vote your conscience not your wallet

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
The obvious was the fact the government by nature limits freedom ... And you’re still trying to argue with that.
That’s not the obvious. That’s simply your opinion.

And I believe that it is quite misguided due to reasons I have already mentioned.

Answer this: What would happen if there was no government? Would that be freedom?

P.S. (if you want a real world example of a country without a government, just do some research on Somalia. Do it’s citizens have the freedom to do what you are able to do here in the United States?)
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
What would happen if there was no government? Would that be freedom?

P.S. (if you want a real world example of a country without a government, just do some research on Somalia. Do it’s citizens have the freedom to do what you are able to do here in the United States?)
Anarchy is freedom. Freedom to do whatever you want. It’s what often folks do with that freedom that is distracting you.

You are mistaking freedom for liberty. A state of true freedom would allow someone to imprison innocents against their will or rape and pillage without consequence. No one is at liberty to do this in America...wait...

Anyway, read these definitions of liberty and tell me truthfully that it’s not what you are talking about. Liberty is freedom, but not all freedom is created equal.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberty
 
Last edited:

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Then your argument might hold water against them, but I am not one of them. I am opposed to abortion but in favor of social programs to improve the environment and welfare (meaning well-being, not the government program) of that child (and its family) once it's born.

What I am "suggesting" is that I am in far more danger in the current environment of concealed/open carry than I was before it became common. Against an armed perpetrator you are not any safer when carrying a weapon, as evidenced by the multiple examples of on-duty police officers who have been ambushed over the last several years. Unless you're foolish enough to think an armed perpetrator is going to telegraph his/her intentions beforehand.

Again, unless the perpetrator telegraphs their intentions, having a weapon provides no degree of increased safety.
Stop before you make yourself look like a bigger fool. If an armed perpetrator is shooting up a WalMart, they have made their intentions clear ... :)

Furthermore ... You are in no more danger of being shot if I am armed. The armed perpetrator can shoot you just the same. Chances are the properly trained CAC holder puts you in less danger because they can actually do something about the armed perpetrator, where unarmed, you cannot.

In addition ... Putting a badge on someone and lights on their car does not make them better equipped to handle the situation in a timely manner than an armed CAC holder on the scene as the event occurs.

Edit:
A practical analogy to help you better understand the hogwash you are trying to express ... If an armed perpetrator is standing in front of you with a gun in your face ... No matter what your intentions are or what garbage you would like to promote ... You would not be in less danger if you were unarmed (unless your major concern is that you would shoot yourself before the armed perpetrator could).
 
Last edited:

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
How? It wouldn’t be freedom for the individuals who are less armed and/or physically strong.
Exactly, the strong would have true freedom.
“22prentwil” said:
This is certainly true, but doing whatever you want interferes with the freedom of others, so as I said, you couldn’t really call anarchy true freedom.
That’s because true freedom for everyone doesn’t exist in this world due to a seemingly inherent evil nature. That’s why we have government to limit that freedom to do whatever we want, and the unlimited freedoms are called liberties.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
That’s not the obvious. That’s simply your opinion.

And I believe that it is quite misguided due to reasons I have already mentioned.

Answer this: What would happen if there was no government? Would that be freedom?

P.S. (if you want a real world example of a country without a government, just do some research on Somalia. Do it’s citizens have the freedom to do what you are able to do here in the United States?)
Okay ... In what way does goverment not limit the ability of people to act freely of their own volition.

You are denying that laws are a restriction on freedom when that is exactly what they are. Whether or not you like or benefit from that law, doesn’t change the fact it limits freedom.

I don’t need a real world example of governments and freedom, because I have traveled this world and seen all forms of government (or lack thereof). That still doesn’t change the fact that governments limit freedom by their very nature.
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
Exactly, the strong would have true freedom.
True freedom is freedom for EVERYONE. Don’t imply that it isn’t.

That’s because true freedom for everyone doesn’t exist in this world due to a seemingly inherent evil nature.
By true freedom do you mean “anarchy where everyone is cooperating together”?

If this happened how would it be different than life in the United States? Nothing would be different except the absence of laws, because they wouldn’t be needed to defend the freedom of everyone.

That’s why we have government to limit that freedom to do whatever we want
This is what I have been saying all along. Did you somehow miss that, or fail to read it?
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
Okay ... In what way does goverment not limit the ability of people to act freely of their own volition.
It allows us to do whatever we want, besides things that interfere with the freedom of others.

In what ways does the government limit freedom besides having laws that are needed to protect the freedom of everyone?

You are denying that laws are a restriction on freedom when that is exactly what they are. Whether or not you like or benefit from that law, doesn’t change the fact it limits freedom.
No, laws simply protect the freedom of EVERYONE, so that no other citizens can infringe on their freedom.

That still doesn’t change the fact that governments limit freedom by their very nature.
Governments limit ANARCHY, and anarchy is not freedom for everyone.
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
True freedom is freedom for EVERYONE. Don’t imply that it isn’t.
Says who?


22prentwil said:
By true freedom do you mean “anarchy where everyone is cooperating together”?
If everyone we’re cooperating together, then it wouldn’t be anarchy, would it? By definition anarchy is disorder due to a lack of authority. Way to strawman.


22prentwil said:
This is what I have been saying all along. Did you somehow miss that, or fail to read it?
No it isn’t because you are arguing that government does not limit freedom. I told you liberty is limited freedom. Did you not read that?
 
Last edited:

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
Says who?
People with any shred of a conscience.

If everyone we’re cooperating together, then it wouldn’t be anarchy, would it? By definition anarchy is disorder due to a lack of authority. Way to stickman.
It wouldn’t be anarchy. That’s why I put it in quotes.

I told you liberty is limited freedom. Did you not read that?
I did read it.

Here is the liberty definition:


Definition of liberty

1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
2a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits was given the liberty of the house


Here is the freedom definition:

Definition of freedom


1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous freedom from care
d: unrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home
e: EASE, FACILITYspoke the language with freedom
f: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom
g: improper familiarity
h: boldness of conception or execution
2a: a political right


They are the same thing.


Here is the definition of anarchy:

Definition of anarchy


1a: absence of government
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the ghetto
b: absence of order : DISORDERnot manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature— Israel Shenker

Much different.
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
People with any shred of a conscience.
Anybody can make up a definition that doesn’t exist. You listed the definitions of freedom, where does it say it has to apply to a group? It doesn’t. Freedom is to an individual. LIBERTY is freedom granted by the government for all.

22prentwil said:
It wouldn’t be anarchy. That’s why I put it in quotes.
The whole thing was in quotes meaning it was a phrase.

22prentwil said:
I did read it.
Proud of you :)

22prentwil said:
Definition of liberty
a. a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits was given the liberty of the house

Definition of freedom
the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
...
They are the same thing.
Sooooo close. Nearly synonymous. But thank you for proving my point. By the definition of freedom, if I really wanted to kill someone and had the resources to do it, then I would be free to do it. However, thanks to government constraint (liberty), the person I want to kill is free to remain alive. However, now I am not free because I could not do what I wanted. See how that works? Freedom is completely limitless to an individual. Liberty is limited freedom so everyone can enjoy it.
 
Last edited:

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
Anybody can make up a definition that doesn’t exist. You listed the definitions of freedom, where does it say it has to apply to a group? It doesn’t. Freedom is to an individual. LIBERTY is freedom granted by the government for all.
I never said that it had to apply to a group, you can be free as an individual. I just said that it isn’t freedom if one individual’s actions take away the freedom of another.

That would be anarchy.

The whole thing was in quotes meaning it was a phrase.
Yes. Which doesn’t mean anything different. If you want what I was describing in one word, here it is: Utopia

Sooooo close. Nearly synonymous. But thank you for proving my point.
You cut out parts of the definition.

You seemed to have missed this part:
Definition of liberty

1: the quality or state of being free:
You are correct in your description of liberty (I never said that you weren’t), but I am correct in the fact that liberty is freedom, and that a good government doesn’t exist take freedoms away from individuals. (Not that all governments are good - some do take away freedoms from their citizens)

Liberty is limited freedom so everyone can enjoy it.
I don’t disagree with what you are implying (I never said that I did), but liberty IS freedom, not a mere restriction.

Without those restrictions you would have anarchy, which as you saw from the definitions, is certainly different than freedom.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
No YOU stopped there without reading the rest of my sentence. The part you missed is outlined in red:
At no point did I ever indicate that you were not willing to sacrifice your freedoms in order to gain security for yourself and others from your masters in mother government.

That still doesn’t change the fact that government limits freedom by its very existence.

If you would like to go further in suggesting that government is capable of protecting your freedom ... They aren’t doing a very good job anymore.

Yet ... If you care to worship at the foot of government ... Well, rest assured I have no intention of denying you the freedom to do so.
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
At no point did I ever indicate that you were not willing to sacrifice your freedoms in order to gain security for yourself and others
What freedoms am I sacrificing? Besides the ability to do things that limit the freedom of others? (Which would not be freedom, that would be anarchy)

Yet ... If you care to worship at the foot of government ... Well, rest assured I have no intention of denying you the freedom to do so.
Who said I was worshipping the government?

All I said was that a good government (which I overall believe ours is), does not limit freedom, only prevent anarchy.

How is that worshipping?

If you would like to go further in suggesting that government is capable of protecting your freedom ... They aren’t doing a very good job anymore.
I’m not talking about how the government is doing, simply it’s purpose.

That still doesn’t change the fact that government limits freedom by its very existence.
The government limits anarchy. Do you think anarchy and freedom are the same thing?

Answer that before you say anything else.
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
I never said that it had to apply to a group
Yes, you did.
True freedom is freedom for EVERYONE. Don’t imply that it isn’t.
22prentwil said:
Yes. Which doesn’t mean anything different. If you want what I was describing in one word, here it is: Utopia
We’ll come back to that.

22prentwil said:
You are correct in your description of liberty (I never said that you weren’t), but I am correct in the fact that liberty is freedom, and that a good government doesn’t exist take freedoms away from individuals. (Not that all governments are good - some do take away freedoms from their citizens)


I don’t disagree with what you are implying (I never said that I did), but liberty IS freedom, not a mere restriction.
Right, but you’re still arguing with me though this was the first thing I said to you here:
Liberty is freedom, but not all freedom is created equal.
A good government takes away an individual’s freedom to murder another.

We are literally arguing semantics. Anarchy just means a state without a government (That’s it. Go back to your definitions). Freedom means any individual can do whatever their heart desires so long as they have the resources to do it. Liberty is freedom with certain restrictions like you can’t murder your neighbor. I’m tired of arguing with you when we are saying the same thing. The difference is that you are arguing that anarchy has to mean that individuals use their freedom to restrict the freedom of others. It doesn’t. What an individual does with freedom is up to that individual and it can mean that they restrict the freedom of another individual but doesn’t have to (utopia). Liberty is the government granting everyone the freedom they deserve while restricting the freedom of others who would take it.

Stop arguing. We are saying the same thing. I was literally just trying to correct your wording. Sheesh.
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
The difference is that you are arguing that anarchy has to mean that individuals use their freedom to restrict the freedom of others. It doesn’t.
Then we’re not saying the same thing.

Yes, you did
By “True freedom” I meant freedom for everyone (liberty, yes, but still freedom)

That does have to apply to a group in the sense of overall society.

But there are still individuals in that group who have individual freedom (besides doing things that take away others freedoms). That is what I meant.

Anarchy just means a state without a government (That’s it. Go back to your definitions).
I never said that the definition was anything different, I said that without a government we would have anarchy, which is not freedom for everyone, so therefore the government protects our freedom and doesn’t restrict it unless we are harming the freedom of others.

I was literally just trying to correct your wording. Sheesh.
You were not only correcting my wording, you said:
Anarchy is freedom.
That is not simply correcting my wording.