There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....

[M14 Shooter]

But you would agree that there are those on the right that want to control others -- yes?

I would agree that there are Republicans who do - usually the hyper-religious.
Since I define "right" as a "proponent of individual liberty," I wouldn't agree that the right wants to control others.

Understood.

 

[martybegan]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same concept here, just looking at it differently.

 

[there4eyeM]

A human being is absolutely free. The meaning of that has not been adequately understood in society, and it is not seen to be here, either.

 

[PratchettFan]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.

Should heroin be legal?

 

[martybegan]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.

Should heroin be legal?

i want to see Pot legalized first and see how that works, but the current war on drugs model is a failure in my opinion. Drugs are plentiful, bad people are getting rich off it, and the government is assuming too much power because of it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Should responsibility be obligatory?

 

[PratchettFan]

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.

Should heroin be legal?

i want to see Pot legalized first and see how that works, but the current war on drugs model is a failure in my opinion. Drugs are plentiful, bad people are getting rich off it, and the government is assuming too much power because of it.

See how it works? Is that another standard for determining freedom?

 

[PratchettFan]

Should responsibility be obligatory?

Yes.

 

[there4eyeM]

Then everyone could be free to do what he/she wanted, embracing the consequences as his/her own.

 

[martybegan]

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.

Should heroin be legal?

i want to see Pot legalized first and see how that works, but the current war on drugs model is a failure in my opinion. Drugs are plentiful, bad people are getting rich off it, and the government is assuming too much power because of it.

See how it works? Is that another standard for determining freedom?

The standard is the government has to have a pretty damn good reason to regulate certain things, not just " I feel like telling someone what to do", and when that control is exercised, the law proscribing it has to be tailored as narrowly as possible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

There is no right or left, only the desire to go straight forward. Freedom has no political connotation. I pick no side. Simply because of my freedom, I get to choose my own values and principles, not a party.

Do you support the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion? The freedom of gays to shop where they please?

 

[Mac1958]

So it's EITHER "people are inherently free" OR "people need to be controlled".

Pick your side, there are no grey areas.

This is the kind of binary thought that is causing this country great damage, and we REALLY need to get past it.

.

 

[alang1216]

So it's EITHER "people are inherently free" OR "people need to be controlled".

Pick your side, there are no grey areas.

This is the kind of binary thought that is causing this country great damage, and we REALLY need to get past it.

.

Absolutely correct. Anyone who believes there is a simple answer to a complex question is a fool.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.
Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So it's EITHER "people are inherently free" OR "people need to be controlled".
Pick your side, there are no grey areas.
This is the kind of binary thought that is causing this country great damage, and we REALLY need to get past it.

And yet, the choice is sound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People need to be controlled.

Imagine a community with no traffic laws.

 

[martybegan]

Or people who believe that any control needs a clear, concise and overwhelming need, and even this it has to be as limited as possible.

Explain. Examples?

The ability of government to restrict felons from owning a firearm for example. If you take the 2nd amendment as literal 100%, that wouldn't be possible. However government's need to prevent it is clear, the laws are usually concise, and by the nature of how well a felony is defined, it is limited.

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.

The same can be said about the "yelling fire" or fighting words exceptions to the 1st amendment.

"Inherently free" does not include the freedom to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So we place limits on freedom. Now it is just a matter of quibbling about the details.
Should heroin be legal?

Depends... do you believe that people who would use heroine should be controlled?

I believe that if they can use it without becoming a burden on society they should be able to use it. If they use it an become a burden, I see better solutions than making it illegal and treating just using the stuff as a crime.

I could see a "3 strikes policy" if you commit crimes or become government dependent due to drug use. After each strike before 3 you get treatment, but lose your privilege to use the drug legally. After the 3rd strike you get placed in a camp with as much access to the drug as you want, and let nature take its course.

 

[Camp]

The question is a short cut and politicized one for one that has been debated for as long as mankind debated religion and philosophy. Are humans inherently born good or bad. If they are born god, can they be turned into bad. If the judgement is that they can be born bad, or turn bad, what is the community or societies responsibility to the vulnerable that may be harmed by the "bad".

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question is a short cut and politicized one for one that has been debated for as long as mankind debated religion and philosophy. Are humans inherently born good or bad. If they are born god, can they be turned into bad. If the judgement is that they can be born bad, or turn bad, what is the community or societies responsibility to the vulnerable that may be harmed by the "bad".

I don't see how good/bad has anything to do with this.

 

[Contumacious]

1. 
   There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....

...just those who believe people are inherently free, and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Which side are you on, and why do you think so?

Excellent post.

The Liberal vs Conservative ; the Republican vs democrat are false dichotomies.

The question is whether an individual supports LIBERTY., no if , buts or howevers.


.


.