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

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

 

[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".

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

Pay attention to the responsibility part of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

 

[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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

 

[martybegan]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

Agreed.

Going back to your original premise, I think the current labels indeed make little sense, but are used as a crutch because it is what people expect, and makes it easy to quantify a person's political leanings.

I consider myself a strict constructional federalist with libertarian leanings. But its easier for some people to just label me a conservative republican and leave it at that.

 

[Camp]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.
"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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

Is this you way to take exception to what I said, or your response to the idea posted in the OP?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Has someone claimed that they have an inherent right to harm others?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Simplified: Felons should be controlled.
"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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

That was already decided:



We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

.


.

 

[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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Has someone claimed that they have an inherent right to harm others?

Not that I know of.
I'm simply pointing out that "inherently free" does not include the freedom to murder, etc.

 

[Camp]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

Is this you way to take exception to what I said, or your response to the idea posted in the OP?

My original comment was addressing the OP. I have not meant to take exception to any point of view. I have been asking questions to ascertain the various viewpoints and directions the discussion may advance, or not.

 

[Camp]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

That was already decided:



We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

.


.

Read the last part of the last sentence in your quote. What do governments do? Seems to me that since the beginning of time they have made rules that by definition put limits on and defined rights and liberties. The very first little councils of elders made rules. The warriors enforced them. If you wanted you and your family to live in the cave or village you had to follow the rules as set down by the council, chief or whatever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

Is this you way to take exception to what I said, or your response to the idea posted in the OP?

My original comment was addressing the OP. I have not meant to take exception to any point of view. I have been asking questions to ascertain the various viewpoints and directions the discussion may advance, or not.

You inherently have the freedom to do what you wish, so long as you do not harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - you right to swing your fist stops at my nose
There are people who believe this, and then there are people that believe that these freedoms must be controlled..
Does that help?

 

[Camp]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

Is this you way to take exception to what I said, or your response to the idea posted in the OP?

My original comment was addressing the OP. I have not meant to take exception to any point of view. I have been asking questions to ascertain the various viewpoints and directions the discussion may advance, or not.

You inherently have the freedom to do what you wish, so long as you do not harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - you right to swing your fist stops at my nose
There are people who believe this, and then there are people that believe that these freedoms must be controlled..
Does that help?

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society. They will decide what constitutes clear dangers and whether the danger or harm has to be immediate or not. They will decide if you have the right to defend yourself from the person swinging the fist towards your nose, or if you have the right to take preemptive action to protect your nose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society.

OK... and?

 

[Camp]

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society.

OK... and?

No one is born with automatic inherent freedoms. Everyone in the world lives under some kind of authority that controls their freedoms and liberties to one degree or another. Politics is the nature of determining what the inherent freedoms will be and what the authorities will control.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

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

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

That was already decided:



We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

.


.

Read the last part of the last sentence in your quote. What do governments do? Seems to me that since the beginning of time they have made rules that by definition put limits on and defined rights and liberties. The very first little councils of elders made rules. The warriors enforced them. If you wanted you and your family to live in the cave or village you had to follow the rules as set down by the council, chief or whatever.

Under present US Law, individuals have the right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness..

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What gives you the right to decide what is a clear, present and immediate danger? What gives anyone the right to swing their fist at your nose. Why do you have to assume they will stop before the fist hits your nose? Why would a person have the liberty or right to threaten you in such a way? In the end, there will always be an authority that makes rules for the community and the society.

OK... and?

No one is born with automatic inherent freedoms.

You then proceed from a different set of assumption than those who founded this country and therefore cannot meaningfully have this conversation.

 

[Camp]

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.

This, of course, goes back to the fundamentals of the question - what are the natural limits to you inherent freedoms?
You cetainly do not have the freedom to murder in cold blood, but you can kill in self-defense.
You certainly do have the freedom to make bad decisions and abuse your health; you do not have the freedom to do this to point where it burdens/harms others.

Pay attention to responsibility of the community or society to the vulnerable that may be harmed. How does the community protect itself from the bad people?

"Bad people" do not have the freedom to harm others, and so 'controlling' people who do so does not abuse their inherent freedom.

Who decides who and what is "bad" or "harmful"? Who decides what is "inherent" freedom?

That was already decided:



We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

.


.

Read the last part of the last sentence in your quote. What do governments do? Seems to me that since the beginning of time they have made rules that by definition put limits on and defined rights and liberties. The very first little councils of elders made rules. The warriors enforced them. If you wanted you and your family to live in the cave or village you had to follow the rules as set down by the council, chief or whatever.

Under present US Law, individuals have the right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness..

.

Yes, as granted by US Law. Without being granted those things they would not have them by a specific authority, the US Government.They would not automatically have them.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

Everyone is.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

But isn't that what you are doing when you say you want to see how pot works our first? Just telling someone else what to do because you feel like it? I understand you can justify it, but that can done for every proscription law. Every law has a reason behind it.