The Jim crow laws MANDATED racist behavior: a railway owner HAD to have separate cars for blacks and whites. There was no freedom, the government was telling someone what to do. (Its lawful evil) So I'm not seeing where my argument would say that Jim crow laws had more freedom.
But what your definition leads us to is the conclusion that two countries, one that mandated separation based on whatever descriptor (race, religion, hat size), would be ranked the same as one that mandated they were NOT segregated (as the US now does). Since, like, it's all just the government telling us what to do. Neither would be perfectly free (which would be the government saying nothing at all) but both those situations, by your valuation method, would be ranked the same, no?
I thought that is what we, including yourself, were trying to do in this thread: extoll that balance in liberties--in this thread, your ability to get a gun that shoots really really fast cuz it's wicked cool vs. schoolchildren's right not to get s!~+ in the face--as a virtue.
Yes it is. But in doing so i see no reason to use sophistry to hide from the less than pleasant fact that I am asking the government to curtail the actions of other individuals (ie, a loss of freedom). My argument is that the restriction is worth it, not that its making people more free.
Its a case of chaotic vs good, and I'm going with good: not pretending that its chaos vs chaos.
Yeah, I think that the whole freedom discussion is getting a little pedantic on definitions of freedom. I think the point is that freedom and gun laws don't seem to be highly correlated. America has a lot of freedoms with more lax gun laws, a lot of other countries have a lot of freedoms with much tighter gun control. I'm not sure that it really matters which country is the most free as that could be counted in different ways (and I'm saying that as a New Zealander).
This is really what it boils down to: restricting gun ownership has essentially no impact on how otherwise free you are.
Maybe he meant civil rights act, and not jim crow?
I'm guessing that BNW would say that a restaurant owner not being allowed to discriminate against customers makes the country less free, regardless of whether that's a good thing.
Scott Betts et al might say it weighs the freedom to discriminate against the freedom to have a sandwich, or not be treated unfairly. Which I would say is malarky.
This is really what it boils down to: restricting gun ownership has essentially no impact on how otherwise free you are.
How can restricting you from doing anything have no impact on how free you are?
edit: reading comprehension fail, missed "otherwise free". Comment withdrawn.
Yes it is. But in doing so i see no reason to use sophistry to hide from the less than pleasant fact that I am asking the government to curtail the actions of other individuals (ie, a loss of freedom). My argument is that the restriction is worth it, not that its making people more free.
Its a case of chaotic vs good, and I'm going with good: not pretending that its chaos vs chaos.
It isn't sophistry to argue that restricting magazine size is a net gain for freedom. The freedom lost by those who want to shoot off 11+ bullets at once for shits and giggles is less impactful than the freedom preserved by preserving lives.
I argue that, unless it is explicitly against the wishes of someone of sound mind, keeping someone alive results in more freedom.
I argue that, unless it is explicitly against the wishes of someone of sound mind, keeping someone alive results in more freedom.
No matter what the ratio? A million or a billion or a trillion personal preferences never rises to the level of one life?
I argue that, unless it is explicitly against the wishes of someone of sound mind, keeping someone alive results in more freedom.No matter what the ratio? A million or a billion or a trillion personal preferences never rises to the level of one life?
Sure. Fine. One trillion to one. Cuz hey let's just be silly.
So, would you say banning christmas trees would result in more freedom?
Ah, just remembered... barring the doors of a house and setting it on fire, or setting the house on fire to get people out so you can murderize them are also classics in the massacre department.
Politicians apparently have an unending capacity for stupidity. Case in point is Franco Frattini, previous commissioner of the EU, who some years back wanted to make it impossible to search for the words "terror", "bomb", "kill" and "genocide" on the internet. This moron apparently thought google was a kind of booze or something. Let's go through the words:
"Terror": Okay, I can see where this comes from. Then again, not letting people search for the word will limit their ways of getting information on stuff like Lockerbie. Good? Not according to me, but okay.
"Bomb": This might have some sort of legitimacy. If you have a severely addled mind, or have drunk too much google.
"Kill": I think he wanted to remove this possibility because... uh... because... No. I got nothing. Sorry.
"Genocide": In contrast to these others, this is obviously legit. After all, we don't want the populace to learn how to murder entire population groups. Everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they? It's not as if you need, say, massive political pull and resources, contacts in law enforcement, military access, control of infrastructure, or the like. It's just to grab a sharp stick and start in one end of the country, right?
Seriously... they didn't want to let people search for "genocide", to get information on one of the few crimes that are actually impossible for a private individual to commit??? And there was NO other reason for this, say, having an easier way to hide politician crimes?
Hi. Do you have a source for that ?
For my part, I do receive a gazillion of mails claiming that such and such politician did some moronic thing or tried to enact a stupid law... which all end up as hoaxes in the end. I do have some very gullible friends, which I have to periodically remind that verifying a piece of information before flooding me is the sensible thing to do.
Most of those mails seems to come from extreme right sources, which of course would be waaaaaaay more competent than our current governments.
I am not saying that what you said is false, but 1) it LOOKS like the content of such a mail ; 2) such mails should be taken with a wagonload of salt.
EDIT : on the other hand, Franco Frattini was part of the Berlusconi government, so everything is possible. Wouldn't be the first to open his mouth about something he desn't have a clue about.
I hope you can accept Reuters quoting the guy himself as evidence.
As I said: Moron. Considering that he wants to make it impossible to search for (and I quote) "DANGEROUS WORDS" like "genocide", most likely a severely and sincerely corrupt moron. And this corrupt moron was put in place as commissioner of Freedom and Security... Duh.
I thought that is what we, including yourself, were trying to do in this thread: extoll that balance in liberties--in this thread, your ability to get a gun that shoots really really fast cuz it's wicked cool vs. schoolchildren's right not to get s!~+ in the face--as a virtue.Yes it is. But in doing so i see no reason to use sophistry to hide from the less than pleasant fact that I am asking the government to curtail the actions of other individuals (ie, a loss of freedom). My argument is that the restriction is worth it, not that its making people more free.
Its a case of chaotic vs good, and I'm going with good: not pretending that its chaos vs chaos.
I don't think being allowed to intentionally harm others is part of freedom (in terms of what we would consider criminal violence), because the act necessitates the loss of freedom on the victims part. If the act requires the removal of freedom of others, than it's removal as a legitimate option can't actually be considered a loss of freedom.
For example, my 'freedom' to murder you is currently restricted in the US. But if you consider all the future choices you would make and freedoms you would enjoy, my one choice ends up being a net loss of freedom being experienced. Therefore, removing my 'freedom' to murder is actually a net gain in freedom for society.
Just because something is being restricted, does not mean that freedom is being lost.
I hope you can accept Reuters quoting the guy himself as evidence.
As I said: Moron. Considering that he wants to make it impossible to search for (and I quote) "DANGEROUS WORDS" like "genocide", most likely a severely and sincerely corrupt moron. And this corrupt moron was put in place as commissioner of Freedom and Security... Duh.
Thanks Sissyl, you made my day.
From an Berlusconian, everything is possible. Glad the italians got rid of him and his cronies.
Freedom is not generally a question of what you are allowed to do to other private individuals. Freedom is a function of the relationship between private individuals and those in power. Otherwise put, freedom relates to what those in power are NOT allowed to use that power for, as pertains private individuals. A "freedom" to murder someone else would possibly be a RIGHT, not a freedom. When you start discussing these things, you do need to be certain of your terminology. Otherwise you will end up with people barfing out garbage like "Someone's right to live is more important than someone else's right to express themselves freely."
As defined in the american constitution and discussed by the SCOTUS, bearing arms is a FREEDOM, not a right, i.e. the government can't restrict your doing so. Thus, you can make a case that it's okay that you have guns. However, once you ACTUALLY USE those guns, the criminal code determines whether you did was right or wrong. This is not an infringement on the second amendment's freedom to bear arms. All it provides you is that it's okay to HAVE them.
If the government accepts the existence of slavery (which is at its core a legal construction), it is difficult to see that tons of freedoms that collectively build up the concept of a free person are NOT being infringed. Same with discrimination, so long as the discrimination is enshrined in the laws. However, if what you are discussing what private individuals do to one another without using the laws, it may be wrong, but not a matter of infringed freedoms.
biased study?
I know I already replied to this, but it's just so predictable and so easily refuted with an article that came out three days ago that I had to hit it up again.
Of course the fact that all major freedom indices rate nations like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and most of Western Europe as eminently free would be met with a cry of "Biased study?" by Andrew R. You know, because he just wants to make sure we're not missing anything.
Furthermore, legal/tolerated discrimination against protected groups remains discrimination even if legal.
But if the group is "protected" then ...
Nevermind. :D
Furthermore, legal/tolerated discrimination against protected groups remains discrimination even if legal.But if the group is "protected" then ...
Nevermind. :D
I'm just referring to these. They may not be actually protected in certain countries, but it's still easiest to refer to them as a group as protected classes. I have a feeling that sexual orientation will eventually make its way onto that list, too.
|
biased study?I know I already replied to this, but it's just so predictable and so easily refuted with an article that came out three days ago that I had to hit it up again.
Of course the fact that all major freedom indices rate nations like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and most of Western Europe as eminently free would be met with a cry of "Biased study?" by Andrew R. You know, because he just wants to make sure we're not missing anything.
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom. What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not? I can only think of 2 gay marriage and travel to cuba. Now how many are much more restrictive in speech, expression, rights to self defense, travel, etc?
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom. What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not? I can only think of 2 gay marriage and travel to cuba. Now how many are much more restrictive in speech, expression, rights to self defense, travel, etc?biased study?I know I already replied to this, but it's just so predictable and so easily refuted with an article that came out three days ago that I had to hit it up again.
Of course the fact that all major freedom indices rate nations like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and most of Western Europe as eminently free would be met with a cry of "Biased study?" by Andrew R. You know, because he just wants to make sure we're not missing anything.
The freedom to put what you want in your body - our war on drugs has given us a rediculous number of incarcerated people per capita.
The freedom to not be unlawfully searched - we technically have this but just ask any black guy in NYC what that means. US has a stronger racial divide than most of Europe.Class mobility, or the freedom change your ecconomic standing in life - the social class of your birth exceeded race as the biggest factor for success last year. The US is one of the least social mobile 1st world nations.
|
|
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom. What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not? I can only think of 2 gay marriage and travel to cuba. Now how many are much more restrictive in speech, expression, rights to self defense, travel, etc?biased study?I know I already replied to this, but it's just so predictable and so easily refuted with an article that came out three days ago that I had to hit it up again.
Of course the fact that all major freedom indices rate nations like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and most of Western Europe as eminently free would be met with a cry of "Biased study?" by Andrew R. You know, because he just wants to make sure we're not missing anything.
The freedom to put what you want in your body - our war on drugs has given us a rediculous number of incarcerated people per capita.
The freedom to not be unlawfully searched - we technically have this but just ask any black guy in NYC what that means. US has a stronger racial divide than most of Europe.
Class mobility, or the freedom change your ecconomic standing in life - the social class of your birth exceeded race as the biggest factor for success last year. The US is one of the least social mobile 1st world nations.
substance use laws exist in virtually every country
Can we NOT change or are few willing? Not to imply it is easy, here or anywhere else. but is it a matter of someone else stopping them or them stopping themselves.
substance use laws exist in virtually every country
Yes, and the US punishes them more harshly and more commonly than most of the rest of the world.
Can we NOT change or are few willing? Not to imply it is easy, here or anywhere else. but is it a matter of someone else stopping them or them stopping themselves.
If you are lower class, you have fewer opportunities and those that you have are more difficult. There are systemic practices designed to keep you down.
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom.
It "sounds" like that? I linked all of the studies. All of them. Do you think I do that as a formality? It's so that - among a number of reasons - if you come up with stupid it's-a-liberal-conspiracy! theories you can take the minute or two of your time necessary to go to the actual study and read what it says, before posting the above for our shared amusement.
By the way, if it looks like indices of countries ranked by level of freedom are similar to indices of countries ranked by liberal-mindedness, that's because liberal-mindedness and freedom have an fairly strong correlation. If this confuses you in any way, I would suggest looking into what being "liberal-minded" actually means.
What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not?
Quite a lot of them.
On other news, French President Proposes Banning Homework. Not because he believed it didn't work, but because he felt that it was unfair to those students whose parents weren't able to work them as much at home.
Homework favors the wealthy, Hollande argues, because they are more likely to have a good working environment at home, including parents with the time and energy to help them with their work.
|
|
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom.It "sounds" like that? I linked all of the studies. All of them. Do you think I do that as a formality? It's so that - among quite a lot of reasons - if you come up with stupid it's-a-liberal-conspiracy! theories you can take the minute or two of your time necessary to go to the actual study and read what it says, before posting the above for our shared amusement.
What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not?Quite a lot of them.
Go ahead and enlighten us then.
What freedoms do the other governments allow (with anything backing it preferably) that ours does not?|
|
substance use laws exist in virtually every countryYes, and the US punishes them more harshly and more commonly than most of the rest of the world.
If you are lower class, you have fewer opportunities and those that you have are more difficult. There are systemic practices designed to keep you down.
Can we NOT change or are few willing? Not to imply it is easy, here or anywhere else. but is it a matter of someone else stopping them or them stopping themselves.
Please elaborate on how the man is keeping you down
The freedom to put what you want in your body - our war on drugs has given us a rediculous number of incarcerated people per capita.
The freedom to not be unlawfully searched - we technically have this but just ask any black guy in NYC what that means. US has a stronger racial divide than most of Europe.
Class mobility, or the freedom change your ecconomic standing in life - the social class of your birth exceeded race as the biggest factor for success last year. The US is one of the least social mobile 1st world nations.
Now those first two are REAALLY good arguments that the US isn't nearly as free as some other places.
It is biased because it sounds more like a study of "liberal enough" nothing to do with freedom.It "sounds" like that? I linked all of the studies. All of them. Do you think I do that as a formality? It's so that - among quite a lot of reasons - if you come up with stupid it's-a-liberal-conspiracy! theories you can take the minute or two of your time necessary to go to the actual study and read what it says, before posting the above for our shared amusement.
What freedom does any other government have to allow that ours does not?Quite a lot of them.Go ahead and enlighten us then.
What freedoms do the other governments allow (with anything backing it preferably) that ours does not?
I just want to be clear: the theory that you're lashing yourself to is that a) it's not possible for other countries to have freedoms that Americans do not, because 'MURICA, and b) that every one of the four indices I've linked you to is plagued by liberal bias, including the one run by a conservative think-tank.
I just want you to confirm for me that this is the "reality" you are seeing.
|
|
Go ahead and name every freedom we do not have. you say we are not so free and link to studies that have little to do with freedom so start naming what it is we cannot do. I am not saying it, i am saying IF they exist TELL ME WHAT. Also my theory is that we are a very free nation and i want it to stay that way
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please elaborate on how the man is keeping you down
substance use laws exist in virtually every countryYes, and the US punishes them more harshly and more commonly than most of the rest of the world.
If you are lower class, you have fewer opportunities and those that you have are more difficult. There are systemic practices designed to keep you down.
Can we NOT change or are few willing? Not to imply it is easy, here or anywhere else. but is it a matter of someone else stopping them or them stopping themselves.
They are not keeping me down. My parrents were upper-middle class and that has allowed me to stay upper-middle class with little difficulty.
I had no problem getting a credit card or checking account while in HS, even withouth a cosigner, despite the fact that I know people who have never been approved and cannot get even a savings account with a bank. Coming from a family with established credit history helps a lot.
The checking accounts I was able to get have no fees. My roommate cannot find any bank willing to give him an account without a fee because they assume he will overdraft, because he comes from a family with little income and has low income himself.
I was able to get student loans at 4-6%, and only had to borrow $40K for college. One of my college roommates took out $120K loans at 12% (He doesn't even have the worste loans of my friends). My parents were willing to cosign and had good credit. His parents cosigning would have increased his interest rate. Assuming we get comprable jobs, I will have 8 years paid on a home loan before he will even qualify, or an early start to a retirement fund set up.
This isn't even getting into the fact that my HS was able to fund extracurricular activities in science and math for gifted students because the tax base was made up of a reletively high density of middle class families with enough upper class mixed in. Sports teams, which are proven to help students graduate and have higher grades, were also fully funded. The school district south of me was inner city, and did not participate in the same events despite being closer. They had to get community support to buy equipment for their sports teams, and almost lost them for a few years. Housing values have gone down in my hometown as people move to suburbs though, so many of those programs are being cut back. They are still present in the school districts that the upper-middle class people are moving to though, and this is increasing the rate of people moving.
Go ahead and name every freedom we do not have. you say we are not so free and link to studies that have little to do with freedom so start naming what it is we cannot do.
We're not talking about absolute freedom. No one wants absolute freedom, and if that's what you think we, as Americans, enjoy, then the United States wouldn't be a very nice place to live.
You understand that there is a difference, right?
Also my theory is that we are a very free nation and i want it to stay that way
Obviously we are a very free nation - we're in the top 15 in most/all of those indices. But there are a handful that are reliably considered more free than the United States. You're going to have to deal with that, and you're going to have to deal with the fact that the countries that are more free also have strict firearms regulations (and are typically more liberal than the United States, too).
Reality does not line up very well with an American conservative mindset.
Go ahead and name every freedom we do not have. you say we are not so free and link to studies that have little to do with freedom so start naming what it is we cannot do. I am not saying it, i am saying IF they exist TELL ME WHAT. Also my theory is that we are a very free nation and i want it to stay that way
Can't challenge someone to a duel anymore
Can't buy antibiotics without paying 100 bucks out of pocket to ask the doctorCan't assemble without getting tear gassed and peppersprayed
Can't sell raw milk
Can't buy pot
Can enlist in the army at 18 but can't drink till 21
Due process does not apply to driving
Cannot be secure in your person if black in urban areas.
Can't walk around with so much as a pocket knife in some areas (but guns are, oddly enough, just fine)
Can't commit suicide no matter how sick I get
I think this thread is done. Locking.