Some election observations (long winded)

Cone_Junky wrote: The Civil Liberties Act restricts my "liberty" to discrimate against race, religion, or creed. So for you to be happy we need to have the right, excuse me "liberty", to run around naked (with a shoulder holster of course), shoot anyone who disagrees with us, and lynch those who make us uncomfortable? Liberty has such a broad definition, yet the only definitions you use are the ones that state your point. "Liberties" can be social, religous, or political. You can't cherry pick certain points and ignore other things defined as "liberty".

You have a very poor grasp of the concept of individual rights. I'm extremely consistent philosophically and am not cherry picking at all.

wcelliot wrote: You misunderstand the philosophy of natural rights at play here. The Second Amendment restricts and contracts Government in this area, necessiarily increasing individual liberty. Restricting states rights in many cases could be considered reducing liberty (like not allowing states to legalize pot or imposing a national speed limit) , but not in the special area of natural rights.

Well of course I did. Shoot. There was a loop-hole! How did I not know?

wcelliot wrote: I'm telling you that you have to.... just leave me alone.

how about you leave us alone first.

Stop giving me all this BS liberty crap until you grow your own food. Can't buy it because most everything is subsidized by the government

Don't drive on roads.. They're subsidized by the government

Don't use public land, like parks. They're evil and reduce our liberty.

Don't use electricity unless you have generated it yourself.. The construction of a power grid is highly subsidized.

Don't call the police or fire department.

Look my point isn't to mock you its to say, I cannot take you seriously unless you live your values. i live my values everyday. I work for charities. I kick ass in corporate america. I'm trying to find out a way to work for a green energy company(I think I got this worked out)..

WilberM3 wrote:

ignorant wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

I really don't want to get involved with this, but this one's too easy. I have money to buy books. I buy what I want and read it. Liberty! Government takes my money. They buy the library books that they deem proper for me to read. I no longer have the money to buy books. Decrease in liberty!

so you equate money with liberty?

do you not?

Nope.. Money does not equal liberty.

wcelliot wrote: Preserve liberty for society overall... but it still does so at the cost of individual liberties. (The point I've made many times is that this is very often a reasonable price to pay... you just have to realize that you're paying it.) .

Look, I get what you're saying- I mean about giving up some individual liberty and sometimes that's reasonable. But you're kinda glossing over the whole millitary or voting thing. You just say "at the cost of individual liberties". I'm not a genius, but I'm a pretty smart guy. But I'm not seeing it. What individual rights am I giving up because the United States has a Millitary? What individual rights do I lose due to laws establishing an organized election procedure? You may have something I haven't thought of. It's pretty safe to say you've put a lot more thought into this than I have.

wcelliot wrote: Property rights are an intrinsic apsect of liberty. Money falls under property rights. When the Government takes my money, they are reducing my personal liberty.

So if Liberty = money = personal property then it can be bought and sold?

wcelliot wrote: You have a very poor grasp of the concept of individual rights. I'm extremely consistent philosophically and am not cherry picking at all.

And you're never condescending either.

Cone_Junky wrote: So my dissent is what are sworn enemies use? I don't remember the Taliban promoting National Health Care, regulating the industry that destroyed our economy, or being environmentally concious and energy independent? Again, disagreeing with Obama is what our country is about. Being upset about W invading a soveriegn nation under false pretenses and being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of our own countrymen is simply unAmerican. Anything less then living in a cabin in the middle of the woods with a militia is socialism. My points are jihad, your's are John Adam's personal beliefs.

Quit being obtuse. This is a pretty good discussion.

I trade a portion of my life for money (roughly 10 hours / day). When that money is taken from me, that is taking a portion of my life.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: You have a very poor grasp of the concept of individual rights. I'm extremely consistent philosophically and am not cherry picking at all.

And you're never condescending either.

Only when people make silly "gotcha" remarks instead of honestly debating. And I do intimately understand political philosophy and intensely dislike it when someone accuses me of being inconsistent or cherry picking.

But you're kinda glossing over the whole millitary or voting thing. You just say "at the cost of individual liberties". I'm not a genius, but I'm a pretty smart guy. But I'm not seeing it. What individual rights am I giving up because the United States has a Millitary? What individual rights do I lose due to laws establishing an organized election procedure? You may have something I haven't thought of. It's pretty safe to say you've put a lot more thought into this than I have.

In answer to your military question, the primary individual liberty that you're giving up is the right to some of your property (money). Establshing a military (for the benefit of society overall) is a valid function of a Federal Government and therefore philosophically sound. The extent to which a military is established, though, is highly debatable... e.g. how much of a military is justifiable versus the cost.

Our Founding Fathers rightfully recognized that there were very limited valid functions of Government at the Federal level that did not infringe too far in individual liberties. (As I've mentioned before, the more intrusive functions of Government were reserved for state and local governments that are more accountable to the individual. That's why there is no Federal law against me running naked with a shoulder holster... though both my state and town reasonably find that to be an illegal activity)

They also established a process to Amend the Constitution should future generations determine that there were additional functions of Government that the public of that time felt were valid. But they necessarily made the process difficult, so that a supermajority of the public would have to agree. By reinterpreting key clauses to allow any expansion of government on a simple majority basis, we have removed a key protection against the growth of both the size and power of Government.

I've tried not to make too many value judgements about whether some specific function of Government is worth the cost in liberties/property... just making the point that there is a cost and that it should be considered.

Protecting rights is also a valid function of Government. So that's why concepts like intellectual property, contract law, protection from fraud, etc... are valid functions. While they may infringe on ability of people to lie, cheat, or steal, protecting the property rights not to be lied, cheated, or stolen from is more important. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

But once the Government regulates beyond this point, then it begins a net infringement on rights.

Establishing an organized election procedure would fall into this general category (of protecting my right to vote..)

I appreciate your understanding why I'm unwilling to discuss #13 any further...

Interestingly, the idea of individual rights does get into some philosophically conflicting areas... environmental law being one of those.... zoning laws being another.

Bill

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Property rights are an intrinsic apsect of liberty. Money falls under property rights. When the Government takes my money, they are reducing my personal liberty.

So if Liberty = money = personal property then it can be bought and sold?

Property rights are an intrinsic apsect of liberty. Money falls under property rights. Not the same as your equation.

But as to your point, I voluntarily give up my liberty for 10-12 hours a day in exchange for my employer giving up some of their money.

Determing what to do with your liberty/property is also an intrinsic aspect of liberty.

Guys I hate to tell you, but you need to stop arguing with wcelliot. He's making you look like fools.

Reasoned thoughtful discussion verses flippant remarks can only have one outcome.

Toyman01 wrote: Guys I hate to tell you, but you need to stop arguing with wcelliot. He's making you look like fools. Reasoned thoughtful discussion verses flippant remarks can only have one outcome.

no. sorry. He asserts many opinions that you may enjoy, but are no more soundly proven than the existance of unicorns.

to be honest... I just argue with people because I enjoy it and like to make them irrate. It's a hobby of mine.

wcelliot wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And you're never condescending either.

Only when people make silly "gotcha" remarks instead of honestly debating.

Interesting post and I appreciate you addressing my questions. I'll take issue with this one bit though. You've aimed a fair number of pretty condescending remarks my way when I don't believe I was playing gotcha.

Toyman01 wrote: Guys I hate to tell you, but you need to stop arguing with wcelliot. He's making you look like fools.

He's certainly trying to. That's too bad. He's a smart guy and could probably convince me of some things if he wasn't so busy trying to make me look foolish. I'm funny that way.

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: I'm telling you that you have to.... just leave me alone.

how about you leave us alone first. Stop giving me all this BS liberty crap until you grow your own food. Can't buy it because most everything is subsidized by the government Don't drive on roads.. They're subsidized by the government Don't use public land, like parks. They're evil and reduce our liberty. Don't use electricity unless you have generated it yourself.. The construction of a power grid is highly subsidized. Don't call the police or fire department. Look my point isn't to mock you its to say, I cannot take you seriously unless you live your values. i live my values everyday. I work for charities. I kick ass in corporate america. I'm trying to find out a way to work for a green energy company(I think I got this worked out)..

I never said that any of the examples you use aren't worth the price in personal liberties... nor that I wouldn't support them...

I just pointed out that there is a price to be paid in terms of liberty. But you apparently don't recognize property rights as a part of liberty, so it's kind of tough to debate with that basic disconnect in philosophies.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I trade a portion of my life for money (roughly 10 hours / day). When that money is taken from me, that is taking a portion of my life.

that is a personal choice, but do you have any more or less liberty than a homeless person with no possessions.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And you're never condescending either.

Only when people make silly "gotcha" remarks instead of honestly debating.

Interesting post and I appreciate you addressing my questions. I'll take issue with this one bit though. You've aimed a fair number of pretty condescending remarks my way when I don't believe I was playing gotcha.

Then I absolutely apologize ... that is rarely my intent (though sometimes I don't recognize how a given post may be taken). I will try to be more careful in the future.

ignorant wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: I trade a portion of my life for money (roughly 10 hours / day). When that money is taken from me, that is taking a portion of my life.

that is a personal choice, but do you have any more or less liberty than a homeless person with no possessions.

Now THERE is a truly interesting question.

I would generally take the position that having possessions gives me more options in my pursuit of happiness and therefore more liberty...

wcelliot wrote:

ignorant wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: I trade a portion of my life for money (roughly 10 hours / day). When that money is taken from me, that is taking a portion of my life.

that is a personal choice, but do you have any more or less liberty than a homeless person with no possessions.

Now THERE is a truly interesting question. I would generally take the position that having possessions gives me more options in my pursuit of happiness and therefore more liberty...

posessions give you liberty? Though that seems like a mantra of the modern US, I don't think the founding fathers exactly had that in mind.

That just sounds wrong.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Guys I hate to tell you, but you need to stop arguing with wcelliot. He's making you look like fools.

He's certainly trying to. That's too bad. He's a smart guy and could probably convince me of some things if he wasn't so busy trying to make me look foolish. I'm funny that way.

He's not trying to, he's trying to explain his thoughts on a subject. How you respond to those thoughts, as in being flippant, is what seems foolish.

I'm just glad I'm not arguing with him. I don't have the time to do the research to keep up in a subject he has obviously studied in depth.

wcelliot wrote: Then I absolutely apologize ... that is rarely my intent (though sometimes I don't recognize how a given post may be taken). I will try to be more careful in the future.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

wcelliot wrote: Now THERE is a truly interesting question. I would generally take the position that having possessions gives me more options in my pursuit of happiness and therefore more liberty...

I used to live in San Francisco. The place is absolutely littered with homeless guys. Used to have to step over them from time to time when I walked out my (very expensive) front door. I have heard them argue the point- some of them seem to honestly believe they are the only ones who are really free. The rest of us are slaves to our jobs. Walking to work I would somtimes wonder if they had a point.

Most of these guys were just drug addicts or drunks and couldn't get a job if they wanted to. But there were some left over hippies who really believed what they were saying. I'm not ready to quit my job just yet, but as I sit here on hour #11, working yet another very, very long day, can't say I feel so free.

Toyman01 wrote: I'm just glad I'm not arguing with him. I don't have the time to do the research to keep up in a subject he has obviously studied in depth.

which makes me beg the question.. He probably could have more liberty if he didn't spend so much time on here..

In reply to ignorant:

I would have to say the homeless have more individual liberty in that they have no responsibility to anyone other than themselves. They have made a choice to not participate in society and society wants nothing from them.

Money doesn't equate to liberty. In many ways I had more liberty when I was making minimum wage than I do now as the owner of a business. Money is more equal to opportunity than it is to liberty.

ignorant wrote: posessions give you liberty? Though that seems like a mantra of the modern US, I don't think the founding fathers exactly had that in mind. That just sounds wrong.

The Founding Fathers recognized property rights as an intrinsic (natural) right.

Whether they would consider possessions to "give you liberty" is kind of a strange way to look at it, but they felt strongly that the right to possessions was a primary liberty.