What Does Freedom Mean?

PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

It is only logical that the longer any government exists, the more laws it will create. This is to be expected and is not a reason for revolt. The world constantly grows more complex, and the ways for one individual to harm another become greater in number, requiring more laws to cover more possibilities.

This is just as logical as is the fact that as time progresses, as population grows, as technology advances, the government must become larger to deal with the complexities of society.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. It’s like banning guns or Jews, popping the cherry on a virgin or the example of boiling a live frog : it’s best done slowly. Incrementally.

The day Hitler became Chancellor he didn’t start gassing Jews. Gun bans began with machine guns and worked up to semi-automatic rifles before being pushed back to machine guns**. Incrementally is how we lose our freedom either by giving it up or by having it taken. The old aphorism (not Sinclair Lewis) "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" comes to mind.

What he did write was this: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ir-lewis-might-have-liked-quote-about-fascis/

In "It Can’t Happen Here," he writes: "But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst fascists were they who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional Native American liberty."

In "Gideon Planish," he writes: "I just wish people wouldn’t quote Lincoln or the Bible, or hang out the flag or the cross, to cover up something that belongs more to the bank-book and the three golden balls."

There’s also this: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


**Machine guns are legal for the rich since only they can afford the licensing. It’ll eventually work the same way with most guns; the rich can buy their right to own a gun and the poor will be screwed by the Democrats and Republicans alike.
 
Good question--- what is freedom?

My two cents...

According to scholars, conceptions of freedom in world intellectual history differ, but there is some overlap.

Plato, the Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, and Jesus Christ recognized two forms of freedom:

The lower form of freedom is in a social or political context. Acting as one wishes if it does not harm anyone else is the consequence of this kind of freedom.

The higher form of freedom depends on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth. This truth leads to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear. It involves transcendence beyond one’s addiction to material possessions and any attachment to impermanence.
 
Cypress said:
My two cents...

According to scholars, conceptions of freedom in world intellectual history differ, but there is some overlap.

Plato, the Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, and Jesus Christ recognized two forms of freedom:

The lower form of freedom is in a social or political context. Acting as one wishes if it does not harm anyone else is the consequence of this kind of freedom.

The higher form of freedom depends on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth. This truth leads to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear. It involves transcendence beyond one’s addiction to material possessions and any attachment to impermanence.
Click to expand...

An excellent delineation. The OP was focused upon secular freedom, the lower freedom, but your point must be considered as well since there are theocracies that meld both together and, as in our nation, where the population is highly religious.

Consider the discussion on another thread about Biden and abortion.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Pregnancy should be a decision between the two persons involved, one male, one female.
Click to expand...

Yet you not only led with it but asserted the State has a right to impose it’s will on the decision.

While I obviously agree with it takes two to make a baby, since the woman bears both the burden and risk, the decision should be hers just like it’s the man’s to have a vasectomy.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yet you not only led with it but asserted the State has a right to impose it’s will on the decision.

While I obviously agree with it takes two to make a baby, since the woman bears both the burden and risk, the decision should be hers just like it’s the man’s to have a vasectomy.
Click to expand...

Then as in contract law in general, the man bears no responsibility later to pay child support, the kid's all hers. She could have her tubes tied just as easily too...
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. It’s like banning guns or Jews, popping the cherry on a virgin or the example of boiling a live frog : it’s best done slowly. Incrementally.

The day Hitler became Chancellor he didn’t start gassing Jews. Gun bans began with machine guns and worked up to semi-automatic rifles before being pushed back to machine guns**. Incrementally is how we lose our freedom either by giving it up or by having it taken. The old aphorism (not Sinclair Lewis) "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" comes to mind.

What he did write was this: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ir-lewis-might-have-liked-quote-about-fascis/

In "It Can’t Happen Here," he writes: "But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst fascists were they who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional Native American liberty."

In "Gideon Planish," he writes: "I just wish people wouldn’t quote Lincoln or the Bible, or hang out the flag or the cross, to cover up something that belongs more to the bank-book and the three golden balls."

There’s also this: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


**Machine guns are legal for the rich since only they can afford the licensing. It’ll eventually work the same way with most guns; the rich can buy their right to own a gun and the poor will be screwed by the Democrats and Republicans alike.
Click to expand...

Here's the part that needs to be bolded:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,
Here's the part that needs to be bolded:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Click to expand...

Prudence, indeed. The main point is that, yes, revolution is okay but the circumstances should be heavily considered along with the consequences against the increasing weight of oppressive and freedom-depriving laws.

One alternative is to open space for colonization. Let all the wimps, cowards and those who want to be children of the State stay on Earth and let all the freedom-lovers escape the oppression to forge their freedom in the wilderness of the Universe.
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
An excellent delineation. The OP was focused upon secular freedom, the lower freedom, but your point must be considered as well since there are theocracies that meld both together and, as in our nation, where the population is highly religious.

Consider the discussion on another thread about Biden and abortion.
Click to expand...

The separation of church and state must be absolute, in the pursuit of freedom.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then as in contract law in general, the man bears no responsibility later to pay child support, the kid's all hers. She could have her tubes tied just as easily too...
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you see that as being a fair and equal consideration of the situation? You want “my way or the highway” which is exactly the current Republican talking point.

Why must women be oppressed in your world? There is plenty of leeway and options other than your B&W view on the subject.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
How the fuck do you see that as being a fair and equal consideration of the situation? You want “my way or the highway” which is exactly the current Republican talking point.

Why must women be oppressed in your world?
Click to expand...

If it's her decision and hers alone to have the child or an abortion, and the man gets no say being essentially at that point a sperm donor, then the situation shouldn't change if she has the child. It's her child and it was her decision to have the child. No child support should be forced on the man.

Now, if it's the couple's decision, then they decide as a couple with equal rights and responsibilities. That's fair and equal all the way around.

So, which is it you want: The woman making all the decisions but economic responsibility forced on the man without his having any recourse or say--totally one-sided--or the couple making a decision together with equal rights and responsibilities towards the outcome?

Now, if you're going to argue that the woman might not know who the father is, or that sort of thing, then maybe she should have taken some responsibility and not slept with the whole goddamned trailer park.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Your analogy about swinging your fist is often used and is a good one. To compare to vaccines during a deadly pandemic, I would say that no, we don't want the govt. to FORCE ppl to get vaxxed against their will. But if they remain unvaxxed, and thus a danger to those who cannot receive the innoculations, then they must be excluded from others. Whether it's their kids not being allowed to go to school, not being able to shop or eat out or attend sporting events or concerts -- the people have a right to remain free of possible danger posed by the unvaxxed and contagious. If a condition of employment is get vaxxed or get tested frequently at your own expense to keep your job, I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

239519593_5470678829691793_3077998435072489479_n.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If it's her decision and hers alone to have the child or an abortion, and the man gets no say being essentially at that point a sperm donor, then the situation shouldn't change if she has the child. It's her child and it was her decision to have the child. No child support should be forced on the man.

Now, if it's the couple's decision, then they decide as a couple with equal rights and responsibilities. That's fair and equal all the way around.

So, which is it you want: The woman making all the decisions but economic responsibility forced on the man without his having any recourse or say--totally one-sided--or the couple making a decision together with equal rights and responsibilities towards the outcome?

Now, if you're going to argue that the woman might not know who the father is, or that sort of thing, then maybe she should have taken some responsibility and not slept with the whole goddamned trailer park.
Click to expand...

Dude, again with your B&W views. Nice job calling the woman a fucking slut and giving a pass to the men.

If a couple is married and trying to have a child, then I readily agree that the husband has an equal say in the pregnancy.

Do you think a drunken one-night stand with no intention of pregnancy, just carelessness, is equal to a married couple situation?

Do you agree that a lot depends upon intent; whether there was intent to have a pregnancy or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top