Rule of Law country.

No, that is an example of tyranny. Apparently you believe the rule of law just means having thousands and thousands of oppressive laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are a social animal by nature. The natural basic social unit of human beings is not the individual, rarely even is it the single family. It is the group.

Most of the inventors in history have been INTJs, which makes your argument that we, whoever you think we is, are social even more absurd.

well to be accurate, the Myers-Briggs "personality test" is held in as much esteem as an astrological chart in psych., circles, but the lay ppl love it and put much store in it, for some reason.
and those who may show up as an intj or an entj or any other of the 16 combinations will more often than not be in an entirely different "myers/briggs pigeon hole" under different circumstances, on a different day.

That doesn't change the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Non sequitur, pix: try again.

And the fact is that in the natural state anyone could shoot anyone.

That is the problem of the libertarian society of equals: we'd end up with warriors, shield maidens, and everyone else would be slaves.

In that world, though, I would be the supreme leader.

Ever hear of a gun? It is a new invention that puts everyone on an equal footing.

 

[PaulS1950]

Our freedoms are closely tied to our rights. The rights of an individual cannot harm the population as a whole because each individual has the same rights. Our freedoms are the same. Each individual has the same freedoms that are limited only so far as to keep one from limiting the freedoms of another. Neither can harm society. The removal of freedoms and rights does harm society as a whole so one would think that freedoms and rights are the best path to a healthy society.

With this in mind I would say false - freedoms are an important part of the health of a society and as such should not be limited beyond the prior definition.

It would seem that the OP has some particular freedom in mind and I would like to see that brought to the forefront to better answer this question.

 

[dblack]

This thread is a supreme turd (that's right - it comes with sour cream - so to speak). The notion that a right, or protected freedom, can bring harm to someone is contradictory. We have the right to exercise our freedoms, so long as they don't infringe on others' right to do likewise.

 

[MisterBeale]

In the end, it matters not what laws you pass or don't pass, I don't remember signing any "social contract." I'll obey those laws I believe are just, and ignore those I think are foolish. Prattle on with your useless authoritarian waste of our tax dollars.

These days? The government is here for one purpose, to seek to expand it's own power, not to help or protect the people. It really is time for a reality check.