the government says you are free as long as...

blu

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2009
6,836
780
48
kgn9n.jpg
 
If you're a member of society, your freedom is less than pure.

Depending on what society, that range of freedom goes from almost no freedom to some freedom, but no person who abides ANY LAW can truly be said to be entirely free.

This isn't obvious to all of us?
 
If you're a member of society, your freedom is less than pure.

Depending on what society, that range of freedom goes from almost no freedom to some freedom, but no person who abides ANY LAW can truly be said to be entirely free.

This isn't obvious to all of us?

Horseshit. The term "freedom" is meaningless outside of the context of society. All you have said is that some societies are more free than others. No duh?

The idea that every law is a restriction on your freedom is idiotic. Laws against murder and robbery are not restrictions on freedom. On the other hand, the income tax is a vast incursion on your freedom.
 
If you're a member of society, your freedom is less than pure.

Depending on what society, that range of freedom goes from almost no freedom to some freedom, but no person who abides ANY LAW can truly be said to be entirely free.

This isn't obvious to all of us?

Horseshit. The term "freedom" is meaningless outside of the context of society. All you have said is that some societies are more free than others. No duh?

Oh good! We're on the same page as it regards the concept of freedom, then.


The idea that every law is a restriction on your freedom is idiotic.


And now you recant the very position you took in the first paragraph of your post?

You seem a tad conflicted on this issue, Lad.


Laws against murder and robbery are not restrictions on freedom.

Sure they are. They are excellent restrictions on individuals' freedom though. I approve of such limitations on our freedom.

Don't you?


On the other hand, the income tax is a vast incursion on your freedom.

Yes it is, I agree.

ALL Taxes are a imposition on your and my freedom.

And assuming they are done right, they are a necessary evil.

But if they are imposed unfairly, they are an unnecessary evil.

See?

You and I aren't quite so far apart as you apparently think we are.

Where we no doubt disagree is not in principle, but in practice.

The question is every people with a government must ask is this

How do we impose the fewest cheapest impositions on our freedoms while still maintaining CIVIL ORDER?



 

And the populace will buy the scam because :

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. "

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)
 
Man's nature is to produce laws of society, nature has her own set of laws also. Nowhere can you exist without laws.
freedom is an ideaological concept of space and time.
 
which of it is not true?

It certainly is true, and thats the reason the facist righty here want it buried somewhere in the basement.



Interesting view when the Leftists in this country are the ones who are continually attacking the right to own property, retain wealth and exercise personal freedoms.

"rightys" are hte ones who allowed cops/fbi to GPS your own your private property if its not in a garage, to kick down your door if they have a "Feeling" that drugs are being used, that women can't get legal procedures from doctors without legal threats, etc
 
If you're a member of society, your freedom is less than pure.

Depending on what society, that range of freedom goes from almost no freedom to some freedom, but no person who abides ANY LAW can truly be said to be entirely free.

This isn't obvious to all of us?

I think that's true. The native americans were probably the last on this continent to really enjoy true freedom although they had their own structure also.
 
If you're a member of society, your freedom is less than pure.

Depending on what society, that range of freedom goes from almost no freedom to some freedom, but no person who abides ANY LAW can truly be said to be entirely free.

This isn't obvious to all of us?

I think that's true. The native americans were probably the last on this continent to really enjoy true freedom although they had their own structure also.

That is correct.

Lincoln did not abolish slavery - he merely imposed slavery nationwide - the federal government was now the new slavemaster.

.
 
It certainly is true, and thats the reason the facist righty here want it buried somewhere in the basement.



Interesting view when the Leftists in this country are the ones who are continually attacking the right to own property, retain wealth and exercise personal freedoms.

"rightys" are hte ones who allowed cops/fbi to GPS your own your private property if its not in a garage, to kick down your door if they have a "Feeling" that drugs are being used, that women can't get legal procedures from doctors without legal threats, etc



I think yu are refering to a very narrow ruling handed down right here in the great state of Indiana that got allot of review on the local media.

The ruling itself did not expand the legality of entering anyone's household, the reasonable suspiscion portion of the law or the ability of the ctizenry to redress greivences against the officers who invade their property.

The ruling had only to do with the activity that occurred once the invasion of the property occurred.

So, if I'm dozing off in the chair and the wife is stroking her cat and the cops break down the door and burst into our house, we are to allow them to do so and not shoot them if they are properly identified. If not, we can blow them away with the various auomatic weapons that we have stached aound the crib.

Assuming, though, that they are really cops and have properly identified themselves and are actually inside the house, we are compelled to allow them to conduct the legal search that they have initiated without employing force to stop them.

If the entry turns out to have been illegal or unnecessary, the cops are resonsible for redress of grievance including the repair of the domicile. Also any eveidence obtained illegally is still the fruit of the forbidden tree and cannot be used for evidence in a trial.

The ruling was very narrow and did not address property rights, forgive the need for a warrent or skirt around the requirements of reasonable suspiscion.
 
Man's nature is to produce laws of society, nature has her own set of laws also. Nowhere can you exist without laws.
freedom is an ideaological concept of space and time.

Tell that to any Jew who survived the concentration camps.
 
There are people who have nearly unlimited freedom to act.

We call those people SOCIOPATHS.
 

Forum List

Back
Top