Political Crossfire Forums

TheKrava · Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 564 Location: Minneapolis, MN

To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?
This has got to be the stupidest thing i've heard today...

No offense, but really, how the hell do you protect freedom by limiting it. (taking it away).

Anyis · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 64

The United States is governed by a limited democracy. I agree that in order to protect certain rights, some freedoms must be given up. A good example of this is freedom of speech. It is illegal to yell fire in a public place if there is no cause for concern. You gave up this freedom the moment you were born into this society. However, it was given up not simply to restrict your behavior, but to restrict the behavior of all your fellow citizens who might cause civil unrest by frightening people with false alarms. Our entire society is based on Limited rights. We give up certain rights in order to ensure the greater good of our society.

George W Bush · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject:

this assumes freedom is given by another, that were answerable to someone.

in my case, answering only to myself, I believe freedom is based on what I choose to do. If I choose to work so I can get paid, to get money so I can choose to buy food that I need because I choose to extend my life because I choose to ... etc.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

[url=http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1148897#1148897]Those who would ever limit freedom for temporary (feigned) protection are the internal enemy, and must be dealt with for the jingoist treasonous traitors they are.
[/url]

XxMorningStarxX · Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 287 Location: XxUndIsCloSedxX

Shim Eun-Ha wrote: TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?
This has got to be the stupidest thing i've heard today...

No offense, but really, how the hell do you protect freedom by limiting it. (taking it away).

How is that a stupid question?? I think its pretty relevent.

Ever heard of anarchism?? That's what happens when you have absolute freedom in its pure and unadulterated form. hmm.. now why does anarchism NOT work- because with freedom from law, there would be no societal development, and thus your personal freedom would actually drop, because though, lawfully, what you can do is basically limitless, you will have nothing to do.. at all!!! because society + government would not exist!! You would essentially be bored to death.

Anarchism is also extremely paradoxial in that it's simply IMPOSSIBLE. Not only is it not feasible, humans would never adhere to anarchism- or to reword- limitless freedom. Humans will always make laws and soceities will always form into governments because it is the nature of Humans to be bored of too much freedom.

Same goes with discipline- discipline is a form of freedom limitation, yet most of the time, it is bad to have no discipline- because then life would be pointless and boring.

And think about it- IF THERE was no government, some guy who is stronger than you can just kick your ass- yeah you are free, but at a risk to your personal safety.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

soldierofchrist wrote: Of course we need to limit freedom to protect it. We need the limit the freedom of other people to murder someone to protect the right to live. Paradox, but true.

:!?:

NobleOne · Joined: 08 Feb 2006 Posts: 78

George W Bush wrote: this assumes freedom is given by another, that were answerable to someone. :tu:
This is the key point.

Anyis · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 64

I honestly don't understand how people are answering no to this question. If everyone had freedom to do whatever they pleased we would live in a world plagued by chaos and disorder. Freedoms must be restricted in order to uphold an orderly society.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

NobleOne wrote: George W Bush wrote: this assumes freedom is given by another, that were answerable to someone. :tu:
This is the key point.

:clap:

I have no master and who decides when I can and cannot do something? This traitorous jingoist government has no master (we're supposed to be their master).

[url=http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1148897#1148897]Those who would ever limit freedom for temporary (feigned) protection are the internal enemy, and must be dealt with for the jingoist treasonous traitors they are.
[/url]

XxMorningStarxX · Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 287 Location: XxUndIsCloSedxX

NobleOne wrote: George W Bush wrote: this assumes freedom is given by another, that were answerable to someone. :tu:
This is the key point.

So? You're simply making an obvious observation instead of a point. Freedom De Jure is given by those around you and the society you live in. That makes perfect sense. Freedom De-Facto is different from Freedom De Jure. Of course you can do anything you want- if you kill somebody youll just have to get sentenced. The De Facto part is inherent and unlimited- it needs not be given by anybody- its just there, but the De Jure part is what matters, and that's what must be limited. Because people listen to the law, and if there was no law, or control, there would anarchism and chaos. There's nothing wrong for a goverment to limit your actions, because your actions (or potential actions) are what are going to potentially lead you to violate the rights of others. However, there is a limit to which freedom limitation becomes ridiculous- and that is when governments limit your speech, thought and privacy- keeping this in mind, DO not confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to threaten . I think it's the misunderstanding of the topic that leads people to answer NO here.

NobleOne · Joined: 08 Feb 2006 Posts: 78

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Shim Eun-Ha wrote: TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?
This has got to be the stupidest thing i've heard today...

No offense, but really, how the hell do you protect freedom by limiting it. (taking it away).

How is that a stupid question?? I think its pretty relevent.

Ever heard of anarchism?? That's what happens when you have absolute freedom in its pure and unadulterated form. hmm.. now why does anarchism NOT work- because with freedom from law, there would be no societal development, and thus your personal freedom would actually drop, because though, lawfully, what you can do is basically limitless, you will have nothing to do.. at all!!! because society + government would not exist!! You would essentially be bored to death...

Anarchism is also extremely paradoxial in that it's simply IMPOSSIBLE...
I am bored to death by your post.

Ever heard of the world-wide black markets? They've existed since time immemorial, they don't respect governments, don't acknowledge state borders, disregard state laws, laugh at 'intellectual property' rights, have millions of full time participants with up to 95% of transactions being voluntary and violence free, they have their own 'protection services,' hell, they even manufacture their own ID's, passports, etc....

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:40 am Post subject:

Freedom --------------------------------------- Security.

Its a scale. Its the basis nature of the social contract theory.

Kindred · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:59 am Post subject:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Freedom --------------------------------------- Security.

Its a scale. Its the basis nature of the social contract theory.

So under your [flawed] reasoning, you can either have total 'freedom', or total 'security'?

BlackOps · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:12 am Post subject:

NEWSFLASH: To all the obedient, docile, conformist, PAVLOVIAN state worshipers, salivating at the bell, of their political & bureaucratic oppressors:

For a bona fide free society, you only need one rule: No one has a right to initiate force, (fraud or coercion). This is not a limitation on your rights, but a guarantee, within a social context, that you may do anything you want, so long as you don't violate the rights of others, by initiating force.

And no, contrary to popular delusions, you do not need a trillion laws to have a free society. A free society is a contractual society. Laws by definition are anti freedom. They are oppressive edicts. Rammed down your throat by total strangers, whom you'll never know, enforced by total strangers, whom you never wish to know.

Government, by its nature, is institutionalized violence. You can not build a free society and let murderous administrators, administer your social relations. The apologists for government, who claim we can not live without one, are the same types, who not long ago, said we can not live without the king or queen. Are the same types who before that, said we can not live without the village witch doctor. Are also the same types who before that, said we can not live without the biggest cave dwelling, bloodthirsty brute. Well the brute is still among us, sacrificing us all at his will.

The concept of freedom and free markets (read: anarchy) has been corrupted and subverted. So successful has the smear campaign against anarchy (read: free market) been, that ordinary people take it to mean chaos. The population has been lobotomized conceptually, regarding its true nature, theory or practice. Vested interests prefer it that way. By delegitimizing the term, they have effectively prevented people from even so much as discussing it rationally, much less implementing it.

So now we have the insane spectacle, of people claiming to be free, while obediently obeying, every evil dictate, spewed forth by the government. Humanity is on its knees. It is suffering. In every country around the world, people are suffering from The Government Stockholm Syndrome. A phenomenon in which the citizen/slave identifies with and is sympathetic to his government oppressor/master. This obscene, inhumane relationship must be annihilated.

So stop supporting your own destroyers. Stop funding them. Withdraw your moral support. Dismantle this evil, before it consumes us all. Stand for liberty, stand for free markets, defend individual rights and reclaim your birthright to live free, prosperous and happy. Why? Because it is the only rational way to live, that's why!

BlackOps · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:27 am Post subject:

PS. To the poster: re shouting "fire" in a cinema: The reason you do not do so, is not because there is a law against it, ( like that's gonna stop me) but because when you purchased the ticket, you have implicitly accepted the terms and conditions for watching a movie. You did not enter a contract which gives you permission, to scream out loud.

But please be informed, that as soon as there is sufficient demand, I will open for you such a cinema, where you will be able to shout "fire," all you want. Megaphones, industrial strength ear protection, etc... may be obtained next to the popcorn. Until then..... don't shout!

Darth Tiberius · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2001 Location: Oxford

TheKrava wrote: To protect freedom you need to limit it!

Do you agree with me?

Denying liberty is restricting freedom and whasn't what the US was based on.

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Freedom is merely an expression of power.

Restrictions on power can keep people from using power against you-- making you freer-- but they also prevent you from using your power against others.

George W Bush · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: Re: Freedom

XxMorningStarxX wrote:
Freedom De Jure is given by those around you and the society you live in. That makes perfect sense. Freedom De-Facto is different from Freedom De Jure. Of course you can do anything you want- if you kill somebody youll just have to get sentenced. The De Facto part is inherent and unlimited- it needs not be given by anybody- its just there, but the De Jure part is what matters, and that's what must be limited. Because people listen to the law, and if there was no law, or control, there would anarchism and chaos. There's nothing wrong for a goverment to limit your actions, because your actions (or potential actions) are what are going to potentially lead you to violate the rights of others. However, there is a limit to which freedom limitation becomes ridiculous- and that is when governments limit your speech, thought and privacy- keeping this in mind, DO not confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to threaten . I think it's the misunderstanding of the topic that leads people to answer NO here.

ok, Napolean Bonaparte, not everyone on this board is french. What do you mean by 'De Jure', 'De Facto' - or is it latin? use english so I understand.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Freedom is merely an expression of power.

Restrictions on power can keep people from using power against you-- making you freer-- but they also prevent you from using your power against others.

The only one's who must be kept on a leash, is your government.

[url=http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1148897#1148897]Those who would ever limit freedom for temporary (feigned) protection are the internal enemy, and must be dealt with for the jingoist treasonous traitors they are.
[/url]