Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 10:34:25 AM)

"Monkey Bars & Seesaws" removed from playgrounds to protect our children from harming themselves.

"Hate Speech" grounds for legal termination in the workplace to protect people from hearing sexual or racial words that they find offensive.

"Hate Crimes" enforcing stricter laws and penalties if it's determined your actions were driven by racial, or sexual prejudice.

"Smoking Laws" reducing your personal choice indoors, and more recently outdoors in many locations.

"Seat Belt/MC-helmet" laws in place requiring use.

"Nudity" laws don't allow the public display of female nipples, or either sex's gender specific sex organs.

All these laws are in place and have very little controversy concerning them or their enforcement. All were put in place by the Government to "protect" citizens; most often from themselves. Why is there a huge furor by members of the public, but more interestingly by the same legislators who passed those other laws, regarding government access to phone records?

Why is it then that when the Government wants to protect it's people from an outside threat, that "personal freedom" rises from the dead? Is the government only supposed to protect us from ourself, but not take any steps to protect these same citizens from an outside threat?

If every measure possible isn't used when the next terrorist attack occurs will those in uproar over this issue, and the issue of monitoring international calls, come to the support of the Government who let their citizens die, but protected their "personal freedoms"? After 9/11 the question was why didn't any of the various Government security agencies know about the terrorist's plans. Wouldn't this type of phone activity monitoring be a step toward knowing and preventing? Is is really more important to you personally to be protected from a smoker on a beach 100 yards from your spot on the sand?
(BUSH IS AN KNOW NOTHING, STUPID, WAR LORD, KILLER OF 100,000 IRAQI, MASS MURDERER, OIL COMPANY FRONT MAN, AND AN ASSHOLE.)
 
There, now that Bush bashing is stipulated, address the issue.



kisshou -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 6:03:17 PM)

well, Mercnbeth , society is made up of more than just adults, I think most of those laws are because of children.  Take all those laws away and add kids to the mix , see the problem.

I don't think this is really what you were asking but it is what I thought of when reading this thread.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 7:18:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

"Monkey Bars & Seesaws" removed from playgrounds to protect our children from harming themselves.

"Hate Speech" grounds for legal termination in the workplace to protect people from hearing sexual or racial words that they find offensive.

"Hate Crimes" enforcing stricter laws and penalties if it's determined your actions were driven by racial, or sexual prejudice.

"Smoking Laws" reducing your personal choice indoors, and more recently outdoors in many locations.

"Seat Belt/MC-helmet" laws in place requiring use.

"Nudity" laws don't allow the public display of female nipples, or either sex's gender specific sex organs.

All these laws are in place and have very little controversy concerning them or their enforcement. All were put in place by the Government to "protect" citizens; most often from themselves. Why is there a huge furor by members of the public, but more interestingly by the same legislators who passed those other laws, regarding government access to phone records?

Why is it then that when the Government wants to protect it's people from an outside threat, that "personal freedom" rises from the dead? Is the government only supposed to protect us from ourself, but not take any steps to protect these same citizens from an outside threat?

If every measure possible isn't used when the next terrorist attack occurs will those in uproar over this issue, and the issue of monitoring international calls, come to the support of the Government who let their citizens die, but protected their "personal freedoms"? After 9/11 the question was why didn't any of the various Government security agencies know about the terrorist's plans. Wouldn't this type of phone activity monitoring be a step toward knowing and preventing? Is is really more important to you personally to be protected from a smoker on a beach 100 yards from your spot on the sand? (BUSH IS AN KNOW NOTHING, STUPID, WAR LORD, KILLER OF 100,000 IRAQI, MASS MURDERER, OIL COMPANY FRONT MAN, AND AN ASSHOLE.)   There, now that Bush bashing is stipulated, address the issue.


Actually.....the first job of government is to protect the people from the government. And any person, who believes and understands ''natural law'', knows full well, that the government should never be allowed to protect people from themselves.

Look, the whole wire tap issue is an erroneous argument. No one hear can make a logical argument that says you beef all your internal security measures and punish/ invade the rights of law abiding citizens for fear of terrorism, while at the same time not doing a single thing to strengthen or modify external security measures. Anyone who buys into that is a moron.

They try and sell this ill-fated logic to the public all the time. The hallmark of a good salesman is selling regardless of the efficacy of the product. Believing, if even temporarily, in what your selling. The easiest people to sell to are those that want to believe in what you’re selling.



Fire the DJ!


 - R



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 8:09:13 PM)

I agree everything in that list is bullshit, barring the last one. That's because I think it would deprive me of the right to pursuit of happiness to see 80 years walking around naked. Good god. I will lay my life down to keep that one on the books. [:'(]

It's because people in general do what is obvious, and don't think about it. Seat Belts Save Lives. Oh it must be good. 1000 children are injured on playground equipment each and every year. Oh, so we should rip it out. Smoking causes cancer. Oh, so we shouldn't let people smoke.
However, you do that long enough no one will be able to do anything. They are already turning their focus to the food industry, mandatory auto insurance, mandatory health insurance. And the always favourite guns kill.  Why because it's obvious fast food is unhealthy and causes people suffering. The uninsured costs the victims of automobile crashes millions. Everyone  should have health care if they can afford it. And guns kill people.

It's just the beginning, their are dozens of things the government could regulate that would be "good" for the american people. And alot of those in government would love to.

But they don't look at it from the viewpoint that freedom to make decisions for oneself outweighs all the "benefits" of enforcing a safe and healthy life on your citizens. Plus you can fine the shit out of people who break the new arbitrary rules. So, it's good for government.

The safest existance though is eventually a padded box and food pushed through a little slit everyday, of course composed of only the most bland and healthy foods. It'll take a little while to get that far.

Yeah, this is one of my biggest gripes about the government. All the little freedoms being taken away. Treating me like I'm  3 years old. Buckle your seat  belt. Don't Smoke. Eat Healthy. Be careful. IF you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Yes, Mom,   urmmmm, I mean government.







DelightMachine -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 9:55:40 PM)

Your examples fall into three categories:

I. The playground example -- isn't that just a response by officials to the possibility of lawsuits? Are there really laws against putting see-saws and money bars in playgrounds? We have an out-of-control legal system and it stays that way because the trial lawyers have used some of their vast loot in giving campaign contributions to politicians who think lawsuits are a great way for the rich to give to the poor.

People tolerate it because regulating kids means regulating those who don't have the vote and, after a short while, won't know enough about see saws and monkey bars to be able to complain that they're missing.

II. Personal safety. There's a bit of justification in not wanting society to have to pay the hospital bills of the ininsured who do stupid things. Sometimes and in some cases I think that's a good argument, sometimes I don't.

III. Things like anti-nudity laws are something like zoning regulations -- some communities restrict everybody from doings something because they want a certain atmosphere. I think local communities should have the right to make all sorts of regulations, and let everybody sort themselves out geographically to live in the communities they like. It's just democracy at work.

I find I'm much more tolerant of big government when it's actually small (local) government for that reason. People sort themselves out geographically.

NBC News tonight just reported that about 65 percent of people have no problem with the phone records that the NSA was reviewing, and 35 percent don't like it. The issue came up as a way to bash Bush, it's obviously not working, and it will go away pretty quickly except for some privacy-rights people and the far left.




Gauge -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/12/2006 10:10:49 PM)

The items you had listed do not hit very close to home for almost every American citizen.

I think that we still have some latitude when it comes to the laws you mentioned because enforcement of said laws is not as stringent except the Hate speech and hate crimes. When you are being monitored directly and your actions are being analyzed by some government official to determine whether or not my 80 year old neighbor is a terrorist... then that hits too close to home and we as a people cry foul.

I understand what it is you are saying and that we don't get up in arms about the things you mentioned, but I also understand the flip side of it also.



Termyn8or -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 12:35:39 AM)

I'll have you know I stopped my bathwater for this thread.

In a document, long said to br a forgery, it was said tha freedom is only an illusion.

Many other things were said in that document, Most have come true. If this document is indeed a forgery the forger had insight, akin to and possibly superior to the writers of the Bible.

This document is very hard to read, it makes the Bible look like a third grade primer.

If it is a forgery, why is it so true ?

I refer to "The Protocols Of The Meetings Of The Learned Elders Of Zion".

This forgery seems to have come true.

If you want to read it I have it, and would like to have a newer "forgery" if I can get it.

T

Ill be baack.



kisshou -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 4:04:01 AM)

Freedom is totally an illusion, I can completely see the validity of that statement. 



meatcleaver -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 4:46:10 AM)

This says it better than I can.

The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis - aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests - presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon.

Noam Chomsky 
  After the Cataclysm



Chaingang -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 7:25:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Monkey Bars & Seesaws" removed from playgrounds to protect our children from harming themselves.


Isn't this just a liability issue for most cities and schools? Why would they increase their chances for a lawsuit? I've never seen where this is an issue in law, but I am interested if anyone has heard of a law concerning safe equipment in children's playgrounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Hate Speech" grounds for legal termination in the workplace to protect people from hearing sexual or racial words that they find offensive.


Apparently you don't understand how harassment works, or what? Why should anyone have to deal with that in a work environment?

As free speech in a different context I think its fine because it just shows why hate speech is such crap and idiocy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Hate Crimes" enforcing stricter laws and penalties if it's determined your actions were driven by racial, or sexual prejudice.


Yeah, that's just crazy. What motivates a crime is immaterial to the type of crime it is. That's like giving criminal greed a pass as unworthy of serious punishment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Smoking Laws" reducing your personal choice indoors, and more recently outdoors in many locations.


I am okay with such laws indoors and in workplaces. You can't choose not to breathe in someone else's pollution because you have to breathe in the first place. Outdoors or anywhere else where you can more easily evade it is somewhat more manageable, but then if the space is small it might always mean surrendering it to smokers who may overtake the location. But in wide open spaces I have no objection to people doing what they will. But here again, I don't like the cigarette butt litter in public spaces.

To me personally, smoking is an unhealthy and filthy habit. Smokers sadly track this filth where they take their habit because they don't think of a cigarette butt as litter. WTF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Seat Belt/MC-helmet" laws in place requiring use.


The more society assumes the cost of medical expenses in an attempt to spread the cost this actually makes some sense. The problem becomes treating some activities differently than others, and that's where it starts not making sense. I would personally err on the side of personal choice.
quote:



ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
"Nudity" laws don't allow the public display of female nipples, or either sex's gender specific sex organs.


The place where this bothers me most is at the beach. I am willing for such laws to be context specific - but within the beach/lake/river context nudity should be allowed. People who don't want to stare at your naked bits can simply look elsewhere. The whole prohibition against nudity thing assumes certain aesthetic and moral viewpoints that are simply not universally held by any group of people and a minority viewpoint should not be used to control the behavior of everyone else who may be in disagreement with the minority view.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 7:49:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I'll have you know I stopped my bathwater for this thread.In a document, long said to br a forgery, it was said tha freedom is only an illusion. Many other things were said in that document, Most have come true. If this document is indeed a forgery the forger had insight, akin to and possibly superior to the writers of the Bible.
If you want to read it I have it, and would like to have a newer "forgery" if I can get it.
T

T,
I had not heard of "The Protocols..." but found a few references regarding an alleged 1897 conference held in Switzerland where Jewish leaders plotted their global conquest. This article provides highlights and an overview of the "conspiracy" source: http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/ 
For the record, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion was proven to be a fake as far back as 1921. That year, a newspaper article in the London Times traced the meat of the book back to a plagiarization of a plagiarization of a work whose original target was Napoleon Bonaparte.
quote:

The ultimate source, published in 1864, was titled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu ("Discussions Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell"). The book was a satirical commentary on Napoleon's insatiable lust for world domination. No Jews whatsoever appear in the story.


The pragmatic 'Wikipedia' says:
quote:

The Protocols are widely considered to be the beginning of contemporary conspiracy theory literature,[3] and take the form of an instruction manual to a new member of the "Elders," describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, and replace the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. The work was popularized by those opposed to the revolutionary movement, and was disseminated further after the Russian Revolution of 1905, becoming known worldwide after the 1917 Bolshevik October Revolution, when the idea that Bolshevism was a conspiracy for world domination sparked far-ranging interest in the Protocols. It was widely circulated in the West in the 1920s and 1930s, and while continued usage of the Protocols as a propaganda tool substantially diminished with the defeat of the Nazis in World War II, it still has currency in the arsenal of contemporary anti-Semitism. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion


In this case there is no conspiracy only complacency and misguided "humanism". By accounting for the "exception" the majority are ignored. The majority of humans have "feelings" about fellow humans. Ask if it's appropriate to help and give water to someone in the desert and no one would refuse. Ask to set up an aid station in the middle of the desert for thirsty illegal aliens coming over the border and the survey results change dramatically.

The politicians exploit this aspect of human nature to herd the masses into complicity. Now there are more laws directed to the "exceptional" that the "standard" rights and privileges are getting compromised. The most telling example is the school system. By gearing the curriculum to the exception, 25% of the students now in CA schools can not pass a 10th grade equivalent exit exam. It was a "Great Victory" for them yesterday when a Judge decided they would still get a "diploma". As an employer, how much value will I put on anyone's CA issued HS diploma? I've become to assume that the exceptional is the rule.

That's how insidious the process is with these laws. When the next attack occurs, the "exceptional" restrictive laws will seem the standard rule. Don't blame the government, blame the training we've all been given, and blame the complacency of the "it doesn't effect me" attitude.



DelightMachine -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 12:23:49 PM)

If you hold an obviously forged document up as something "possibly superior to the writers of the Bible" and that document is one of the primary anti-Semitic propaganda items of the past 150 years or more ...

... then are you filled with hate toward Jews or profoundly naive?

You don't think much of God, either, do you?

I doubt anybody can be that naive. Why not peddle your hate elsewhere?



LadyMedhbh -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 12:42:07 PM)

In regards to tapping into internation calls to States... I am against it.  I am an American living abroad and I don't think that my government has the right to listen into my conversations with my family and friends.  Besides that, they would find us all to be a bunch of raving lunatics and probably laugh themselves silly at our conversations.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 1:16:59 PM)

quote:

In this case there is no conspiracy only complacency and misguided "humanism". By accounting for the "exception" the majority are ignored. The majority of humans have "feelings" about fellow humans. Ask if it's appropriate to help and give water to someone in the desert and no one would refuse. Ask to set up an aid station in the middle of the desert for thirsty illegal aliens coming over the border and the survey results change dramatically.

The politicians exploit this aspect of human nature to herd the masses into complicity. Now there are more laws directed to the "exceptional" that the "standard" rights and privileges are getting compromised. The most telling example is the school system. By gearing the curriculum to the exception, 25% of the students now in CA schools can not pass a 10th grade equivalent exit exam. It was a "Great Victory" for them yesterday when a Judge decided they would still get a "diploma". As an employer, how much value will I put on anyone's CA issued HS diploma? I've become to assume that the exceptional is the rule.

That's how insidious the process is with these laws. When the next attack occurs, the "exceptional" restrictive laws will seem the standard rule. Don't blame the government, blame the training we've all been given, and blame the complacency of the "it doesn't effect me" attitude.



Merc....

You're coming through loud and clear for those of us who really care and pay attention. But I wish you'd break it down more for those who are complacent or haven't figured out what's happening yet. [;)]




 - R





GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/13/2006 1:26:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
Merc....

You're coming through loud and clear for those of us who really care and pay attention. But I wish you'd break it down more for those who are complacent or haven't figured out what's happening yet. [;)]




- R





*Laffs*  Do you think it will help? 
Thanks!  I needed that smile!



Kedikat -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/14/2006 1:47:24 AM)

This is all, good ideas abused by asshole people.
Racial sexual and so on harrasment laws are a good idea, abused by assholes. As are so many good ideas. That's the trouble with trying to create a just society. Assholes will always find ways to abuse or coast on those laws and ideals.
Setting up a good thing for all, means leaving it open for the assholes to abuse and use.
It happens in everything at all levels. But it isn't a reason to give up on it. The vast majority of it works as it is intended, because most of the time, most of us, aren't assholes.
Welfare is abused by a few, unemployment insurance, insurance, etc......
From the President down to the bum by the riverside. They can be basically good human beings, or assholes looking to play the loopholes that benifit people in real trouble.
If you have a rat in your basement, do you burn down the house to kill it?
Somebody is always looking for an angle to play. But a lot of people are saved with what we try to do for the good of us all.
On a personal note: My IQ and knowledge of physics and cranial structure, leads quite naturally to wearing My helmet when I ride. As well as healthcare and insurance costs. I smoke, but gladly butt out at another persons request, or area of public use. They have freedoms as well. And insurance costs and life expectancy.



UtopianRanger -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/14/2006 12:14:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
Merc....

You're coming through loud and clear for those of us who really care and pay attention. But I wish you'd break it down more for those who are complacent or haven't figured out what's happening yet. [;)]




- R





*Laffs*  Do you think it will help? 
Thanks!  I needed that smile!


Prolly not! They just wanna go home, eat Chinese food and watch Martha Stewart argue with Trump.


 - R


PS - Hows the most beautiful lady from the Grand Canyon state been? [;)]



ArtCatDom -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/14/2006 2:01:57 PM)

I disagree with all the (mostly) liberal restrictions on liberty you listed as much as I oppose the neocon efforts to impinge in other fashions in the name of securty.

I'd rather be free than safe.

As for the monkey bars, our society has let our tort system devolve to a horrifying level. When I was growing up, if you climbed a neighbor's tree, fell down and broken your leg, it was accepted that these things happened. Hell, it was even to the point of your parents refusing to punish you only for the fact that a busted bone should have taught you your lesson. Today, instead that neighbor would be sued for not maintaining the tree in such a way so it couldn't be climbed. It's obviously a siren-song to children for climbing and a public nuisssance, in the current frame of thought. *sighs* Personal responsibility comes with freedom but our civil courts have become the court of passing blame.

Just my opinion.

*meow*




Kedikat -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/26/2006 2:19:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

I disagree with all the (mostly) liberal restrictions on liberty you listed as much as I oppose the neocon efforts to impinge in other fashions in the name of securty.

I'd rather be free than safe.

As for the monkey bars, our society has let our tort system devolve to a horrifying level. When I was growing up, if you climbed a neighbor's tree, fell down and broken your leg, it was accepted that these things happened. Hell, it was even to the point of your parents refusing to punish you only for the fact that a busted bone should have taught you your lesson. Today, instead that neighbor would be sued for not maintaining the tree in such a way so it couldn't be climbed. It's obviously a siren-song to children for climbing and a public nuisssance, in the current frame of thought. *sighs* Personal responsibility comes with freedom but our civil courts have become the court of passing blame.

Just my opinion.

*meow*



It isn't the lawyers, it is the creeps who use them. It isn't the laws, it is the morons who make them needed.
People create their society. Then bitch about it and abuse it, till it is a mess. Then it collapses and gets built up again. Round and round...... the majority goes along for the ride.



ArtCatDom -> RE: Consistent Application of "Personal Freedom" (5/26/2006 2:47:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedikat

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

I disagree with all the (mostly) liberal restrictions on liberty you listed as much as I oppose the neocon efforts to impinge in other fashions in the name of securty.

I'd rather be free than safe.

As for the monkey bars, our society has let our tort system devolve to a horrifying level. When I was growing up, if you climbed a neighbor's tree, fell down and broken your leg, it was accepted that these things happened. Hell, it was even to the point of your parents refusing to punish you only for the fact that a busted bone should have taught you your lesson. Today, instead that neighbor would be sued for not maintaining the tree in such a way so it couldn't be climbed. It's obviously a siren-song to children for climbing and a public nuisssance, in the current frame of thought. *sighs* Personal responsibility comes with freedom but our civil courts have become the court of passing blame.

Just my opinion.

*meow*



It isn't the lawyers, it is the creeps who use them. It isn't the laws, it is the morons who make them needed.
People create their society. Then bitch about it and abuse it, till it is a mess. Then it collapses and gets built up again. Round and round...... the majority goes along for the ride.



Oh believe me, I'm not blaming the lawyers. They're only there because of supply and demand. People demand lawyers to sue for ridiculous reasons and of course lawyers will step in to fill that demand. I agree the problem starts with the people starting the suits in the first place.

*meow*



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875