John Green, Father of the Little Girl Killed in Tuscon, is my New Hero
- Thread starter Lilavati
- Start date
Actually, Dober, I think you just answered your own question right there. Where is the line drawn between freedom and oppression? There is a huge dispute in the US about taxes . . . some people think our taxes are tyrannically high . . . others look at countries like England, Germany and Canada (none of which can reasonably be called a tyranny) note that our taxes are much lower, and say they can be raised without being oppressive.
You note that your freedoms are those listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . .and those not listed. But does that include a right to privacy? A right to marry someone of the same gender and have that right recognized by society? What rights exactly has nature given you? How far do they go? When your rights collide with someone else's rights (as they do all the time in any society) whose rights are more valuable? Or more correctly, if they are different rights, which right is more important? Your right to self-expression, or my right to quiet enjoyment of my home? Your right to use property as you chose or my right to be free of nuisence? Your right to throw a punch or my right to be secure in my person?
When does someone's right to be left alone get trumped by the right of the members of a society to vote to determine how it is run? If my neighbors want to levy a tax, when do I have a right to say "no"? If 100 people want to levy a tax to provide free heathcare, are the rights of the one person who does not want to pay get violated?
And what about freedom in the sense of autonomy? Subsidized health care, or schooling, or safety nets give people greater autonomy, and to many people that means freedom. They are able to make more choices in life than they could have made otherwise, do things they would not have been able to do, take risks they could not have taken. To many people autonomy means freedom. But there are many people here who would argue that one, the subsidies, supported by taxes, are an intolerable restriction of the freedom of those who pay taxes, and two, that that kind of enhanced autonomy, provided by government support, is in fact a sort of serfdom.
You know what freedom means to YOU. But you don't know what it means to Dizzy. Or to me. To someone living in Mogadishu it might mean something altogether different (like, freedom is having a government that keeps people from stoning me to death so I can go the market without fear of dying). Freedom meant something different to each of the Founding Fathers, and it probably meant something different to those real live men that what people attribute to them today.
I dont get how it can mean so many different things. If you are free you have the right to earn and pay for the services and goods you use. If you are free you have the right to defend yourself and your property. It does not entitle you to anything you dont earn yourself. I guess we have different levels we are comfortable with but to be entitled to something someone else provides without having to compensate them for is enslavement.
:hail: Thank you Romy!
Taken from an earlier post that I think is informative:
It is clear from the above that our government does not grant us our rights, but rather was formed to ensure our rights; and when our government fails in its duties to effectively secure our rights, we have the right to abolish that government and form a new one that will effectively ensure our rights.
Point 2: The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights. While the Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights, the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment to the Constitution states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Bill of Rights is not intended to be an inclusive statement of our rights. All of our rights are to be equally protected under the Constitution, whether enumerated or not. The Constitution, in general, and Bill of Rights, in particular, are intended to be limitations upon the power of the federal government.
___________________________________________________________
Which the Federal gov. has gone way, way, way too far and TAKEN powers for themselves to over-regulate, to run and control where they have no business doing so. It is time for people to wake up and get together on defending our liberties.This was never meant to be a one world, governed, one world currency and that is just what we practically have. Very dangerous!
And again - see it from the perspective of the circumsiser (sp???????) who believes he is ensuring that woman will be accepted and is pure and loyal etc.
She/he will believe they are doing it in that girls better interests - or giving her freedom to survive in their society.
Culture pays a HUGE part.
I don't believe people should just get something or have something because we daren't say no.
I believe people should also have choices.
I mostly believe that people can't make GOOD choices unless they have the emotional intelligence and education and resilience to make them - and not many people do.
To just ALLOW people to make their own choices is really asking for trouble on a lot of levels.
It works if you assume people will make the best of it, or won't profiteer, or aren't general cocks.
It's a concept that is not realistic to me.
She/he will believe they are doing it in that girls better interests - or giving her freedom to survive in their society.
Culture pays a HUGE part.
I don't believe people should just get something or have something because we daren't say no.
I believe people should also have choices.
I mostly believe that people can't make GOOD choices unless they have the emotional intelligence and education and resilience to make them - and not many people do.
To just ALLOW people to make their own choices is really asking for trouble on a lot of levels.
It works if you assume people will make the best of it, or won't profiteer, or aren't general cocks.
It's a concept that is not realistic to me.
You know, it could be worth it to elaborate and discuss further, but you just sound like 5 year old in the way you handle a discussion.
You want to talk about freedom when you are not even able to be open-minded enough to accept that other people from other cultures have different opinions and definitions of things without insulting and continuing to belittle them? Please.
You want to talk about freedom when you are not even able to be open-minded enough to accept that other people from other cultures have different opinions and definitions of things without insulting and continuing to belittle them? Please.
Are you talking about the people doing the circumcising? Or the people it is done to?
You can see for yourself what the girls think of it. Sadly most are minors when it is performed and DON'T have the choice. It's a huge problem in Britain.
Female circumcision growing in Britain despite being illegal | Society | The Observer
UK: 'Rise In Female Genital Mutilation' In London
Waris Dirie is professional model and a British citizen who was forced to undergo the procedure as a teenager. She was raised in a nomadic tribe in Somalia, so by your definition this should be acceptable to her. Does this sound like the words of a free woman to you?
I was going to post some quotes from her. But the link and what she describes is extremely graphic and disturbing. It's NOT freedom. It's torture, abuse, and mutilation perpetrated on innocents for the sole purpose of subjugating them.
The Waris Dirie Story
You can see for yourself what the girls think of it. Sadly most are minors when it is performed and DON'T have the choice. It's a huge problem in Britain.
Female circumcision growing in Britain despite being illegal | Society | The Observer
UK: 'Rise In Female Genital Mutilation' In London
Waris Dirie is professional model and a British citizen who was forced to undergo the procedure as a teenager. She was raised in a nomadic tribe in Somalia, so by your definition this should be acceptable to her. Does this sound like the words of a free woman to you?
I was going to post some quotes from her. But the link and what she describes is extremely graphic and disturbing. It's NOT freedom. It's torture, abuse, and mutilation perpetrated on innocents for the sole purpose of subjugating them.
The Waris Dirie Story
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this.
So, it's okay for an abuser to hurt someone if the ABUSER thinks it's in the victim's best interest?
Just wow. I'm terrified that you are involved at all in social work and feel horrible for all your clients. My hands are shaking so bad I can barely type this. I'm done talking to you now. Forever.
So, it's okay for an abuser to hurt someone if the ABUSER thinks it's in the victim's best interest?
Just wow. I'm terrified that you are involved at all in social work and feel horrible for all your clients. My hands are shaking so bad I can barely type this. I'm done talking to you now. Forever.
I really don't think you understand what I am saying AT ALL. Sigh....
I am not condoning the actions, I am putting my OWN values and ethics to one side to approach something without weighing it down with my OWN rights and wrongs.
You can't work with something if you let your own opinions bog you down every day. If I went into every home with my own opinions on how that family should live then I wouldn't get any positive outcomes at all.
You used that as an example - and I tried to make you see it from another perspective.
If you think that isn't something you can do, I suggest you never become a social worker, because I promise you, your values will be tested on a daily basis.
I am not condoning the actions, I am putting my OWN values and ethics to one side to approach something without weighing it down with my OWN rights and wrongs.
You can't work with something if you let your own opinions bog you down every day. If I went into every home with my own opinions on how that family should live then I wouldn't get any positive outcomes at all.
You used that as an example - and I tried to make you see it from another perspective.
If you think that isn't something you can do, I suggest you never become a social worker, because I promise you, your values will be tested on a daily basis.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean your way is the ONLY way.
At the end of the day, you live to your own standards anyway, and unless you're prepared to go out there and make a change and not just chit chat about it, just get on with it
At the end of the day, you live to your own standards anyway, and unless you're prepared to go out there and make a change and not just chit chat about it, just get on with it
And that is how you see freedom. And that's one way to see it.
But let me give an example. Lets say I live in a town of 100 people. We are all, say, loggers. We agree that all of us will put $100 dollars a year into a trust, and if one of us is badly injured by a falling tree, that money will be used to hire a doctor. Now, lets say Bob is hit by a tree. I would argue that he is entitled to have his doctor paid for, and I would certainly not think that I was enslaved because I helped pay for it. After all, if *I* had been the one the tree landed on, then *I* would have been entitled to the money. Now, what I've described is basically just an insurance arrangement. And many people would say this increases the freedom of the loggers, because each logger is not forced to dedicate a large amount of resources to provide for him/her self and his/ her family in the case of an accident. The agreement takes care of a large part of that money, and so the loggers can invest their earnings in taking up a hobby, or buying their own logging camp, etc. They have more options, because although they are required to pay a fee, they are entitled to compensation in the case of disaster, allowing them to take more risks.
But many people would argue that social safety nets are basically the same idea. They may not be 100% volintary (and for reasons far too lengthy to explain in this example, can't be). But yes, the guy receiving unemployment is "entitled" to something that came from you that he did not compensate you for. On the other hand, if you were the one unemployed, YOU would be be one entitled to the payment, and HE would be the one paying without compensation. But there actually is compensation here: your compensation for the amount that you pay into an entitlement program is your OWN entitlement to the payout when and if you require it. Its an insurance contract on a massive scale.
Now you probably see that as a form of enslavement, and actually, that's not an invalid point of view (after all, you didn't ask to for the entitlement and you certainly didn't ask to pay for it). But other people simply see it as a reasonable social contract that does not significantly impinge on their freedom. They see it the same way the hypothetical loggers might: as freedom enhancing. I don't think that view is necessarily wrong either.
But let me give an example. Lets say I live in a town of 100 people. We are all, say, loggers. We agree that all of us will put $100 dollars a year into a trust, and if one of us is badly injured by a falling tree, that money will be used to hire a doctor. Now, lets say Bob is hit by a tree. I would argue that he is entitled to have his doctor paid for, and I would certainly not think that I was enslaved because I helped pay for it. After all, if *I* had been the one the tree landed on, then *I* would have been entitled to the money. Now, what I've described is basically just an insurance arrangement. And many people would say this increases the freedom of the loggers, because each logger is not forced to dedicate a large amount of resources to provide for him/her self and his/ her family in the case of an accident. The agreement takes care of a large part of that money, and so the loggers can invest their earnings in taking up a hobby, or buying their own logging camp, etc. They have more options, because although they are required to pay a fee, they are entitled to compensation in the case of disaster, allowing them to take more risks.
But many people would argue that social safety nets are basically the same idea. They may not be 100% volintary (and for reasons far too lengthy to explain in this example, can't be). But yes, the guy receiving unemployment is "entitled" to something that came from you that he did not compensate you for. On the other hand, if you were the one unemployed, YOU would be be one entitled to the payment, and HE would be the one paying without compensation. But there actually is compensation here: your compensation for the amount that you pay into an entitlement program is your OWN entitlement to the payout when and if you require it. Its an insurance contract on a massive scale.
Now you probably see that as a form of enslavement, and actually, that's not an invalid point of view (after all, you didn't ask to for the entitlement and you certainly didn't ask to pay for it). But other people simply see it as a reasonable social contract that does not significantly impinge on their freedom. They see it the same way the hypothetical loggers might: as freedom enhancing. I don't think that view is necessarily wrong either.
Really? What five year old says the stuff I said, other than the nananana part which was making light of your :hail::hail: stuff? You are right in one respect I get a little closed minded when someone tells me that I should have to labor for a cause they think is just. You are better people than me who look at the 1/4 of your paycheck gone and know that it is being handled by someone more responsible and caring than myself.
You have the freedom to be in that your example says you all agreed. This is apples and oranges. I dont get the choice to pay income taxes, I pay it or I cant even get a job.
I pay an unrequired tax in my community to help pay for road repairs. I pay it gladly because I see where it goes. It doesn't go to office holders mansions or wars that I dont agree with. I have the freedom to not pay that. I also have the freedom to pay less or more as I see fit. Some pay more some pay less and some pay nothing. Do you think the ones who pay nothing, offer no labor or even a thank you should be able to use the road? Do you think the ones who pay nothing should have the right to vote on policy? Do you think man is a colony animal like an ant or do you think he should be able to live as he wishes and be responsible for himself and his choices?
I pay an unrequired tax in my community to help pay for road repairs. I pay it gladly because I see where it goes. It doesn't go to office holders mansions or wars that I dont agree with. I have the freedom to not pay that. I also have the freedom to pay less or more as I see fit. Some pay more some pay less and some pay nothing. Do you think the ones who pay nothing, offer no labor or even a thank you should be able to use the road? Do you think the ones who pay nothing should have the right to vote on policy? Do you think man is a colony animal like an ant or do you think he should be able to live as he wishes and be responsible for himself and his choices?
And what do you suggest the disabled do in order to survive?
Why do you think it is someone elses responsibility?
My reason for wanting to be able to carry in public if i see fit:
I drive far distances alone with 2 kids quite a bit and most are very rural areas where a single woman alone with kids can be a target if they are broke down. So yes I will travel with a gun. Thats not even considering keeping one in my house. I wish I had mine here and need to go get them from my dads now that we dont have connor here. I am a small woman alone with 2 kids alot of the time. Im not chancing anything where my kids are concerned.
In fact just a minute ago I had some guy come up and I was thinking it could be the internet guy who was installing mine (they didnt tell me when he came just sometime between 7 and when they open) and told me they may come to the door to tell me they are done or they may not depends on the tech. Well it wasnt a tech. It was a Direct Meat or something sales man who was very creepy looking and was trying to look around my house. Thankfully he seemed scared of Walker so Im not to worried but as a single woman alone with kids those are things you have to worry about and Im not chancing if I have something to protect me and them or not.
Just my .02
I drive far distances alone with 2 kids quite a bit and most are very rural areas where a single woman alone with kids can be a target if they are broke down. So yes I will travel with a gun. Thats not even considering keeping one in my house. I wish I had mine here and need to go get them from my dads now that we dont have connor here. I am a small woman alone with 2 kids alot of the time. Im not chancing anything where my kids are concerned.
In fact just a minute ago I had some guy come up and I was thinking it could be the internet guy who was installing mine (they didnt tell me when he came just sometime between 7 and when they open) and told me they may come to the door to tell me they are done or they may not depends on the tech. Well it wasnt a tech. It was a Direct Meat or something sales man who was very creepy looking and was trying to look around my house. Thankfully he seemed scared of Walker so Im not to worried but as a single woman alone with kids those are things you have to worry about and Im not chancing if I have something to protect me and them or not.
Just my .02
don't even get me started on disability.
I think family and friends should be more responsible for taking care of their family and friends. maybe we'd start treating each other a little better. But instead we like that the gov't will take care of them, it lessons our responsibility and our need to stay close to the situation.
Now I know there are those that I would consider disabled in terms of living a relatively "normal" life and some that excell and find ways to impact those around them more than even I do at times.
I also know there are a lot of well abled people sitting on disability, collecting gov't checks and living on our backs so they don't have to use theirs. It bothers me quite a bit.
I had a woman come in wanting me to write a letter and testify to her "disability" She quit her job to start a hobby farm with her husband. She worked on that farm everyday. She was able to do everything she wanted to do, travel, play, work. She wanted another source of income because the farm didn't make as much as she thought it would and she didn't want to go back to her old job.
That's one incident, there are many more just like it. another woman who actually was on disability, could work if she wanted. went on multi week hiking trips in S. America, travels and does all her hobbies, but is on disability.
that crap does make me a bit angry.
I think family and friends should be more responsible for taking care of their family and friends. maybe we'd start treating each other a little better. But instead we like that the gov't will take care of them, it lessons our responsibility and our need to stay close to the situation.
Now I know there are those that I would consider disabled in terms of living a relatively "normal" life and some that excell and find ways to impact those around them more than even I do at times.
I also know there are a lot of well abled people sitting on disability, collecting gov't checks and living on our backs so they don't have to use theirs. It bothers me quite a bit.
I had a woman come in wanting me to write a letter and testify to her "disability" She quit her job to start a hobby farm with her husband. She worked on that farm everyday. She was able to do everything she wanted to do, travel, play, work. She wanted another source of income because the farm didn't make as much as she thought it would and she didn't want to go back to her old job.
That's one incident, there are many more just like it. another woman who actually was on disability, could work if she wanted. went on multi week hiking trips in S. America, travels and does all her hobbies, but is on disability.
that crap does make me a bit angry.