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

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along. The very concept of liberty is very new to our species. It is not inherent in our behavior. Quite the opposite.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government. To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so. For most of human history, the right to do just that was considered an inherent right of every strong man. What people call inherent rights are really nothing more than artificial legal concepts which exist only so long as the society allows them to exist. If that goes away, the rights go away. Thus they are dependent upon a working society.

Might Does Not Make Right

The Founders created a Federal Court System to protect our rights : Life, Liberty, Property, the pursuit of happiness

Unfortunately it was populated by government supremacists who are more concerned with the government rights.

"Might does not make right" is very sweet, but that doesn't keep your head from being bashed in.

Just out of curiosity - are you aware the Federal Court System is part of the government?

 

[Contumacious]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along. The very concept of liberty is very new to our species. It is not inherent in our behavior. Quite the opposite.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government. To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so. For most of human history, the right to do just that was considered an inherent right of every strong man. What people call inherent rights are really nothing more than artificial legal concepts which exist only so long as the society allows them to exist. If that goes away, the rights go away. Thus they are dependent upon a working society.

Might Does Not Make Right

The Founders created a Federal Court System to protect our rights : Life, Liberty, Property, the pursuit of happiness

Unfortunately it was populated by government supremacists who are more concerned with the government rights.

"Might does not make right" is very sweet, but that doesn't keep your head from being bashed in.

Just out of curiosity - are you aware the Federal Court System is part of the government?

Yep, I am very much aware of the fact that federal court "judges" are bureaucrats.


And that is the reason that our Constitutional Republic has failed.


.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along.

Yes.. he seeks to control others for the sake of control - others that seek the ability to act according go their inherent freedoms.
See how that lines up?

In the state of nature, you are free to exercise your inherent rights; your ability to do so depends on your ability to protect that freedom. The only real difference between that and the state of, well. states, is that we create a government to protect those freedoms.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government.

"Created" and "maintained" are different things.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, "maintains" certain rights, nowhere does the government grant those certain rights.

To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so.

That 'something" is you. Or the state, Or both.
None of that bears on the concept in the OP, however -- there;s people like you, that wan to be left alone, and then there's people like the guy who wants to take your house and kill you.

I certainly do see how it lines up. It lines up with the guy with the biggest club being in charge regardless of what others are seeking. This is the natural state of humanity and it is the simple fact which keeps getting ignored. You do not live in a natural environment.

This has everything to do with the OP. This question of either/or makes no sense. No one wants our society to allow for total freedom. So everyone is somewhere between either/or. That is because all of the terms like natural law and inherent rights are pretty, but they don't exist. If I am the guy who stops someone from taking my house, it is because I have a bigger club. I keep the house because I defend it, not because it is mine by right. If I use the state, then my right to my house is protected by the state and that right only exists because of the state. In either situation, simply claiming that my right to my house is inherent or natural doesn't do a damn thing. The name for a man armed with his natural rights against a man armed with a rifle is "corpse".

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along. The very concept of liberty is very new to our species. It is not inherent in our behavior. Quite the opposite.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government. To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so. For most of human history, the right to do just that was considered an inherent right of every strong man. What people call inherent rights are really nothing more than artificial legal concepts which exist only so long as the society allows them to exist. If that goes away, the rights go away. Thus they are dependent upon a working society.

Might Does Not Make Right

The Founders created a Federal Court System to protect our rights : Life, Liberty, Property, the pursuit of happiness

Unfortunately it was populated by government supremacists who are more concerned with the government rights.

"Might does not make right" is very sweet, but that doesn't keep your head from being bashed in.

Just out of curiosity - are you aware the Federal Court System is part of the government?

Yep, I am very much aware of the fact that federal court "judges" are bureaucrats.


And that is the reason that our Constitutional Republic has failed.


.

Ah, poor baby. And you having to stay here against your will. So sad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along.

Yes.. he seeks to control others for the sake of control - others that seek the ability to act according go their inherent freedoms.
See how that lines up?

In the state of nature, you are free to exercise your inherent rights; your ability to do so depends on your ability to protect that freedom. The only real difference between that and the state of, well. states, is that we create a government to protect those freedoms.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government.

"Created" and "maintained" are different things.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, "maintains" certain rights, nowhere does the government grant those certain rights.

To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so.

That 'something" is you. Or the state, Or both.
None of that bears on the concept in the OP, however -- there;s people like you, that wan to be left alone, and then there's people like the guy who wants to take your house and kill you.

I certainly do see how it lines up. It lines up with the guy with the biggest club being in charge regardless of what others are seeking. This is the natural state of humanity and it is the simple fact which keeps getting ignored. You do not live in a natural environment.

This has everything to do with the OP. This question of either/or makes no sense. No one wants our society to allow for total freedom. So everyone is somewhere between either/or. That is because all of the terms like natural law and inherent rights are pretty, but they don't exist. If I am the guy who stops someone from taking my house, it is because I have a bigger club. I keep the house because I defend it, not because it is mine by right. If I use the state, then my right to my house is protected by the state and that right only exists because of the state. In either situation, simply claiming that my right to my house is inherent or natural doesn't do a damn thing. The name for a man armed with his natural rights against a man armed with a rifle is "corpse".

OK - let me clarify here...
You do not fall into the category of those who believe that people are inherently free.
Correct?

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along.

Yes.. he seeks to control others for the sake of control - others that seek the ability to act according go their inherent freedoms.
See how that lines up?

In the state of nature, you are free to exercise your inherent rights; your ability to do so depends on your ability to protect that freedom. The only real difference between that and the state of, well. states, is that we create a government to protect those freedoms.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government.

"Created" and "maintained" are different things.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, "maintains" certain rights, nowhere does the government grant those certain rights.

To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so.

That 'something" is you. Or the state, Or both.
None of that bears on the concept in the OP, however -- there;s people like you, that wan to be left alone, and then there's people like the guy who wants to take your house and kill you.

I certainly do see how it lines up. It lines up with the guy with the biggest club being in charge regardless of what others are seeking. This is the natural state of humanity and it is the simple fact which keeps getting ignored. You do not live in a natural environment.

This has everything to do with the OP. This question of either/or makes no sense. No one wants our society to allow for total freedom. So everyone is somewhere between either/or. That is because all of the terms like natural law and inherent rights are pretty, but they don't exist. If I am the guy who stops someone from taking my house, it is because I have a bigger club. I keep the house because I defend it, not because it is mine by right. If I use the state, then my right to my house is protected by the state and that right only exists because of the state. In either situation, simply claiming that my right to my house is inherent or natural doesn't do a damn thing. The name for a man armed with his natural rights against a man armed with a rifle is "corpse".

OK - let me clarify here...
You do not fall into the category of those who believe that people are inherently free.
Correct?

Define "free". Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, if we are talking natural and inherent, then that would be to either tell others what to do or be told what to do based upon who could swing the biggest club.

Not so much.... the people with the bigger club use it to either defend their inherent rights or control those of others.

But we no longer live in the natural world, so we get involved in the totally artificial world of liberty. A concept which is utterly dependent upon a working society.

In terms of creating an exception to the axiom postulated in the OP -- how so?

Rights are meaningless in a natural setting. The guy with the biggest club may or may not be a reasonable leader, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the guy with the biggest club. He decides what is reasonable until someone with a bigger club comes along.

Yes.. he seeks to control others for the sake of control - others that seek the ability to act according go their inherent freedoms.
See how that lines up?

In the state of nature, you are free to exercise your inherent rights; your ability to do so depends on your ability to protect that freedom. The only real difference between that and the state of, well. states, is that we create a government to protect those freedoms.

I believe you asked if these rights were granted by the government. That is just a word, really. However, they are certainly created by the government and maintained by the government.

"Created" and "maintained" are different things.
The Bill of Rights, for instance, "maintains" certain rights, nowhere does the government grant those certain rights.

To say you don't have the right to take my house and murder my family means nothing unless there is something which prevents you from doing so.

That 'something" is you. Or the state, Or both.
None of that bears on the concept in the OP, however -- there;s people like you, that wan to be left alone, and then there's people like the guy who wants to take your house and kill you.

I certainly do see how it lines up. It lines up with the guy with the biggest club being in charge regardless of what others are seeking. This is the natural state of humanity and it is the simple fact which keeps getting ignored. You do not live in a natural environment.

This has everything to do with the OP. This question of either/or makes no sense. No one wants our society to allow for total freedom. So everyone is somewhere between either/or. That is because all of the terms like natural law and inherent rights are pretty, but they don't exist. If I am the guy who stops someone from taking my house, it is because I have a bigger club. I keep the house because I defend it, not because it is mine by right. If I use the state, then my right to my house is protected by the state and that right only exists because of the state. In either situation, simply claiming that my right to my house is inherent or natural doesn't do a damn thing. The name for a man armed with his natural rights against a man armed with a rifle is "corpse".

OK - let me clarify here...
You do not fall into the category of those who believe that people are inherently free.
Correct?

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.

However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences. Any examination of human history clearly shows that this does not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.
However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences.

"Freedom", as in the ability to freely exercise your rights, indeed have consequences - you gamble on an investment and lose, you are out the value of that investment; you make public statements that people do not like, you business may suffer, you walk around with your same-sex spouse, you may be shunned. Your actions without your rights create a responsibility for those actions, in terms of how people may react to you.

This differs from making a political statement that the government does not like and getting thrown in jail.

It is of the latter freedom that I speak.

 

[Pheonixops]

...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?

A little bit of both with an emphasis on Civil Liberties. Too much "freedom" equals anarchy

...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?

A little bit o both, too much control leads to totalitarianism and too much freedom leads to anarchy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....
...just those who believe people are inherently free,

Those are called "conservative".

and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Those are called "liberal".
Not sure what you have against naming the two opposing philosophies. But I hope this helps clarify things for you.

Not always so.
For instance,some conservatives with to impose Christian morality on others.

You are mistaking Republicans for conservatives. No conservative wants to do that.

 

[my2¢]

When I'm around liberals I tend to be conservative, and with conservatives I'm liberal.
Guess I simply enjoy being a disagreeable old cuss.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.
However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences.

"Freedom", as in the ability to freely exercise your rights, indeed have consequences - you gamble on an investment and lose, you are out the value of that investment; you make public statements that people do not like, you business may suffer, you walk around with your same-sex spouse, you may be shunned. Your actions without your rights create a responsibility for those actions, in terms of how people may react to you.

This differs from making a political statement that the government does not like and getting thrown in jail.

It is of the latter freedom that I speak.

Ok, then based upon that latter issue I think it is fair to say we are far freer today than at any time in the past. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" actually comes from a SC case which had nothing to do with theaters. It was a case of a man arrested for handing out pamphlets in opposition to the draft during WWI. Today we have people on this very board calling for the armed overthrow of the government, but they are not in jail.

So if by "free" you mean that you should be able to express whatever political position you want without fear of being arrested, then yes. I fully support that. More importantly, that is the current state of affairs.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no right/left, no liberal/conservative....
...just those who believe people are inherently free,

Those are called "conservative".

and those who believe people need to be controlled.

Those are called "liberal".
Not sure what you have against naming the two opposing philosophies. But I hope this helps clarify things for you.

Not always so.
For instance,some conservatives with to impose Christian morality on others.

You are mistaking Republicans for conservatives. No conservative wants to do that.

I agree. But let me qualify that it is some Republicans, not all by any means.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.
However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences.

"Freedom", as in the ability to freely exercise your rights, indeed have consequences - you gamble on an investment and lose, you are out the value of that investment; you make public statements that people do not like, you business may suffer, you walk around with your same-sex spouse, you may be shunned. Your actions without your rights create a responsibility for those actions, in terms of how people may react to you.

This differs from making a political statement that the government does not like and getting thrown in jail.

It is of the latter freedom that I speak.

Ok, then based upon that latter issue I think it is fair to say we are far freer today than at any time in the past. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" actually comes from a SC case which had nothing to do with theaters. It was a case of a man arrested for handing out pamphlets in opposition to the draft during WWI. Today we have people on this very board calling for the armed overthrow of the government, but they are not in jail.

So if by "free" you mean that you should be able to express whatever political position you want without fear of being arrested, then yes. I fully support that. More importantly, that is the current state of affairs.

BUT.... there -are- people who seek to limit this, as well as the expression of other freedom -- the freedom to associate, the freedom to keep and bear arms. These people seek these things not because they harm others, but because they want to control the actions of the people who would exercise those freedoms.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.
However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences.

"Freedom", as in the ability to freely exercise your rights, indeed have consequences - you gamble on an investment and lose, you are out the value of that investment; you make public statements that people do not like, you business may suffer, you walk around with your same-sex spouse, you may be shunned. Your actions without your rights create a responsibility for those actions, in terms of how people may react to you.

This differs from making a political statement that the government does not like and getting thrown in jail.

It is of the latter freedom that I speak.

Ok, then based upon that latter issue I think it is fair to say we are far freer today than at any time in the past. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" actually comes from a SC case which had nothing to do with theaters. It was a case of a man arrested for handing out pamphlets in opposition to the draft during WWI. Today we have people on this very board calling for the armed overthrow of the government, but they are not in jail.

So if by "free" you mean that you should be able to express whatever political position you want without fear of being arrested, then yes. I fully support that. More importantly, that is the current state of affairs.

BUT.... there -are- people who seek to limit this, as well as the expression of other freedom -- the freedom to associate, the freedom to keep and bear arms. These people seek these things not because they harm others, but because they want to control the actions of the people who would exercise those freedoms.

There are always people who think freedom means they get to do what they like and I get to do what they like. The question is only, what does the law say and how is it applied.

All freedoms have limits. They must if we are live in any semblance of peace. We may well have the freedom to keep and bear arms, but does that mean I get to develop weapons grade anthrax in my garage, 50 feet from where your children play? No freedom can be unlimited, and so it really comes down to the question of where those limits are. If I get no say in where the limits are, are not my freedoms being encroached upon? The very nature of a republic is to compromise on this. In a compromise, no party should feel they got everything they want.

Freedom is not an entitlement. We don't get it just because we are born. Even if we are lucky enough to be born in one of the few places it exists at all. Freedom is a responsibility. Our rights exist as an extension of our society and we have an obligation to insure the society continues to operate. That doesn't mean it always operates to our satisfaction. It is, after all, run by people. But it must operate or any semblance of freedom vanishes in a spray of blood. That is the lesson we must learn from history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try to explain this. Your choice of action is certainly free, though your selection of choices may be limited. But all choices carry consequences, both great and small. Your freedom of action carries with it the freedom to accept the consequences. So if all you mean is your are inherently free to choose, then yes. You certainly are.
However, I expect what you really mean is an inherent freedom to choose without consequences.

"Freedom", as in the ability to freely exercise your rights, indeed have consequences - you gamble on an investment and lose, you are out the value of that investment; you make public statements that people do not like, you business may suffer, you walk around with your same-sex spouse, you may be shunned. Your actions without your rights create a responsibility for those actions, in terms of how people may react to you.

This differs from making a political statement that the government does not like and getting thrown in jail.

It is of the latter freedom that I speak.

Ok, then based upon that latter issue I think it is fair to say we are far freer today than at any time in the past. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" actually comes from a SC case which had nothing to do with theaters. It was a case of a man arrested for handing out pamphlets in opposition to the draft during WWI. Today we have people on this very board calling for the armed overthrow of the government, but they are not in jail.

So if by "free" you mean that you should be able to express whatever political position you want without fear of being arrested, then yes. I fully support that. More importantly, that is the current state of affairs.

BUT.... there -are- people who seek to limit this, as well as the expression of other freedom -- the freedom to associate, the freedom to keep and bear arms. These people seek these things not because they harm others, but because they want to control the actions of the people who would exercise those freedoms.

There are always people who think freedom means they get to do what they like and I get to do what they like.

Yes. They are the "other" people, those opposite of. well, you.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 people who would use heroin should be given all the free heroin they can carry.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 people who would use heroin should be given all the free heroin they can carry.

No. They should pay for it. After all, we are not communists.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 people who would use heroin should be given all the free heroin they can carry.

No. They should pay for it. After all, we are not communists.

You're right. We are not, but I believe that if we gave every addict a 5 pound bag of heroin, the problem of addiction would disappear.

 

[Pogo]

...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?

Your OP line here contradicts your title. What you just described are Liberals and statists, respectively.