Is the name of freedom, you can kill other people

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that they are not necessarily incompatible. However, they can be. For instance, some people have argued against aspects of the Welfare State on the grounds that it deprives them of their freedom.

Where justice and freedom conflict, precedence should, IMO, be given to justice.

The Welfare State puts the collective Good before individual good.

What is justice? Taking away from those who have to give to those who do not? That is not justice. That is theft.

There is nothing innate about ownership. It is a learned concept. Some societies have it. Others don't.

.

Are you a savage?

Are you capable of having a conversation without engaging in ad hominem attacks. (That was a rhetorical question. No need to answer it.)

Do you care to answer?

I agree that they are not necessarily incompatible. However, they can be. For instance, some people have argued against aspects of the Welfare State on the grounds that it deprives them of their freedom.

Where justice and freedom conflict, precedence should, IMO, be given to justice.

Folks like us people that like justice I think are better served by the true freedom comes
only through justice talk.

There is no difference between true freedom (as I define it) and justice. What I object to are definitions of freedom which are based on extreme individualism.

like defining economic freedom as having a culture with a high Gini score when we all know economic inequality makes slaves out of the poor,

And, international, the fourth world (global poverty) is continuing to increase. That is one of the reasons why there is such worldwide unrest.

Call me dense but I just figured it out. You handwringers are a'feard we dumb murricans is gonna march on Washington of Barack gets re-elected.
That's pretty much the gist of it isn't it?
f**k, I'd be ashamed if I were that paranoid.

Can you distinguish between what is yours and what is not yours? Do you think it is o.k. to take money and resources by force or threat of force? If the only difference between what is mine and what is yours is a social convention, then would you really object if I picked your pocket or hacked your bank account?

Your nation is going down the toilet because of attitudes like yours ... this costs us cold hard cash, jobs, security, everything. It's costing everyone right now, not in the future. I know for you it's fun and games and not serious, just a sort of character act or identity based off of video games and popular television shows and movies, an act like pretending you're John Wayne or a crotchety grandfather, but it's not just an endearing identity, it has real consequences. Being foolish is a luxury you can't afford anymore, and consequently, we can't afford to indulge either.

We are politically and philosophically so far apart that any serious debate on what's wrong with the world and how to set it right would be a perpetual pissing contest.
If we conservatives weren't so stupid we'd be liberals, right?
Whatever.....

I'll be more convinced of the Catholics' relatively newfound belief in pacifism when they abolish the office of the inquisitor. If God does not condone killing for any reason, then the Pope has a lot of explaining to do, and he should apologize to Turkey in Arabic or Turkish for stopping their invasion of central Europe, and the Mongols for aiding the Byzantine empire and defending the holy land!

Violence can solve many things- especially repelling violent people. This can apply to nations as well. Look at even WWI- it may have been primarily about which European monarch could prove he had the biggest dick, but even then, it still had the benefit of the fall of the Ottoman empire.

If the government wants to avoid a civil war, it's a no-brainer: leave certain hot button issues alone! The second amendment is not dust about national security and home defense, it was also intended to keep the government honest and accountable to the voters. Our constitutional convention understood that democracies eventually face a crisis and so far have all so far inevitably failed at some point. They also understood that corrupt and tyrannical people have a tendency to rise to power. Man were they ever right about that! Our founders wanted to make sure there was one final line of defense against this- the ability to remove them by violent force.

Many liberals, especially in urban and suburban areas tend to find this scary. However, you probably wouldn't notice a violent uprising much. It can probably be arranged that iphone service will not be affected so you can play angry birds and follow Snooki and the Kardashian sisters on Twitter, I'm sure it will be the government's doing if the internet was affected since cutting people's access to facebook, porn, and ebay would create a second rebellion, the malls are a great haven to keep hipsters occupied, and I don't see any reason why dancing with the stars or American idol would need to be interrupted because it's best to keep the clueless and braindead...well...clueless and braindead. A conservative-libertarian society would offer basically the same trappings to the sheep as a socialist government, but with more to offer for those that take up their civic responsibility. If someone wants a government to baby them, protect them from their own stupid decisions, give you everything as long as the government can keep up deficit spending, and protect you from feeling offended, there already is no shortage of countries that do all that. They can move to one of those places.