vote your conscience not your wallet

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
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).
And you wouldn't be safer if you had a gun in your pocket because he/she wouldn't give you the chance to pull it out and use it. You are ignoring this point because it is inconvenient to your faulty argument.

Incidentally, you need to quit with the personal attacks before I am forced to edit your posts.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Then we’re not saying the same thing.


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.


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.


You were not only correcting my wording, you said:

That is not simply correcting my wording.
Ah, I see now. So, you’re just wrong.

Anarchy, like monarchy or oligarchy, is a type of government (or lack thereof). Anarchy does not mean chaos. They are not the same thing. Understand that before you comment more. If you can understand that, then you should also understand why anarchy is real freedom. (That’s a big “should”, my therapist would be disappointed with me) Freedom is not based on others. It is solely an individual. These are definitions. Just understand this, please. This is not a partisan issue, these are facts. It’s okay to be wrong, but don’t live a lie.
 

22prentwil

Well-Known Member
Anarchy, like monarchy or oligarchy, is a type of government (or lack thereof). Anarchy does not mean chaos. They are not the same thing.
You are incorrect again. Well not entirely. Yes anarchy does mean a lack of government but it also means this:

Definition of anarchy

b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

Chaos would be a very good description of a disorderly state of lawlessness.

anarchy is real freedom.
But not for everyone. The government exists to protect freedom for EVERYONE not individuals (as you said everyone’s liberty). That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you for practically the past 10 posts bud. What about that doesn’t make sense?

Answer that before you comment more.

Freedom is not based on others. It is solely an individual.
I have never said that there isn’t freedom for individuals, you seem to not even know what you are arguing about.

I have said that the government exists to protect freedom for everyone and prevent anarchy (which is not freedom for everyone)

Your replies have absolutely nothing to do with what I am actually trying to say, I don’t know why you are implying that I said things I never said.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
You are incorrect again. Well not entirely. Yes anarchy does mean a lack of government but it also means this:

Definition of anarchy

b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

Chaos would be a very good description of a disorderly state of lawlessness.
No. YOU are incorrect again. READ it again. LAWLESSNESS. POLITICAL disorder. This means chaos to POLITICS. Not the people.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
But not for everyone. The government exists to protect freedom for EVERYONE not individuals (as you said everyone’s liberty). That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you for practically the past 10 posts bud. What about that doesn’t make sense?

Answer that before you comment more.
Anarchy is a state without government. This means that the government in this state has nothing to do with anyone. Therefore, not everyone. You conveniently forget this fact. Anarchy then means that there is no government that can limit me from murdering someone. THAT is what I have been saying the past 10 posts. I am not your bud, friend.

I have never said that there isn’t freedom for individuals, you seem to not even know what you are arguing about.

I have said that the government exists to protect freedom for everyone and prevent anarchy (which is not freedom for everyone)

Your replies have absolutely nothing to do with what I am actually trying to say, I don’t know why you are implying that I said things I never said.
Which is exactly what I have also been saying.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
No. YOU are incorrect again. READ it again. LAWLESSNESS. POLITICAL disorder. This means chaos to POLITICS. Not the people.
Anarchy then means that there is no government that can limit me from murdering someone.


How is being free to murder chaos to politics only and not chaos to the people themselves? If the law is ever put to use in regards to consequence of having murdered then without it the people would have chaos due to the nature of murder
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
How is being free to murder chaos to politics only and not chaos to the people themselves? If the law is ever put to use in regards to consequence of having murdered then without it the people would have chaos due to the nature of murder
Because that is just an example. Find me an example of a law that allows something to happen that is not merely creating an exception of something that is already against the law. That is why that phrase exists: against the law. Because law restricts freedom. We have laws due to human nature. If human nature meant that we would all skip and get along and love each other without constraint, that is why we have this definition of Anarchy: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. Utopia does not exist, however.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Getting back to voting your conscience, why not ask your candidates whether they support for-profit prisons? The prison system is a real problem in America.
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
When you were little you followed your parents rules and that freed you to be a kid without having to worry about your safety, what to eat etc. when your parents tell you not to touch the fire or boiling hot pot of soup it’s not about taking away freedom - if you disobey and no ones able to aid you quick enough you could wind up seriously malformed for the rest of your life or dead

You can be free and still have guidelines to provide structure to your decisions

Getting back to voting your conscience, why not ask your candidates whether they support for-profit prisons? The prison system is a real problem in America.
now that I agree should never be a thing
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
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)


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?


I’m not talking about how the government is doing, simply it’s purpose.


The government limits anarchy. Do you think anarchy and freedom are the same thing?

Answer that before you say anything else.
Correct ... Government prevents Anarchy because Anarchy is the absence of government.

But ... Any kind of goverment prevents Anarchy (oligarchy, or republic) ... So saying Government is anything other than Anarchy is true but irrelevant to my point.

All I said is that government is not freedom and goverment can only limit freedom. There is no need to argue with that because it is a fact.

Feel FREE to argue some more if you care, but it isn’t going to ever change that fact.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
When you were little you followed your parents rules and that freed you to be a kid without having to worry about your safety, what to eat etc. when your parents tell you not to touch the fire or boiling hot pot of soup it’s not about taking away freedom - if you disobey and no ones able to aid you quick enough you could wind up seriously malformed for the rest of your life or dead

You can be free and still have guidelines to provide structure to your decisions

now that I agree should never be a thing
Freedom includes the ability to make what someone else may deem to be a poor choice.

And likewise the ability to tell someone who wishes you wouldn’t do something ... “I didn’t ask you if I could”.
 
Last edited:

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
And you wouldn't be safer if you had a gun in your pocket because he/she wouldn't give you the chance to pull it out and use it. You are ignoring this point because it is inconvenient to your faulty argument.

Incidentally, you need to quit with the personal attacks before I am forced to edit your posts.
That’s false using your own rebuttal ... Because the chance you stated is more than no chance at all. You cannot determine the outcome of something that hasn’t happened.

I am not asking you to carry a firearm because you may be incapable of defending yourself. I am not going to subject myself to your certain doom because you cannot figure out how to defend yourself.

You have nothing to offer but reliance on the State which consistently fails to offer an adequate defense ... No thanks buddy, I am not interested in living in a police state.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Correct, these guidelines are called liberties. Liberty is what the government provides, not freedom, and that is the only think I'm trying to argue.
The government cannot give you liberty ... They can only give you privilege ... Like a drivers license is a privilege, not a freedom or liberty.

If you mean in a sense of allowing you to do something ... At that point they are giving you permission and not liberty of freedom.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Ah, I see now. So, you’re just wrong.

Anarchy, like monarchy or oligarchy, is a type of government (or lack thereof). Anarchy does not mean chaos. They are not the same thing. Understand that before you comment more. If you can understand that, then you should also understand why anarchy is real freedom. (That’s a big “should”, my therapist would be disappointed with me) Freedom is not based on others. It is solely an individual. These are definitions. Just understand this, please. This is not a partisan issue, these are facts. It’s okay to be wrong, but don’t live a lie.
I think you have come the closest to indicating Anarchy is the desire to self govern. It still doesn’t exist in a vaccum and is a condition in which individuals govern their own activities in order to exist within a cooperative community.

It does not mean that the cooperative community will not take action against offenses ... Just that offenses and penalties are not prescribed by or in laws.

Edit: 10th Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“

If you read it correctly, the 10th Amendment has respect towards a form of Anarchy. The very last provision (or to the people) allows for the people to self govern in circumstances where the Government has not been granted the power to govern.

Albeit it is concept that is generally rejected in our current state of affairs, because people victim to their insecurities and inadequacies, would prefer to write laws that restrict the freedoms of others.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
That’s false using your own rebuttal ... Because the chance you stated is more than no chance at all. You cannot determine the outcome of something that hasn’t happened.
I didn't state that there was a chance. In fact my point is that if there was a gun in your face your chances would be exactly the same whether you had a gun or not.
I am not asking you to carry a firearm because you may be incapable of defending yourself. I am not going to subject myself to your certain doom because you cannot figure out how to defend yourself.
I don't need to figure out how to defend myself. That is where your argument falls down. Your argument depends on the inevitability of facing a situation where you need to defend yourself and the fact that you had a concealed weapon would make a difference, and the chance of that occurring is miniscule at best. Just look at how easily armed police officers have been ambushed. Why does that happen? Because the perpetrator(s) did not telegraph their intentions, just like any criminal. The only scenario where your argument holds water is if a criminal did in fact telegraph their intentions. Have you ever been faced with/attacked by a criminal? I have. A weapon, concealed or otherwise, would not have made me safer in that situation. In fact, it would have probably made me much less safe, because the person robbing the convenience store where I worked would have ended up with it and possibly used it on me. I also know quite a few police/state troopers/deputies, and they all have told me that concealed/open carry has made their job of protecting the public much, much more difficult.
You have nothing to offer but reliance on the State which consistently fails to offer an adequate defense ... No thanks buddy, I am not interested in living in a police state.
As for the first part of this statement, the NRA is most responsible for any shortcomings in the "State's" ability to offer adequate defense. And as for the second part, I don't recall anyone proposing a "police state".

The ridiculous position that a concealed weapon makes you safer against everyday criminals would only make sense if they gave you warning. "Hey, buddy, I'm about to rob/assault you. Better get your weapon out."
And in an active shooter situation, it would only increase the carnage if people start pulling out their concealed guns. It would make everyone in the situation less safe and complicate the job of the police responders because they would have no idea who the actual active shooter is. That is exactly what happened a couple of years ago in Dallas. There was an active shooter targeting police officers and with so many people openly carrying weapons it took them a while to figure out who the actual active shooter was. Which gave him opportunity to kill/wound more people than he would have otherwise. I would much rather take my chances with one active shooter than with one active shooter and a bunch of untrained John Wayne wannabes.