Jump to content

Let's Define "Freedom"


Phi for All
 Share

Recommended Posts

You'll never get me to agree to an argument based on how much cash someone has.

An attitude that blinds you to the fact that I wasn't objecting to how much cash they had, I was objecting to their gripes that the restrictions were stifling their business, WHILE in reality they're sitting on more cash than ever before. It's a two-faced lie, just to make even more money by whining. You're the one who says business isn't about fair, but apparently businesses can whine about it and that's OK by you.

 

The flip side is just as good an argument. Further restrictions wouldn't ensure job growth, and it is known that companies have been known to pick up and move over restrictions, and that's just one example.

But the regulations in question weren't designed to grow jobs, so it's not "the flip side" of anything. It was a broken promise that relaxed regs would create jobs, nothing more.

 

Yes there is enough for those who are willing to work for it. And Americans do help out, but I would think that help is limited to those who truly need it, and not helping just for the sake of helping.

Rather than put up with hunger and poverty of any kind in a nation as great as the USA, maybe we need to have an established minimum subsistence level, something that would feed, clothe and house the least of us. Along the lines of the Singapore public measures that iNow gave as an example for healthcare. Establish that and all the arguments about who deserves welfare and who doesn't just go away. Then we'll be free to concentrate on other things that should matter to our freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi,

 

An attitude that blinds you to the fact that I wasn't objecting to how much cash they had, I was objecting to their gripes that the restrictions were stifling their business, WHILE in reality they're sitting on more cash than ever before. It's a two-faced lie, just to make even more money by whining. You're the one who says business isn't about fair, but apparently businesses can whine about it and that's OK by you.

Ignoring people that whine is a daily obstacle for me.

 

 

But the regulations in question weren't designed to grow jobs, so it's not "the flip side" of anything. It was a broken promise that relaxed regs would create jobs, nothing more.

I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry. I think we would have to look at what industry that was deregulated and look at job growth in that specific industry. Just because people lost jobs and boosted the unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean that deregulation didn't boost job growth in the businesses that were deregulated.

 

Then we'll be free to concentrate on other things that should matter to our freedom.
This kind of falls in line with a question I asked in post #22 that went unanswered.

 

Here's the question

Some who argue for government to run certain things say that if the government can take care of something, you no longer need to worry about it, which leaves you more freedom to do other things. I beg to hear some examples of where this is true. Do people in more socialistic countries make more of themselves than those in capitalist countries?

 

Can you answer this with any amount of certainty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of falls in line with a question I asked in post #22 that went unanswered.

 

Here's the questionCan you answer this with any amount of certainty?

I will ask some Parisians tomorrow and get back to you next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone say freedom.????

 

from my website, attempted link to website removed which the mods refuse to let me link.... which is lame...

 

-------------

 

Freedom vs Civil Liberties : In 1933, they literally took away constitutional freedom and rights and protections, and gave the people something else, calledCivil Liberties, which is granted at the pleasure of the Federal Government, and slowly over the past 80 years, they have created more and more RULE based laws, 'statute laws' which the people are forced to obey, 66 million laws and counting, ALL OF WHICH IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, when applied to actual people.

 

THEY took away the protection of the common law legal system, as provided for in the Constitution, and forced all the people into 14th amendment Federal citizenship, and Social Security corporate status, without our clearly informed understanding, so that they may enforce endless laws on us, most especially taxation, under penalty of prison, which is something they simply could not easily do in a constitutional common law court. (So, those who favor taxes, found ways to change the system and rob the people.) We got ripped off.

 

The problem here, typically is that the average American does NOT realize what the Common Law is... or was. So, let me explain, as simply as I can.

 

Under the Common Law AS IT WAS BEFORE 1933, it was difficultif not impossible to force the masses of people TO PAY TAXES, and the Federal government was completely unable to write laws applicable to the Free People, and so, in order to enforce an income TAX on the people, they had to get around the Constitution and the Common Law legal system it provides, which prevented the Federal government from being able to FORCETAXATION, by law, as by the point of a gun and prison... I.e... Under Common Law freedom, any failure to pay income taxes, was not a jailable offence, since under the Common Law, no damage or harm had been done, and the only way to legally allow for enforcing income taxes under the Common Law, would be by constitutional amendment, stating clearly the powers of enforcement... An amendment which would be difficult if not impossible to pass, even today.THEY FOUND A WAY around the Common Law legal system..... by changing the legal system... which is something the Federal government HAS NEVER BEEN EMPOWERED TO DO.

 

Civil liberties, were established in 1933, as part of the NEW DEAL OF 1933. Prohibition, being a perfect example of the difference between constitutional freedom and government imposed Civil Liberties.... such that before 1933, they had to have a constitutional amendment to prevent our free people (you and me) from having the god given right to consume Alcohol or anything else for that matter, because under the constitutional legal system, being the Common law... people are free to do what they wish, posess what they wish, in all ways, always, as long as they do no harm and do not infringe on the rights and freedom of any other people, or damage any property.THAT WAS REAL FREEDOM... PROVIDED BY THE COMMON LAW!!!

 

BUT in 1933, THEY TOOK AWAY freedom, and they gave us Civil liberties, by forcing us all into 14th amendment Federal citizenship.

 

That is key, because this form of citizenship was not required before 1933, until when FDR used emergency war powers to force it upon the people. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! That is key... because in the 14th amendment, it states, we are under thejurisdiction of the Federal Government. (as the United States).

 

It says, United States, which legally, means, the Federal Government, to distinguish it from state governments. And it says clearly, it... providesprivileges and immunities, which free people as state citizens did not need, do not presently need, and would not want, if they are subject to the common law,as free people. Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. (at end of civil war!)1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

This was a protection given to ex-slaves, who at the time had no protections under the Common law, and so this 14th amendment was written to protect them.

 

As 14th amendment citizens, the Federal government gained the power to write and impose statutes to define the actual effective limits of their Rights, and by law could protect them, by demanding that all state courts prosecute them, only in accordance with Federal statute laws. (Which was not required for prosecuting any free people, who were state citizens who were as such onlyprosecutable in a constitutional Common Law court.)

 

In other words... it was at the time, that there were two kinds of citizens. 1) Free people.... as Constitutional state citizens, with Common Law Protection. 2) Ex-slaves (Freed people)... with NEW Federal citizenship, to protect them from abuse.

 

The NEW DEAL of 1933 '''made us all''' into Ex-slaves, with no Common Law protections. Is that right????????? HELL NO!!!!!!!

 

 

Let me put it this way...

 

If today you are dragged into a Common law court, the court prosecutor would have to show the court that you actually did something really wrong, as a true crime, and provide evidence of it.

 

In a modern statute court, the prosecutor need only show that you broke a rule (violated a statute), and the jury is only told to decide if you indeedbroke that rule, and NOT whether OR NOT it was a real crime OR NOT.

 

 

 

In a statute court, they would only need to show that there is a statute which makes for example FAILURE TO PAY INCOME TAXES, a STATUTE CRIME, and as such., all they need to do is show the jury that you did or did not these things, which if the jury agrees with it, would only prove you broke a statute rule, but, even though you broke a statute rule, you still may never of did anything wrong.. (BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER IN A STATUTE COURT, because with Civil Liberties.. we are forced to obey all statutes, as ifthey are actual crimes!)

 

 

Thats the difference between constitutional Common Law freedom, and Civil Liberties. With Common Law Freedom, you can do as you please, as long as you cause no harm, or recklessly endanger others. With Civil Liberties, you literally must obey millions of statutes, and in court they actually tell you, "ignorance of the law is no excuse!", and if you break their pety rules, or fail to pay their tax, they treat you like you are an actual criminal, because you broke their rule.

 

 

 

And so, consider also....

 

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, thanaccording to the rules of the common law.This has been violated everyday since 1938.

 

 

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouscrime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. An infamous crime, is a felony, which is punishable by more than one year.

There are a lot of statute crimes, called a felony, punishable by more than one year. (today!!!) But today... PEOPLE ARE ARRESTED EVERYDAY... and convicted... butare they indicted by a grand jury??????????????? (as demanded by the 5th amendment?) No....!!!

 

With Civil Liberties, the prosecutor can just PROSECUTE YOU, without a grand jury!Because under Civil Liberties, we have no Bill of Rights, or Constitutional protections, because they previously forced us all into 14th amendment Federal citizenship.... EX-SLAVE STATUS.

 

GET IT??????

 

 

Civil Liberties, is not provided for in the Constitution. The Common Law is, and the two are not compatible. Then. in 1938.... After several years of the Federal government attempting to write statute laws into the Common Law system, which was the one which existed since the founding fathers.. the Supreme court found, rightly, that the Federal Government has NO POWERS, to write law under the Common Law. So what did FDR do????????? He used Emergency War Powers, unconstitutional war powers, to simply throw out 150 years of Common Law, and force the system to start over, with the Statute system, being forced upon all the people, using... Federal Citizenship, Social Security, and Contract law, to rob the people of Common Law freedom. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

 

 

THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

 

 

The significance is that since the Erie Decision case, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. As for the system to be legal, there can be no mixing of the old law with the new law, since the New Law is not constitutional. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties, and we must RESTORE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS is how they took away freedom, (1938) when they ended the Common law, because earlier in 1933, as part of the NEW DEAL they had already got America to agree to CIVIL LIBERTIES, by forcing everyone into 14th amendment Federal citizenship, which made this crime possible.

 

 

THEY DID THESE THINGS SLOWLY... So people dont get upset. WE THE PEOPLE GOT ROBBED OF FREEDOM, and we must get it back!!!!!

 

Proposals for Freedom vs Civil Liberties : From the ISSUES section, I will do the following as President within my first 10 days. Link removed 1) I will immediately sign an executive order to officially end ALL declared states of Emergency going back to 1933, the National Emergencies ACT of 1976 notwithstanding, and in clear language end all Federal and Congressional and executive powers granted by any declaration of Emergency in the past or present, and officially, in ABSOLUTELY clear terms, re-instate the U.S. Constitution, as the rule of law, AS IT IS WRITTEN, and call on Congress to set about a Constitutional convention to work out amendments to re-organize our nation back into a proper Constitutional Republic, and in so doing, set my people free. I will then immediately, sign another Executive order, declaring a New general state of emergency so that everything can continue smoothly, which is limited to 2 years, as per the National Emergencies ACT of 1976, and call on Congress to resolve itself in that time. Link removed.

I will also order, that all 'filings by our nation, and treaties made and held in foreign lands, or with foreign powers, since 1933, are hereby null and void, and each contract and long standing agreement of any concern to any other nation or the U.N. or any other body or group, or entity, must be re-negotiated in publicwith the new Constitutional government once it is in place, after Congress resolves the Constitutional Convention. 4) I will immediately sign an executive order, ordering that all U.S. citizens, born here, are here by free of all obligations inpresumed contracting, with the Federal, State, County, or city Governments, and are no longer punishable by statute, and all Constitutional Common Law rights and freedoms are restored as it was before 1933, and all citizens in Prison are given the option of having a re-trial in a Common Law court if they so wish it. And I would so order that from this day forward, all Violent criminals, murderers and rapists, will no longer get a mattress and a TV, but instead by law will get Common Law hard labor-chain gang-prison camps, and will build the new Federal mining and energy development projects, and in so doing, repay their debt to society, literally. And I would also order a media campaign to explain the restoration of freedom, and so motivate and offset Congress's probable attempt to crush the Common Law by new amendments. Link removed =================================

When the Constitution is restored as law, the common law legal system also gets restored, and as such, the people regain freedom by ending the mandatory 14th amendment Federal citizenship forced on the people in 1933. As under the common law, people are sovereign free people (State citizens), who are free to do as they please, go where they please, posess what they please, so long as they do no harm, do not endanger others, and do not damage any property or otherwise infringe on the freedom of other free people.

 

THAT WAS (IS) FREEDOM, and under the common law, the only REAL CRIMES, are rape, murder, thieft, assault, liable, and the doing of harm in some way to people or property, or the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others, and thepunishment for violations of the common law, was hard labor, or in the case of rapists, execution, or life in prison.

 

Under the common law, THERE IS NO REVOLVING DOOR PRISON SYSTEM... that door is closed, and with real punishment as a real deterrent, criminals knew better than to continue to commit crimes, because they will not be getting to watch TV, or have decent foods, or the ability to sit around and socialize. No.. they all get hard labor, and must literally work to repay their debt to society, with labor. (The ACLU was re-organized in 1933, to protect criminals, from the unlimited law making of the NEW DEAL government. ) THE ENTIRE STATUTE LEGAL SYSTEM.. was an experiment started in 1938, and it was forced on the people, and it is inherently un-constitutional, because it robs the people of constitutional freedom, and is the greatest evidence we have for the oppressiveness of our government at this time. It must end, and common law freedom restored.

 

Good people should be free, and bad people should actually be punished. ( the common law says..... NO HARM = NO FOUL )( HARM = violence, thieft, rape, murder, damage.. etc....)

 

In 1933, FDR forced all Americans into Federal citizenship,and over the past 80 years, have robbed us all of every shred of freedom the American people once had, by raising the children of America to think that the existing statute court system, is constitutional, WHEN IN FACT, IT IS NOT. IT IS A SHAM.. a crime against freedom, and they have used it to fill the prisons with literally millions of people, who under the Constitution should never of been arrested in the first place, all of which, HAS NOT MADE US SAFER, since as part of the NEW DEAL of 1933, they literally reduced the punishment for REAL CRIMINALS, in exchange for the power to make endless laws.

 

CIVIL LIBERTIES WERE CREATED IN 1933!!! TO REPLACE OUR REAL CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM!! (Which they took away!!!) THAT IS A FACT! We want our freedom back! And with such, the Common Law justice of the Constitution restored, which will CLOSE the REVOLVING DOOR PRISONS for good, by providing real hard labor punishment for real crimes, as a real deterrent. The Constitution must be restored as law, and with it, real FREEDOM. And the only way to do this, is to demand that the Government end all states of emergency, and emergency war powers, and restore the Constitution as the rule of law!!! As your President, I will do so by exective order.. To set you free, I need your support. -Mosheh Thezion

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
advertising link removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Mosheh, you've been told before not to advertise your website as it is against our rules. I've removed the links (again).

I've also changed the formatting to make your post more readable. In future, could you please use multiple font colors and sizes sparingly. They're meant to be for emphasis of words, etc., not for entire paragraphs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just hope people aren't evading the question....

It's my last night here in Paris. It's an amazing city, and I think it's a great example of a socialist environment where the citizens have made quite a lot of themselves. The French are extremely proud of their heritage, and I think a big part of that is taking more of an interest in their political and business processes.

 

Let me start to answer your question this way, Justin. I'm seeing little things here that point to some flaws we have in the States, little things, but a LOT of them. Products are made really well here. Again, it's a small thing, but my blow dryer at home has twists in the cord that will lead to broken wires and shorts that will make me throw it away after about a year. the flat we're renting has a blow dryer that's 5 years old and the cord is perfectly straight. One example, but one less thing for a person to worry about, giving them time and resources to use elsewhere.

 

Politically, the French seem to be going through a bit of their own Occupy movement. Many of them don't want their incumbent President to get re-elected and are willing to vote for the next best guy who is described as a pretty bland centrist (which apparently goes against the fiery French image). They have a voting system with multiple rounds that sounds very interesting, and few people in Paris that I've seen don't have an opinion or won't vote at all. Being Socialist and relying on their government seems to give them more time and a real reason to be involved in the process.

 

Many things I wish we could adopt in the US, and some things I think we do better. Paris is expensive, but it's like New York City expensive. Cordial people, they do little things like always hold a door open if there's someone right behind them. They expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions, and take technical snags in stride better than most Americans (or at least this American, I hate it when amusement park rides break down and feel like the park owes me something when it happens).

 

I'll post more when I get back to tie this into the concept of freedom and how government control of certain things can help us be freer. Vigilance seems to be the key to government control in a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I should have to freedom to write mostly I want in live chat rooms [such as ICQ] as long as what I write does *not* constitute "criminal threats", "defamation", or other 'hurtful' speech that would cause harm or distress to any individual.

 

For example, I should be allowed to write the most perverse, deviant, salacious, and taboo text in ICQ chat rooms and the no one should have *any* right to punish me for it. Why? Because such speeches don't cause any harm [physical or psychological] to anyone/anything.

 

Benign speech should be totally-protected even if it is obscene, vulgar, lewd, inappropriate, or otherwise-unacceptable by the norms of society -- simply because no harm results from it. If readers in the chat room are disgusted, offended, or otherwise disturbed by the text -- that their problem and [in all fairness] I shouldn't face any negative legal consequences for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi,

 

I'll post more when I get back to tie this into the concept of freedom and how government control of certain things can help us be freer. Vigilance seems to be the key to government control in a democracy.
Vigilance huh? A lot of people claim that the public in general are not smart enough to make choice decisions, but you seem to think that they can be vigilant enough not to let a government become tyrannical or detrimental to freedom? What's your take on that?

 

Now that you're back, did you find that people in europe are any freer than people here in the US? Do they do more substantial things with their lives? Do they make more of themselves as a whole than the US does?

 

 

Cordial people, they do little things like always hold a door open if there's someone right behind them. They expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions, and take technical snags in stride

 

You had me thinking you were talking about Texas for a minute.;)Except that I would have added waving at passing motorists, saying "yes maam", and generally not asking someone to do something that you are not willing to yourself. The list can go on, but I've tooted the Texas horn enough for one sitting.

Edited by JustinW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside to Phi's comment about the french and their passion for politics - in the first round of the presidential election on Sunday around 80pct of the electorate voted

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17812595

 

dans la rue et dans les urnes manifeste-toi - On the streets or in the polls, express yourself

 

That percentage turnout puts the UK and many others to shame. They might not get it right, but they care and go out on the street and make their feelings known rather than moan afterwards....and they can work magic with the simplest ingredients and a glass of vin ordinaire

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vigilance huh? A lot of people claim that the public in general are not smart enough to make choice decisions, but you seem to think that they can be vigilant enough not to let a government become tyrannical or detrimental to freedom? What's your take on that?

I think our people have been poorly educated by a system that's been systematically strangled in terms of funding for the last 30 years, and this has allowed them to be manipulated into believing they have no hope of "fighting city hall". We take it for granted that politicians will lie, we just assume that corruption is the way of the world. But yes, I think we are smart enough to see that we need to start getting more involved, that we need to stop this slide into apathy and acceptance we've been on. We can be vigilant, we need to be vigilant, and we need to put the capital P back in People.

 

Now that you're back, did you find that people in europe are any freer than people here in the US? Do they do more substantial things with their lives? Do they make more of themselves as a whole than the US does?

Freer? Are people in a democracy freer if they have more of a say in their political process through more specific representation? Are they freer if they keep a more vigilant watch on the promises made by their leaders, always ready to end a term of office if the elected representative fails to do the job they claimed they would? Are they freer if their expectations are met and their tax resources are used transparently and judiciously?

 

More substantial? Obviously I can't observe anything like that on a national level in just a week. And Paris is a large cultural hub for the entire world, so it would be like asking if people in New York City do more substantial things with their lives than people from Ottumwa. Making the most of your life is an individual aspiration, so I couldn't claim to know if people in Europe do so because of their political systems, but I can tell you this: I think the average person has a better chance at the life they want if their leaders are working for the general welfare of the country instead of just the welfare of the guys who own the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd say that's a pretty gross simplification of a complex and varied political ideology. That's like saying all republicans care about is God and guns or that liberals are closet socialists.

 

It's my last night here in Paris. It's an amazing city, and I think it's a great example of a socialist environment where the citizens have made quite a lot of themselves. The French are extremely proud of their heritage, and I think a big part of that is taking more of an interest in their political and business processes.

 

Let me start to answer your question this way, Justin. I'm seeing little things here that point to some flaws we have in the States, little things, but a LOT of them. Products are made really well here. Again, it's a small thing, but my blow dryer at home has twists in the cord that will lead to broken wires and shorts that will make me throw it away after about a year. the flat we're renting has a blow dryer that's 5 years old and the cord is perfectly straight. One example, but one less thing for a person to worry about, giving them time and resources to use elsewhere.

 

Politically, the French seem to be going through a bit of their own Occupy movement. Many of them don't want their incumbent President to get re-elected and are willing to vote for the next best guy who is described as a pretty bland centrist (which apparently goes against the fiery French image). They have a voting system with multiple rounds that sounds very interesting, and few people in Paris that I've seen don't have an opinion or won't vote at all. Being Socialist and relying on their government seems to give them more time and a real reason to be involved in the process.

 

Many things I wish we could adopt in the US, and some things I think we do better. Paris is expensive, but it's like New York City expensive. Cordial people, they do little things like always hold a door open if there's someone right behind them. They expect everyone to be responsible for their own actions, and take technical snags in stride better than most Americans (or at least this American, I hate it when amusement park rides break down and feel like the park owes me something when it happens).

 

I'll post more when I get back to tie this into the concept of freedom and how government control of certain things can help us be freer. Vigilance seems to be the key to government control in a democracy.

 

Why are anecdotes about hair dryer cords and cordiality showing up on a post about defining freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are anecdotes about hair dryer cords and cordiality showing up on a post about defining freedom?

Phi can answer for himself, but I suspect it has something to do with making the conveyed point simpler to comprehend and more richly understood for the reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi,

 

I don't know how vigilant the French are. It seems just in the short scan I just did that the French government is chock full of criminals. Everything from gun trafficking to bribery to alledged shady deals with foreign leaders to fund campaigns. It's okay to allow people like that to gain control as long as your vigilant about what they do for/to you? There's probably a reason that so high of a percentage of people show up at the polls. It's probably because that's the only way they can maintain at least a semblance of control. But I guess I'm speaking out of turn here.

 

Making the most of your life is an individual aspiration, so I couldn't claim to know if people in Europe do so because of their political systems
This was the whole point of my asking. I had a feeling the question was going to be hard to answer and when folks say that the government taking care of one thing frees you up to do other things, I think, is a disinginuous argument.

 

 

 

 

ecoli,

 

Why are anecdotes about hair dryer cords and cordiality showing up on a post about defining freedom?
If you'll read back a little bit, I think you'll see where it fits in the conversation. Edited by JustinW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are anecdotes about hair dryer cords and cordiality showing up on a post about defining freedom?

Consumers always have a choice to buy whatever quality of products they find on the market. It seems to me, though, that the trend towards seemingly cheap, easily replaceable goods has stifled our economic freedom in many ways. We get lulled into looking for low price because our money is limited, but if the same goods at twice the price last four times longer, we'd double our ability to purchase, or cut our costs in half depending on your perspective. Cheap goods handcuff us to an economic treadmill, constantly spending to replace cheap goods and that's part of why I feel tangled hair dryer cords affect our definition of freedom.

 

When people have no confidence that their perspective is properly represented by the leaders that govern their society, it affects the way they treat the other members of that society. In 1992, support for universal health care was at 44% with only 24% in direct opposition, but overall public trust in the government was only at 29% when Clinton took office and his plan for universal health care failed miserably. We had a chance to significantly help promote the general welfare but turned it down, basically because we didn't believe our leaders. Our lack of trust, our freedom to expect our leaders to commit to promoting our general welfare, seriously affects the way we treat each other in our society. I contend that if we weren't shackled by our distrust of government, we'd have less to worry about personally and might treat each other more cordially as I'm sure we'd all prefer. Who doesn't prefer cordial to combative generally?

 

Phi can answer for himself, but I suspect it has something to do with making the conveyed point simpler to comprehend and more richly understood for the reader.

You're too kind, sir. It was probably more like "Phi got hold of a computer for the first time in a week and had a few minutes to babble about his experience". But let's go with what you said. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are limits, and they don't get to discriminate for reasons such as gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts#United_States

I believe that employers do have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how vigilant the French are. It seems just in the short scan I just did that the French government is chock full of criminals. Everything from gun trafficking to bribery to alledged shady deals with foreign leaders to fund campaigns. It's okay to allow people like that to gain control as long as your vigilant about what they do for/to you? There's probably a reason that so high of a percentage of people show up at the polls. It's probably because that's the only way they can maintain at least a semblance of control. But I guess I'm speaking out of turn here.

I'm sure I could spend a short paragraph on all the criminals in US politics as well, but I'm not sure I could find as many news stories about them since we aren't as transparent about outing our political crooks as the French are. We pardon our presidents and have the Patriot Act and all that to make some of those crimes legal, so some people can claim we're somehow more righteous.

 

This was the whole point of my asking. I had a feeling the question was going to be hard to answer and when folks say that the government taking care of one thing frees you up to do other things, I think, is a disinginuous argument.

I disagree vehemently about the argument being disingenuous. It seems absolutely logical to me that I would have a lot less time and money if I had to arrange to pay to drive on private roads, rent books, swim at a pool, play at a park, join a militia to protect my city, educate my child, help supplement the lives of the least wage earners in my community, have major firefighting equipment on hand, keep tabs on local business pollution, make sure the people who make the food I eat aren't adding things that help them but hurt me, and all the myriad other things my taxes pay for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that employers do have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Why am I not surprised? Hopefully that will not remain true for much longer.

Thanks for helping to correct the inaccuracy in my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi,

 

I'm sure I could spend a short paragraph on all the criminals in US politics as well, but I'm not sure I could find as many news stories about them since we aren't as transparent about outing our political crooks as the French are. We pardon our presidents and have the Patriot Act and all that to make some of those crimes legal, so some people can claim we're somehow more righteous.

Oh I agree. My point was to say "why give these types of people more control than absolutely necessary?". We know that it's easy to let the crooks in ,unknown until they're caught, so it would seem that giving those people more power would not be a good thing.

 

 

I disagree vehemently about the argument being disingenuous. It seems absolutely logical to me that I would have a lot less time and money if I had to arrange to pay to drive on private roads, rent books, swim at a pool, play at a park, join a militia to protect my city, educate my child, bring water and natural gas to my house, have major firefighting equipment on hand, keep tabs on local business pollution, make sure the people who make the food I eat aren't adding things that help them but hurt me, and all the myriad other things my taxes pay for now.
Just because there is a middle man that takes that money from you and distributes it, doesn't mean that you don't already pay for it. So your argument is basicly that you don't have to arrange payment, that someone already does that for you, and that frees up your day to spend time on other things? This is the very concept that VIGILANCE is needed. Little by little control is given to someone else for the sake of comfort or security and it is that reason that people will eventually find themselves caught in the clutches of tyranny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi,

 

Oh I agree. My point was to say "why give these types of people more control than absolutely necessary?". We know that it's easy to let the crooks in ,unknown until they're caught, so it would seem that giving those people more power would not be a good thing.

I'm not sure where I was talking about giving anybody "more" power. I think the idea of vigilance is to stay on top of elected officials, and make sure your means of doing so are clear and accessible (like not giving corporations who buy politicians control of the media). Vigilance should also mean holding their feet to the fire when they prove themselves to be criminals. Allowing them to remain in office or pardoning them for crimes committed while in office just encourage more of the same.

 

Just because there is a middle man that takes that money from you and distributes it, doesn't mean that you don't already pay for it.

Where is the middle man when I drive on public roads? Do you really think I would have the freedom to drive as much as I do now if I had to pay private companies for the privilege of driving on the roads they own? Do you think it would cost me the same amount as the small percentage of my taxes that build the roads now?

 

So your argument is basicly that you don't have to arrange payment, that someone already does that for you, and that frees up your day to spend time on other things? This is the very concept that VIGILANCE is needed. Little by little control is given to someone else for the sake of comfort or security and it is that reason that people will eventually find themselves caught in the clutches of tyranny.

I'm not giving control for these things to the government to shirk any responsibilities. I'm just not qualified to make the best choices in so many varied areas, nor do I wish to take the time to become qualified. It's not only cheaper to pay into a tax pool with fellow citizens, it gives us all access to those who have the qualifications to best use those funds. That's one of the best benefits to a society like ours, we can have specialists who focus on areas where it's not feasible for everyone to be so skilled. And we can have other specialists whose job is to make sure all the other specialists are doing the right things.

 

Eventually, all those people are governed by leaders we elect to oversee it all. Vigilance is then needed in fewer areas, but it's needed on an ongoing, passionate basis. It's just hard to remain vigilant when our eyes are focused on only ourselves and our immediate families. We reap the benefits of society by promoting the general welfare of that society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumers always have a choice to buy whatever quality of products they find on the market. It seems to me, though, that the trend towards seemingly cheap, easily replaceable goods has stifled our economic freedom in many ways. We get lulled into looking for low price because our money is limited, but if the same goods at twice the price last four times longer, we'd double our ability to purchase, or cut our costs in half depending on your perspective. Cheap goods handcuff us to an economic treadmill, constantly spending to replace cheap goods and that's part of why I feel tangled hair dryer cords affect our definition of freedom.

 

Making a good more expensive doesn't make it higher quality. You are also free to design, commission and build your own higher quality product and spend as much money as you want on its development.

 

When people have no confidence that their perspective is properly represented by the leaders that govern their society, it affects the way they treat the other members of that society. In 1992, support for universal health care was at 44% with only 24% in direct opposition, but overall public trust in the government was only at 29% when Clinton took office and his plan for universal health care failed miserably. We had a chance to significantly help promote the general welfare but turned it down, basically because we didn't believe our leaders. Our lack of trust, our freedom to expect our leaders to commit to promoting our general welfare, seriously affects the way we treat each other in our society. I contend that if we weren't shackled by our distrust of government, we'd have less to worry about personally and might treat each other more cordially as I'm sure we'd all prefer. Who doesn't prefer cordial to combative generally?

 

You seem to be implying here that we SHOULD trust our government. Can you think of no good reason why it wouldn't be smart to hand over medical decisions to the same people who brought us the USA PATRIOT act?

 

You can insist, and we all agree, that behaving cordially and respecting people in office are all worthwhile attitudes, and for the most part people holding political office are considered respected members of society. But, that doesn't change the fact that the incentives motivating politicians and lobbyists are not the same incentives that motivate regular folk.

 

I'm not sure where I was talking about giving anybody "more" power. I think the idea of vigilance is to stay on top of elected officials, and make sure your means of doing so are clear and accessible (like not giving corporations who buy politicians control of the media). Vigilance should also mean holding their feet to the fire when they prove themselves to be criminals. Allowing them to remain in office or pardoning them for crimes committed while in office just encourage more of the same.

but even with "vigilance" the financial incentives for occlusion, rent seeking and outright corruption are pretty high. How do you effect change when the media doesn't even report on routine renk seeking (so commonplace its not newsworthy)? Sure thinks like wikileaks is evening things out, but even then only major stories attract much attention.

 

Where is the middle man when I drive on public roads? Do you really think I would have the freedom to drive as much as I do now if I had to pay private companies for the privilege of driving on the roads they own? Do you think it would cost me the same amount as the small percentage of my taxes that build the roads now?

 

once again you seem to be equating cheap things with general freedom. Are the people who could afford to drive on higher quality, private roads more or less free because they are restricted to gov't-funded roads? Are we more or less free because subsidizing roads decreases incentives to develop better mass transit?

 

And what about Amtrak, a publicly funded transportation system that's neither cheap, high quality nor particularly 'freeing.'

 

I'm not giving control for these things to the government to shirk any responsibilities. I'm just not qualified to make the best choices in so many varied areas, nor do I wish to take the time to become qualified. It's not only cheaper to pay into a tax pool with fellow citizens, it gives us all access to those who have the qualifications to best use those funds. That's one of the best benefits to a society like ours, we can have specialists who focus on areas where it's not feasible for everyone to be so skilled. And we can have other specialists whose job is to make sure all the other specialists are doing the right things.

 

Economics 101 tells us that market is very good at finding these kinds of 'pareto optimal' solutions, but since private individuals are making private investments, losses due to investor error are not socialized. Specialization is not just a feature of socialist systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.