Liberals hate freedom

SmarterThanYou said:
Why liberals and socialists deny the constitution.

For decades the liberals and socialists of this great country have pursued the ultimate destruction of the US Consitution by judicial tyranny through installing unamerican totalitarian minded ideologists on the federal courts.

several cases in point to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, are the slaughterhouse cases, wickard v. fillburn, and US v. Miller. All of these cases bent their ears on forcing liberalization through federal law enforcement by expanding the commerce clause of the US Constitution to the extent that congress can legislate what you can and cannot grow on your own property for your own purposes.

Later 21st century cases expand the commerce clause powers of congress even further through cases such as gonzalez v. raich.

One case in particular stands out to show that liberals don't like the constitution is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) that totally obliterates the 4th amendment, by the United States Supreme Courts own admission, by deciding that the states interest in reducing drunk driving is greater than the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US Consitution EVEN THOUGH the sobriety checkpoints provided little proof that they made any dent or decrease in drunk driving throughout the US.

Liberals hate freedom and the US Constitution. Ban all Liberals.
Click to expand...

laugh and laugh at you!

Good morning Rip!
 
ironhead said:
Texas vs. White may have legally settled the issue, but there were those at the time who most certainly did not agree. From what I have read, Texas vs. White is the primary precedent and most legal scholars seem to agree that an argument can be made that the Constitution itself is ambiguous about the right to secede. I will side with Lysander Spooner and the Declaration of Independence on the theoretical and moral argument that people (in this case, states) have the right to secede when they feel it is just or their government is tyrannical.

I am not making the case that the South was right to secede, as many simply wanted to maintain autonomy so that slavery could be continued, a practice I utterly abhor and believe to be anathema to any notion of liberty.
That said, I believe that any legitimate constitution is agreed upon by free peoples and can be rejected at a later date. If this is not so, then how can they be considered free and the law legitimate? What of the notion of a just government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed?
Click to expand...
The idea that states of a union - be it a federation or confederation, should have the ability to negate their association with the whole at any time is simply impractical. No nation would survive such a setup. The Declaration of Independence itself cautions "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" But if secession were considered a "right" of the states, that is EXACTLY what would have happened. The south would have seceded, then undoubtedly would have split up again over some other difference of opinion. And once the precedent was established, states of the North would most likely also have eventually split on multiple occasions over differences of how the federal government should operate.

And while the Declaration of Independence did claim such actions as a right, the declaration fully expected - and was correct - that the actions of dissolving "the political bands which have connected them with another" would require force of arms.

Political theory of absolute freedom is all and good. But quite impractical to put into practice in its pure form. Under your theory (belief) the ability to "to alter or to abolish (government), and to institute new Government" could - and would - be used for "light and transient causes". Not all causes for dissolution are just - such as the desire to keep the institution of slavery. If the cause is not just - it should be fought against. OTOH, sometimes the cause IS just, but the reason for being just (ie: a corrupt and despotic government) then that government is going to fight against it anyway. As such, the practical reality is secession cannot be considered a "right", because it is an act that will always need force of arms to accomplish (or attempt to accomplish).
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
WHY do they exist because you're human? What about the universe compels them to exist? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is no creator. Natural rights are man-made, and therefore, not natural.

It's an argument from nothing. Again, if you can't prove your points with logic, don't immediately invent a right, call it natural, and try to use that instead. Just go home.
Click to expand...

Natural rights exist not as an ethereal construct, as your weak understanding seems to suggest, but rather as made evident by the individuality of each human being.This is the result of evolution (as we are). No two people (maybe not even identical twins) think, act, project, ideate, etc. in identical fashion. Each human being has the capacity to resist, accept, reject, be indifferent to, etc. any idea or action. Simply because natural rights can be violated does not mean they do not exist, rather the reverse.

When someone resists being held captive, being raped, or robbed, etc. they are exerting their individual will; they are demonstrating self-determination, autonomy, and natural self-governance. Each person owns their own body, and thus, the fruits of their labor which were not acquired at the expense of someone else's rights (via force or fraud).

This is the foundation for any peaceful and prosperous society. It is also highly ethical.
 
ironhead said:
Natural rights exist not as an ethereal construct, as your weak understanding seems to suggest, but rather as made evident by the individuality of each human being.This is the result of evolution (as we are). No two people (maybe not even identical twins) think, act, project, ideate, etc. in identical fashion. Each human being has the capacity to resist, accept, reject, be indifferent to, etc. any idea or action. Simply because natural rights can be violated does not mean they do not exist, rather the reverse.

When someone resists being held captive, being raped, or robbed, etc. they are exerting their individual will; they are demonstrating self-determination, autonomy, and natural self-governance. Each person owns their own body, and thus, the fruits of their labor which were not acquired at the expense of someone else's rights (via force or fraud).

This is the foundation for any peaceful and prosperous society. It is also highly ethical.
Click to expand...

Why do you own anything?

Evolution had no intent. Evolution has no intent. Natural rights are a man made invention, like religion.
 
Well, duh. God existed before anyone could believe in Him, and man had to exist prior to human society, but its really just apples and oranges.
 
Watermark said:
Why do you own anything?

Evolution had no intent. Evolution has no intent. Natural rights are a man made invention, like religion.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention anything about evolution's intent. That's your idea. We are the result of evolution, as are our faculties, such as independent cognition, autonomy, and self-determination.

Natural rights are an observed condition. Religion is not based on observation; that's a weak comparison.
 
"The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints." Samuel Hendel

repost

Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
 
Sod all this pussyfooting around.

I'm a Liberal and i'll happily admit i hate freedom. Can't stand the thing...more trouble than it's worth and no mistake.

No, for me it's slavery every time.

Call me an old stick in the mud but i know when i'm better off and i don't like the sound of this so-called "freedom". Sounds too much like fascism or communism to me. I'm used to casting a vote for someone who doesn't represent my views or opinions in any way whatsoever, and i'm damn proud of it let me tell you.

In some places elected representatives speak out for their electorates but as these backward countries progress they will learn to tread on the hopes and dreams of their voters in order to line their own pockets and the pockets of their corporate paymasters. Still, their naivete is somewhat quaint.

The last thing i'd want to think about is some far-fetched notion of "freedom", probably spread about by some extremist European Socialist Terrorist Communist or a Muslim Fundamentalist from IRAN.

Anyway, i'll leave you intellectuals to discuss the ins and outs of complex political thought. I'm off to watch American Idol.
 
midcan5 said:
"The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints." Samuel Hendel

repost

Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
Click to expand...
1: I seriously doubt anyone who must ask permission of their government to do something like travel which people in democratic societies take for granted would consider themselves "free". Unless they had the same prefrontal lobotomy the poster of this submoronic morality play did.

2: There is a significant difference between the woman who could not travel due to lack of financial resources, and the women who could not travel due to government restrictions. The first is a fucking moron if she actually thinks she has the right to travel for no cost, and deserves to be in jail for making a rukus when she found out she could not. (probably related to the poster.) However, assuming she had two normally functioning neurons, she saves until she has the money to purchase a ticket (like the woman who bought a ticket undoubtedly did), and then travels. The women who is refused travel due to government restriction has the only recourse to wait for a change in government, which being totalitarian, will only come about through violent revolution.
 
Watermark said:
Why do you own anything?

Evolution had no intent. Evolution has no intent. Natural rights are a man made invention, like religion.
Click to expand...

have you always been this retarded or is this the latest liberal phenomena?

Evolution has no intent? I realize that your mindset and intelligence may be locked in to nothing more than the timespan of your years on this planet, but evolution has been happening since the formation of the first life form on this planet. Evolution happens as a result of life forms experience of survival and growth to adapt for that very survival. That is part of natural rights, that right of self preservation.
 
midcan5 said:
"The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints." Samuel Hendel

repost

Four woman live in two different countries, one is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
Click to expand...

what point are you trying to make here?
 
With true freedom, everyone is on their own. On your own to round up food, healthcare, housing, education, etc...
Or not to round up any of that and die.
Others would have the freedom to help you or not, that is their freedom.

And in true freedom one has the freedom to take what they want from someone else who has the freedom to have it taken away from him.

Marriage means squat considering freedom. Marriage is contra freedom. You lose the freedom to fool around with other partners.
 
charver said:
Sod all this pussyfooting around.

I'm a Liberal and i'll happily admit i hate freedom. Can't stand the thing...more trouble than it's worth and no mistake.

No, for me it's slavery every time.

Call me an old stick in the mud but i know when i'm better off and i don't like the sound of this so-called "freedom". Sounds too much like fascism or communism to me. I'm used to casting a vote for someone who doesn't represent my views or opinions in any way whatsoever, and i'm damn proud of it let me tell you.

In some places elected representatives speak out for their electorates but as these backward countries progress they will learn to tread on the hopes and dreams of their voters in order to line their own pockets and the pockets of their corporate paymasters. Still, their naivete is somewhat quaint.

The last thing i'd want to think about is some far-fetched notion of "freedom", probably spread about by some extremist European Socialist Terrorist Communist or a Muslim Fundamentalist from IRAN.

Anyway, i'll leave you intellectuals to discuss the ins and outs of complex political thought. I'm off to watch American Idol.
Click to expand...

Fuckin' hell, Charver - isn't that the type of mindset which allowed for someone as useless as Colin Hendry to be thought of (even for a brief period of time) as something like a "national hero" ?

Probably.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what point are you trying to make here?
Click to expand...

If you ever posted on FP, then you are familiar with Midcan's infamously stupid "Libertarianism in a Nutshell" thread series. He got stomped on in six iterations of the series and then proceeded to be stomped on in "Freedom in a Nutshell" I and II. There were others, I'm sure. Libertarians tend to win debates on message boards, I have noticed.
 
Threedee said:
If you ever posted on FP, then you are familiar with Midcan's infamously stupid "Libertarianism in a Nutshell" thread series. He got stomped on in six iterations of the series and then proceeded to be stomped on in "Freedom in a Nutshell" I and II. There were others, I'm sure. Libertarians tend to win debates on message boards, I have noticed.
Click to expand...

never posted there, no clue who Midcan is, and still don't know the point you were trying to make. k.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
never posted there, no clue who Midcan is, and still don't know the point you were trying to make. k.
Click to expand...

Midcan is under the impression that smaller government is anarchy, bigger government is godlike, and human beings must be placed under 110% authoritative control in order to survive. He argues against free markets, individualism, and anything else worthy of acolades.
 
ironhead said:
Fuckin' hell, Charver - isn't that the type of mindset which allowed for someone as useless as Colin Hendry to be thought of (even for a brief period of time) as something like a "national hero" ?

Probably.
Click to expand...

:D

You may be amused to know i actually spent a minute or so trying to recall some American founding father called Colin Hendry until the penny finally dropped.
 
charver said:
:D

You may be amused to know i actually spent a minute or so trying to recall some American founding father called Colin Hendry until the penny finally dropped.
Click to expand...

lol

I'm not sure why that particular one came to mind. I remember seeing something written about Colin Hendry being considered by many Scots as being "very patriotic" in Four Four Two or in a similar publication. If memory serves, someone clever had also posted a photo of Mr. Hendry with, what can only be described by an American, as a cheerleader in each arm, smiling...well, like Colin Hendry would. The caption read "get your tits out for the lads" regarding the young ladies' activities before the game at Hampden Park or somewhere.

I believe it was the "get your tits out for the lads" quote which permanently etched the otherwise unremarkable photo into my brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top