Is freedom a threat to freedom?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if we argue this line of thinking then we can essentially lead to the point that all governments are stupid or corrupted. Governments without responsibility to their people will not take into account the benefits of those groups in most instance and be ruled by those only seeking their power and glory and thus be corrupt. The real question is the ideal mix between corruption and stupidity. If I made any mistakes or flaws with my lines of thought let me know, I am tired. It was really late at night when I wrote this.

One also has to consider the connections that democracy has to freedom.

I dont care about respect with regard to making a convincing case.
It's a matter of respecting other people's opinions without ridicule.
People have all sorts of crazy ideas and beliefs, it's no reason to start personal insults.
You may think i over-reacted; that's your opinion. I know people who if you said, "quack, quack", to their face you are likely to end up in hospital.

I don't have to respect other people's ideas, and if I think that those ideas are bad I have no problem with making negative comments. Not only that but Griff didn't start off with personal insults, he only quoted a noted idiom in regards to my negative comment and you got angry. Dude, you overreacted, no question in my mind about it. Just because some people are bigger f**ktards about this than you are doesn't mean that you still didn't overreact.

I have no problems with negative comments.
Griff started with the personal insult. You may call it an idiom, i call it an insult.
How i react to insults is my business.
You are not the chief judge of over-reaction or anything else for that matter; it's merely your opinion.

Communists a danger to freedom? What have you been inhaling? True communists would only take away economic freedoms in a sense. But when the market is less free, by extension the people are more free. You americans have it wrong, communism maybe inefficient but it is not anti-freedom. It is more pro-freedom than half your ideologies. Socialism (if moderate), is the best form of government. By taking away rights you are worse than those you have taken rights away from them. NAMBLA is harmless, just dont vote for them.

He said looks like a duck and quacks like one. It is merely an idiom used to explain a reason to accuse one of that behavior. I do not see how that is really deeply offensive nor do I consider it on any level to be a personal insult.

Ok, yes, and I am expressing my opinion that such was a pretty stupid idea and one that I do not see the rationale for reacting in this manner to. How you react to "insults" is your choice, however, that does not mean I have no right to speak on your issues.

Yes, they are a danger to freedom. No, when the market is more free then the people are more free to make their own choices based upon their own values to promote their own ends, without any 3rd parties determining what those choices should be. The very inefficiencies of communism force it to either be non-working or repressive. The relationship of freedom to communism really depends on what view you have of the communist state. Socialism is an economic structure, and the only meaning I can derive from "moderate", is that you mean a mixed economy which means that market elements will play an integral role in that structure. By taking away rights from them, you set bad precedent, saying better or worse asserts a moral rule which may not be viewed as universally true(yes, AG is back!). NAMBLA is quite harmless though and I will agree with that.

So what ?
I could not care less about your opinion.
If you have a problem with my over-reacting, then go see a mod.
Or you can keep quacking like a duck on this thread.

Really, I think that you are the one who quacks like some form of f****d up duck.

LOL
Love you too.
Have a nice evening.

Man. People in your area must seriously have something against ducks. Can't imagine why. They're kinda cute. I grew up around them.

Well, it was a bit cheeky, but I wouldn't call it an insult, per se. It just seemed like an occassion to call to mind the old adage. Perhaps I should have been more sensitive to your feelings. I just didn't realize you had such an issue with ducks.

It's the business of everyone who is affected by it, particularly if it's an exotic reaction to the mention of waterfowl.

(I've only read the first post)
Freedom should only be allowed if it doesn't form a threat to freedom later on.
Parties like NASDP used the existing freedom to take over and regulate that freedom.
In order to counter this, you must have freedom within certain (for people) logic boundaries.

Hehe, you should read Herbert Spencer's "From Freedom to Bondage." He demostates pretty clearly how communism/socialism is the opposite of freedom.

Personally, I'm taking my cues from James Madison. True, factions cannot exist without freedom. "There are...two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." (Federalist Papers, No 10, 1787.) Trying to supress or eliminate dissenting/dangerous political views/parties leads to either tyranny or socialist brainwashing. The goal then must be to control factions through the creation of a bureaucratic system. Political dissent and action is inevitable...a bureaucracy (much like we have now) provides a means for non-destructive political involvement. (Otherwise, revolution.)

Interesting, I think that Friedrich Hayek argued that socialism leads to the end of freedom in his book "The Road to Serfdom" which I somewhat recommend. Really though, there are a few books attacking the idea of socialism and freedom coinciding though or that argue that capitalism and freedom go together.

This makes sense to me.

The opposite of stupidity is a different kind of stupidity. The middle way between the two is half-assed stupidity. I think that the factions of our politicians should follow the advice given to me by a Singaporean lad I happened to meet aboard an Amtrak: "take the easy way, and don't take shortcuts."

1) Bear in mind that one should first pursue those goals on which one are least likely to suffer opposition or obstacles. This puts one in a position from which other acheivements are more attainable.

2) Do not take unnecessary risks or allow impatience or overconfidence to result in recklessness or inattentiveness. Doing so is more likely to result in catastrophic failure than success.

The government should follow the same advice, particularly in regard to its role in the economy. Don't regulate things that don't require regulation, don't make laws that cause more upset than they are worth, don't be ostentatious, don't make our lives difficult, don't demand more money from us than we have, don't start unnecessary wars, don't spend money that isn't available, don't make make expenditures you don't have the money for, don't leave serious problems unaddressed, don't expect miracles, and don't do stupid things. As long as the government abides by this, I'm supportive of absolutely anything they do.

I see you don't support most government ideas then.