Can you be Anti Authoritarian on the left?

[Asclepias]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

You can be free, and still be a responsible member of a society. Unless you are referring to a lack of responsibility as freedom.

Yeah maybe we should define freedom first. I see it as a lack of responsibility to anyone.

 

[fncceo]

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

What does mutual respect have to do with freedom?

When you respect someone, you are able to not concern yourself with their decisions. Right or wrong, as long as they don't impact you personally, allowing people to decide their lives for themselves is freedom.

You cannot respect anyone who you have to support. Likewise, they help but to have contempt for you if they rely on you for that support.

 

[Crepitus]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

110% free to earn as much money as he or she wants to. Even enough to buy something to eat. If that person can't afford something to eat, they're obviously a slave of their own ignorance or laziness.

See, heres the problem. You guys don't understand what freedom is.

 

[Asclepias]

My current hypothesis is this.

right: The very few things that are placed above freedom in the hierarchy of values is taking care of the physical well being of those you are responsible for usually being household family. "Personal responsibility > everything else."

Left: The very few things that are placed above freedom in the hierarchy of values is taking care of the physical well being as well as the emotional well being of as many people as possible in an attempt at achieving the most good possible even if its at the expense of others "biggest bang for your buck"

what do you guys conclude?
Where does freedom go in your hierarchy of values?

Depends. Complete freedom would have resulted in homo sapiens dying off due to not being able to defend itself or procreate.

 

[BluesLegend]

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

110% free to earn as much money as he or she wants to. Even enough to buy something to eat. If that person can't afford something to eat, they're obviously a slave of their own ignorance or laziness.

See, heres the problem. You guys don't understand what freedom is.

When you mooching tax and spend Dem losers stop trying to tax away half my income then you can have an opinion on freedom.

 

[P@triot]

“Provide for the general welfare...."

...is strictly limited to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government.

"The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts andExcises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." This clause,called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. "

Yeah..within their 18 enumerated powers. You proved it yourself in the sentence before the one you bolded. The “General Welfare” clause refers to their 18 enumerated powers only.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

What does mutual respect have to do with freedom?

When you respect someone, you are able to not concern yourself with their decisions. Right or wrong, as long as they don't impact you personally, allowing people to decide their lives for themselves is freedom.

You cannot respect anyone who you have to support. Likewise, they help but to have contempt for you if they rely on you for that support.

Disagree. Humans depended on each other for support for eons.

 

[Crepitus]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

You can be free, and still be a responsible member of a society. Unless you are referring to a lack of responsibility as freedom.

Yeah maybe we should define freedom first. I see it as a lack of responsibility to anyone.

But that would mean to be truly free you would have to be without family or friends.

 

[Asclepias]

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

You can be free, and still be a responsible member of a society. Unless you are referring to a lack of responsibility as freedom.

Yeah maybe we should define freedom first. I see it as a lack of responsibility to anyone.

But that would mean to be truly free you would have to be without family or friends.

Thats why I said this....

"No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. "

 

[P@triot]

See, heres the problem. You guys don't understand what freedom is.

The bigger problem is that your ignorant ass thinks that “freedom” = someone being forced to provide you with a fuck’n hot dog.

 

[JokerX27505]

This is what I was trying to clear up no one here values freedom as their highest value and no one here believes freedom to be a plague what I'm trying to decipher is if the "left" can hold freedom as a higher value than the "right". And if not why.

 

[P@triot]

“No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. "

Because having children means I forfeit my constitutional rights? Really? Now that is a special kind of authoritarian “logic”.

 

[Crepitus]

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

You can be free, and still be a responsible member of a society. Unless you are referring to a lack of responsibility as freedom.

Yeah maybe we should define freedom first. I see it as a lack of responsibility to anyone.

But that would mean to be truly free you would have to be without family or friends.

Thats why I said this....

"No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. "

Who would really want such freedom?

Not me.

 

[Asclepias]

“No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. "

Because having children means I forfeit my constitutional rights? Really? Now that is a special kind of authoritarian “logic”.

Yes. They will put your ass in jail if you starve your children. How free will you be then?

 

[Asclepias]

This is what I was trying to clear up no one here values freedom as their highest value and no one here believes freedom to be a plague what I'm trying to decipher is if the "left" can hold freedom as a higher value than the "right". And if not why.

Freedom is like the promises Drumpf makes his voting base. Its an illusion unless you are going to wander the earth with no responsibilities.

 

[JGalt]

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

110% free to earn as much money as he or she wants to. Even enough to buy something to eat. If that person can't afford something to eat, they're obviously a slave of their own ignorance or laziness.

See, heres the problem. You guys don't understand what freedom is.

BS. I'm taking full advantage of my freedom. Take the Second Amendment, for example: How many firearms do you own? One? Two? Maybe three or four?

 

[Crepitus]

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

110% free to earn as much money as he or she wants to. Even enough to buy something to eat. If that person can't afford something to eat, they're obviously a slave of their own ignorance or laziness.

See, heres the problem. You guys don't understand what freedom is.

BS. I'm taking full advantage of my freedom. Take the Second Amendment, for example: How many firearms do you own? One? Two? Maybe three or four?

Owning guns is not freedom my misguided friend.

As far as how many I have, none of your business.

 

[P@triot]

Yes. They will put your ass in jail if you starve your children. How free will you be then?

That's because I broke the law. What does that have to do with freedom? Freedom doesn't mean the right to commit murder.

 

[P@triot]

Who would really want such freedom? Not me.

Well of course you wouldn't. You're a typical authoritarian left-winger.

 

[JokerX27505]

I believe this was going somewhere than it dissolved back into venting.
Let me just ask one more question.

On a scale how close is the value of your household "yourself,wife,kids" compared to all of your countries society?
would you be willing to hurt one to help the other?
You cant choose both would you truly choose your household over the "greater good"? or vice versa