Bull Ring Coyote Vs TNH

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by TNHarley, Feb 17, 2017.

  1. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    50,150
    Thanks Received:
    8,634
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +21,402
    Agree - both are dependent on rights. And yes - being told "no" is liberty at work...but not necessarily equality.
     
  2. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    32,204
    Thanks Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +27,907
    Society saying no has nothing to do with ones equality. Equality is granted by the state. Equality can only be taken away by the state.
    Someone telling you no doesn't effect ones liberty at all.
     
  3. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    32,204
    Thanks Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +27,907
    It is if you go by what equality actually is
     
  4. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    50,150
    Thanks Received:
    8,634
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +21,402
    Equality of rights only is granted by the state. Not equality.

    And yes...it can. If no one in society will sell you or rent you a home, that effects your liberty.
    If no one will give you medical care, that too can effect your liberty.
     
  5. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    32,204
    Thanks Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +27,907
    OK, I feel like this debate has officially worn out lol
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  6. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    50,150
    Thanks Received:
    8,634
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +21,402

    Well...I did - I provided definitions of what equality is and can provide more:

    equality - definition of equality in English | Oxford Dictionaries
    The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

    the definition of equality
    the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability:

    equality Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
    the right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment:
     
  7. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    50,150
    Thanks Received:
    8,634
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +21,402

    Ok....I'm cool with that. This was great and I also learned a little something!

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. TNHarley
    Offline

    TNHarley Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    32,204
    Thanks Received:
    5,022
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +27,907
    Good definitions. But it doesn't change anything. EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS TO SAY NO. Anything else is social Marxism. Period. There is no way around unless you rape the terms.
    "well that person gets to say "no" more than that one" doesn't matter! Everyone is equal!
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    16,826
    Thanks Received:
    2,149
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,165
    Yes they are different.
    Liberte Egalite Fraternite

    Can you have one without the other?

    Yes.
    1. example of equality without liberty:
    If all students in a class are subject to the same
    oppressive rules, they are all treated EQUALLY
    but they have no liberty to change or challenge the rules.

    2. example of liberty without equality:
    two people are free to eat as much as they can at a free dinner where they are both welcomed as guests. But one eats three times as much
    as the other person. They are both happy and both report being free and did not have any conditions that restricted them from participating and enjoying themselves to the fullest.
    But one got three times the value and food by eating more than the other person, so they are not equal in that sense.

    As for your point about "what's the point of freedom if you are restricted by the state anyway?"

    Well that's true of life in general.
    I am not free to turn myself into a butterfly and fly around all I want to.
    That's breaking the laws of nature and physics.

    There is difference is between
    political freedom and
    spiritual freedom.

    And yes you can have one without the other.
    But the ideal is to have both, so there is no doubt you have
    the maximum freedom possible.

    And TNHarley
    the way to avoid abuse or oppression by govt authority:
    when people AGREE to laws by consensus, so policies
    respect Consent of the Governed
    1. it still means we are under restrictions that apply to all people
    2. but since we AGREE to those rules, we DON'T consider this
    "outside oppression from an interfering authority"
    WE make those decisions as a group, as people acting as govt
    and AGREEING to give authority to laws and law enforcement
    ON THOSE TERMS.

    If a man and woman agree to get married and RESTRICT themselves by renouncing all other partners but each other,
    is that losing freedom?
    it can be seen as guaranteeing peace of mind and freedom
    from conflict NOT to have other relations interfering and competing.

    So because the couple CHOOSES to restrict themselves
    that's still considered exercising their liberty and not IMPOSING
    on their free will.

    Likewise, laws are supposed to be a civil contract between people
    and govt, where we AGREE what represents our interests and
    tax investment.

    We can respect each other equally and maximize our freedom.
    Even if we have to AGREE to certain restrictions to ensure
    security. The difference is if we CONSENT to laws that
    REPRESENT our free choice, beliefs and interests
    as opposed to being IMPOSED against our will or beliefs.
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    16,826
    Thanks Received:
    2,149
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,165
    Dear TNHarley whether someone
    believes in socialism or free market/capitalism or what,
    isn't the issue whether someone else is IMPOSING their
    system on the other person or not?

    Does it matter if
    A. group A wants govt health care
    but group B imposes free market and BLOCKS the choice of govt care
    B. group B wants free market choices
    but group A IMPOSES govt care and BLOCKS the choice of free market

    There are two interpretations of what it means to "treat these groups the same"

    1. force them all under the Group A plan or all under the Group B plan
    2. but what about letting A be under Group A plan
    and B under Group B plan, so they choose the plan they believe in.

    They are NOT equal in the sense of being under the same policy LITERALLY, but they ARE being treated equally in terms of religious and political freedom to be under the plan that represents their beliefs/interests.

    Furthermore, giving both groups the right to pursue/develop the plan of their choice IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EQUAL PROCESS.

    The free market people may need to lend to the other group to get their collective programs going until they become sustainable. Their roles and their level of development and independence will likely NOT BE EQUAL.

    So where I would agree with you:
    treating people with equal respect
    DOES NOT MEAN TREATING THEM THE SAME.
    it's relative.

    And that's why the system of imposing dictated regulations fails
    if it doesn't allow relative adjustments for what different people NEED
    in order to be 'equally free' to follow their own beliefs and path.
     

Share This Page